And my point has been, and will continue to be, that we have to assess the measures we take by both what the benefit might be and what the cost might be. My recent posts have shown the cost of some of our policy decisions (not entirely, as some economic hardship is to be expected in the wake of this, even without overreaction by the government).
Not arguing here, but wondering on these because the answers don't seem to be there.
Should there be increased funding to help with aspects like mental illness and alcoholism? Those things don't just start happening in people because of the last two months. Should there have been more proactive measures to prepare for it?
Since packing plants have had to shut down regardless of orders, there was going to be a back up. What's the plan there?
If a restaurant has most of its staff sick, can it run? How long does it shut down for it to be safe for patrons to fill it consistently for business? It's not like if a place has a fire or water leak or something. How confident are people going to be to go back to a single place that had a viral infection run through its front and back of house and it's not clear if they're recovered?
Would the people that don't feel safe working be compensated? How so?
What was the plan for these aspects back when the information came out about this virus in case a quasi-ban from one country wouldn't be enough? Who should have been giving directions on it?