I happen to entirely agree with you, but the counterargument is that a treatment (not vaccine) becomes available earlier which makes the incidence of actual lasting damage from wuflu so low as to not warrant any more shutdown.
There's likely to be a teary-eyed politician who goes up in front of Congress as unemployment benefits end and insists they be renewed because it's almost Christmas and how heartless must you be to take food out of an orphans mouth during the holiday season yada yada
I live in Boston and drive every day still. This is anecdotal - but I've seen the same amount of bad driving as ever (largely around merging, roundabouts, and turn signal usage) but now it's at a significantly higher speed because on I-95 and I-93 you can easily hit 85 mph instead of the customary 45 mph the whole way during rush hour.
I don't have any data, but I imagine that explains the similar serious accident rate.
>In 3 weeks I assume they re-assess and could very well leave restrictions in place
I had assumed that as well. No reason things will look better by then, and the preventative measures taken in that time probably won't sufficient enough to otherwise resume normal life either.
Also, the cynic in me says that the government class wants to get people used to the idea of a shelter in place piecemeal, because it might not go over as well if they said 1 month straight out of the gate.
Love the quotes on this. Those individuals you're asking are guaranteed to be risk averse from a game theory perspective, rightly or wrongly (probably rightly here).
Don't just call, get it in writing if you're in the USA. At the very least record that call if it's legal to do so in your state, but that's problematic for other reasons.
When the hospital decides after the fact to bill you thousands of dollars you won't have much of a recourse besides telling your family members to ignore the calls from aggressive medical collection agencies at 3am.
I don't necessarily agree with it, but that's the common refrain yes.