I personally believe that the states should now lift martial law and let businesses and individuals go back to being free to engage in activity, education and commerce. (#1)

Concerned individuals have every right to protect themselves — stay at home, change jobs, etc. I do think the government can and should help high-risk individuals to live in safety. But the “high risk” category is at most 40% of the population and it makes no sense to force the other 60% to stay at home and endanger their livelihoods as well. (#2, #3)

It’s childish to suggest that the state can just mandate employees to keep employees that they don’t need and can’t afford (#4, 5). What do you think will happen to those businesses?

Better to have the state governments provide a social safety net for at-risk individuals. But not for low-risk individuals … in fact, we want younger / less vulnerable populations to *get* the virus … that’s the only way to build social immunity. (#6)

#7 is a great question. The current lockdowns are forcing EVERYONE to stay at home, and find all sorts of solutions to care for sick relatives. I think giving healthy people the choice to work is much better than the current lockdown — at least they can CHOOSE to work (and pay for child care), find a work/life balance compromise, or quit and stay at home (where I think some government support would be appropriate.

#8 / #9 / #10 / #11 are all silly non sequitur questions.

Former C-suite at PayPal, Sonos, eBay. Now general partner & founder at Practical VC, a secondary venture capital fund.