Here's a NY Times article from today. The sports news is obviously limited. I tried to cull out some paras to shorten the read. I have no dog in the fight. I am not going to criticize at this point. It's obviously a complex and important situation. Can we keep this away from a political discussion. Everything below are qotes from the article.
With “social distancing” now widely adopted nationwide, a small group of contrarians urge a more careful weighing of the harm as well as the benefits of such policies.
Calculating the economic costs of curtailing social interaction compared with the lives saved, he agreed, might yield a useful metric for policymakers.
No one wants to be seen as prioritizing profit or, say, youth soccer over saving lives. But in recent days, a group of contrarian political leaders, ethicists and ordinary Americans have bridled at what they saw as a tendency to dismiss the complex trade-offs that the measures collectively known as “social distancing” entail.
Besides the financial ramifications of such policies, their concerns touch on how society’s most marginalized groups may fare and on the effect of government-enforced curfews on democratic ideals.
Some college students who were abruptly ushered off campus last week complain that they are more likely to infect higher-risk older adults at home than they were at college. Among the throngs who have been ordered to self-quarantine, some people question the purpose of isolating themselves if the virus is already circulating widely in their communities. Certain parents balk at the pressure from friends to withdraw their children from schools that are still open, or at what they see as group-think that has prompted the cancellation of events that are still weeks or months away.
And how do you weigh the risk of an unknown number of deaths against the possibility that several hundred thousand students who depend on free lunch at school will go hungry? Or against other lives that may be lost in an economic contraction born of social isolation?
About 45 million Americans have been infected by the flu this season, which typically peaks in February, and about 40,000 have died.
“The fear is far worse than the virus,’’ tweeted Tim Draper, a venture capitalist. “The governments have it wrong. Stay open for business.’’
But even the many experts who agree on social distancing as an effective remedy worry about some of the fallout. There are civil liberties concerns surrounding quarantines. There is economic hardship for hourly wage workers. Few have thought through how sick people staying in their homes would be cared for.
Until he reversed course on Sunday under mounting pressure, Mayor Bill de Blasio of New York City had suggested that there was a lack of evidence that closing the nation’s largest school district would significantly slow the virus’s spread.
What such a closure would do, he said before reversing himself, would be to force parents to stay home, including those who work in the hospitals that are expected to fill with coronavirus patients.
But Dr. Campbell said he had argued for Davidson to remain open, based on the relatively low risk the virus poses to college-age students, and the virtue of classes like his, which cannot be taught online.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/16/us/coronavirus-hype-overreaction-social-distancing.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage
With “social distancing” now widely adopted nationwide, a small group of contrarians urge a more careful weighing of the harm as well as the benefits of such policies.
Calculating the economic costs of curtailing social interaction compared with the lives saved, he agreed, might yield a useful metric for policymakers.
No one wants to be seen as prioritizing profit or, say, youth soccer over saving lives. But in recent days, a group of contrarian political leaders, ethicists and ordinary Americans have bridled at what they saw as a tendency to dismiss the complex trade-offs that the measures collectively known as “social distancing” entail.
Besides the financial ramifications of such policies, their concerns touch on how society’s most marginalized groups may fare and on the effect of government-enforced curfews on democratic ideals.
Some college students who were abruptly ushered off campus last week complain that they are more likely to infect higher-risk older adults at home than they were at college. Among the throngs who have been ordered to self-quarantine, some people question the purpose of isolating themselves if the virus is already circulating widely in their communities. Certain parents balk at the pressure from friends to withdraw their children from schools that are still open, or at what they see as group-think that has prompted the cancellation of events that are still weeks or months away.
And how do you weigh the risk of an unknown number of deaths against the possibility that several hundred thousand students who depend on free lunch at school will go hungry? Or against other lives that may be lost in an economic contraction born of social isolation?
About 45 million Americans have been infected by the flu this season, which typically peaks in February, and about 40,000 have died.
“The fear is far worse than the virus,’’ tweeted Tim Draper, a venture capitalist. “The governments have it wrong. Stay open for business.’’
But even the many experts who agree on social distancing as an effective remedy worry about some of the fallout. There are civil liberties concerns surrounding quarantines. There is economic hardship for hourly wage workers. Few have thought through how sick people staying in their homes would be cared for.
Until he reversed course on Sunday under mounting pressure, Mayor Bill de Blasio of New York City had suggested that there was a lack of evidence that closing the nation’s largest school district would significantly slow the virus’s spread.
What such a closure would do, he said before reversing himself, would be to force parents to stay home, including those who work in the hospitals that are expected to fill with coronavirus patients.
But Dr. Campbell said he had argued for Davidson to remain open, based on the relatively low risk the virus poses to college-age students, and the virtue of classes like his, which cannot be taught online.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/16/us/coronavirus-hype-overreaction-social-distancing.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage