It seems to me that everyone is making essentially the same argument. Well, almost everyone. And that is that there really is not enough reliable data to truly know just where we are in this thing. Then there are those that downplay the risk and there are those that inflate the risk depending on their agenda.

I want to again be clear here, my question is; does the science and data justify the response? And the truth of the matter is that we just don't know. There is not enough information nor is much of that information reliable.

My 91 year old father is in a nursing home. I haven't seen him in over a month because the nursing home is under lock down. That is an unfortunate but prudent step in this situation. Chicago may need something similar to the nursing home that my dad is in. But to shut down much of the activity in our rural area that has very little infection is an overreach.

The response to this or any other threat should be proportional and targeted. Using a sledge hammer for a gnat in many (not all) of these areas comes to mind. One thing that the data does show is that not all places have the same level of risk from this virus. And so the response should reflect that reality.