[kahnjw]

This perfectly illustrates the "opening up" paradox. If you, as a Government, aggressively open but the public still sees risk, not much will change. People won't go outside much because they perceive risk. We'll have to wait much longer to actually know whether opening aggressively is a mistake or not. From my perspective the risk of opening too early and starting a second wave much later in the year, is worth taking very seriously.

I'd say anyone drawing conclusions from a a few weeks data has a 50% chance of getting burned at this point.

[janee]

That's interesting because I live in a country where it's the opposite, e.g still only essential services after 2 months, limited goods sold, ban on cigarette and alcohol sales, curfews for shopping.

Point is I think the opposite of what you're saying might happen here, i.e. regulations loosen and there's going to be a disproportionate number of exposures as a place not so tightly regulated

[kahnjw]

I could have been more clear. My point is that aggressively reopening might still be dangerous, but it'll take a while for the public to convince themselves it's safe enough to start going out, even though it isn't. I'd imagine this would be driven by both consumers not wanting to get sick _and_ businesses trying to avoid liability for employees and customers.