• Bill
    May 5, 2020


    Great article. I wonder if you have been following Stanford professor Michael Levitt’s analysis of the pandemic. He agrees that the lockdowns should end but that the most vulnerable still need protection. It’s also clear to me that politicians have been moving the goal posts from making sure that we have the hospital capacity to treat the most severe cases to making sure there are no deaths until a vaccine is developed. While I love and cherish our elderly as much as anyone, we cannot continue to sacrifice the health and economic well being of the rest of society with these draconian lockdowns. I also note that the press by and large only reports cumulative numbers of cases and deaths as opposed to trends on both. Here in Georgia the department of health website shows the 7 day moving average of new cases steadily declining yet today’s headline screams the new total number of cases (and of course not the number of current active cases or current hospitalizations) and a statement that our Governor’s decision to reopen will result in countless new deaths. No one wants to see anyone die from this but there has to be a reasonable balancing of policy goals. P.S – no relation to Jim.

    • Brian Goebel
      May 11, 2020

      Thanks for your note. Couldn’t agree more with all your points. Here in CA, we have one other dynamic at play – the Governor promises greater local control over public health, but makes it impossible for counties to take the baton. I’ll be writing about that today.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *