I think their stance on masks is probably the one thing I disagree with. I think their opinion is based on the immunological perspective that filtering out ALL contaminants is bad for maintaining a robust immune system, which makes good sense. However, I think masks do help prevent transmission of the disease, and I'm an advocate for allowing people to make their own decisions about whether or not to leave their homes and begin resuming daily activities, so I think mask usage will play an important role in the early stages of that process in the absence of large-scale testing.

I came away with the understanding that they were advocating for quarantining only the sick, but I guess they never explicitly stated that. As for your third question, it would definitely be interesting to hear their response. I recognize that it's easy for people (myself included) to criticize policy decisions when it's not our neck on the line if things go horribly wrong. But part of that pressure simply comes with the territory of holding a public office or position with a lot of responsibility. However, it's no secret that our society has been on a continual trajectory wherein officials and companies avoid public criticism by being overly cautious and always "CYA". As far as I'm concerned, that is a direct result of social media allowing the public to have a collective voice to pressure entities to bow down. Sometimes that can be good, but often I believe it just results in phony posturing and hollow speech. I don't think we are any better off now than we were years ago. The only difference is now companies/politicians go out of their way to make it clear that they are "aware". I think that is largely what has gone on with the pandemic response. I think the initial actions were warranted - shut things down for a couple of weeks to calm the waters and let everyone formulate a plan - but I think once things were shut down, nobody wanted to be the first one to say "OK, time to get back out there!" because they know they will get CRUCIFIED if it goes poorly. This is why I was concerned going into the shutdown. My question was, "what is the plan, and what's going to be accepted as the 'all clear' to send everyone back to work?". Now we're 6-8 weeks in, depending on where you live, and it seems like there is no unified plan going forward. So, I guess this is my very long-winded way of saying that the doctors may have trepidation about taking a firm stance on advocating for their opinions, but I appreciate their bravery for coming out and speaking their mind. I would hope that all policy makers would consider all opinions from those on the front lines as they formulate local and state plans to reopen the economy. Anything less is irresponsible as far as I'm concerned.

Overall I think this was a very well-intentioned presentation that was put forth in a professional manner. Whether you agree or disagree with the conclusions drawn, I don't think anyone could say that the sources aren't credible. It's very possible that the doctors chose not to mention data that didn't support their conclusion, so you make a valid point - I can't say for certain that they were totally unbiased in their conclusions. But at least on the surface, they seem to be straight-shooters.

This is the kind of discussion I appreciate having here. I've tried to weigh all the different opinions offered on the Lounge as I formulate my own thoughts about what is going on. I honestly think the Lounge has been the most useful source of news and information that I have encountered during this entire ordeal. Thanks to everyone here who's engaged me in thoughtful conversation - even if we don't agree, I do value your input to weigh against my own thoughts. Hopefully I never come across as a know-it-all like the reporters in the press conference - I'll be the first to admit I don't have any answers.