But what happens if there is a huge spike in cases down the road (or in the not too distant future)? I guarantee that they will shut down parts or all of the state as needed to regain control. So your argument doesn't really have legs.
A spike in "cases" doesn't mean anything, Shut! There was always going to be a spike in cases as soon as we had enough testing to test more people! What matters is the mortality rate and how many people require hospitalization! Both of THOSE numbers are going down dramatically! To be blunt...we handled this badly. We never should have shut down the economy. We should have protected the elderly and those with poor health by having THEM stay home...but the rest of us should have gone to work and simply employed common sense...social distancing...the wearing of masks...taking employees temperatures! Those States and countries that employed that strategy didn't have mortality rates any higher than those places that shut everything down!
60 million American seniors and 30 million additional younger adults with health conditions are at high risk....
Keeping those 90 million at risk people in isolation and not working and out and about, shopping and spending.... but in fear, at home....
Crushes any hopes of a healthy or recovering economy....So, imo, that is not the answer...
The goal was to flatten or reduce the curve, so that we could begin random and hotspot test, and contact tracing to find those that are positive, and isolate the infected or suspected infected only...
Instead of isolating the 90 million at risk Americans....
Isolating only those testing positive, which are tens of millions less people, than the 90 million....
A good testing and contact tracing testing program and isolation is tedious, takes effort, but will without any doubt, be the best thing possible for our economy, and consumer confidence that we need, to bring us to the new normal imo.