The country is starting to reopen. This represents an implicit judgment that a level of deaths that is appallingly high by historical standards is acceptable for the near future as long as our health care system is not overwhelmed. What does this mean for the next year or so, and are there any alternatives?
Without a vaccine or a much more rigorous regime of testing and contact tracing, distancing will remain the order of the day, whether it is officially mandated or not. Large segments of our economy can adjust to that, but parts of it can’t. Many, perhaps most, restaurants will not survive at lower levels of capacity, regardless of whether they are driven by regulations or a lack of consumer confidence. Tourism will continue to be moribund. Sports will take place in empty stadiums. Cultural events will be cancelled. The unemployment that will result will perpetuate the current recession, albeit at higher levels of activity that we see today, until we have a vaccine. There will be no V-shaped recovery.
There are two alternatives. One of them is a total Chinese-style lockdown, to include closing the borders, until we have a vaccine. That would result in fewer deaths, but far less economic activity. The second is the Swedish solution: trade more deaths today for less economic impact and the hope of herd immunity in the future. In this country, only a few Republicans support that approach, mostly in the hope that it would get Trump re-elected.
Are these alternatives preferable to what amounts to a middle way? From my perspective, no. It would be better, however, if we debated them openly, rather than using the current approach as a default.