And also... the president was asked about the newest IHME numbers, which up to now he's quoted freely.
Today, he flat out lied about them, claiming the were based on no mitigation, when they are directly in response to reduced mitigation.
The question got asked (and ignored): How many deaths are acceptable before he'll decide that things have to be rolled back?!
Let me ask you folks, Blue, Red, and NotA voters, what's a viable trade-off to you? Would saving/restoring 18,000,000 jobs be worth 200,000 additional dead? 300,000 additional dead? 10,000,000 jobs? 30,000,000 jobs?
Is there a ratio or perhaps a logarithmic scale that works for you? 10 mil are only worth 50,000 dead, but 20 mil are worth 200,000 dead and 30 mil are worth 1,000,000 dead?
How do you calculate it? What would cause you, looking at future numbers, to say, "Yeah, that was a mistake," or "Huh, that worked out okay," do you think?