There are valid arguments from both side, but extreme measures (from both ends) seems to do more harm than good.
From one of Elon Musk's tweet he included data from data.chhs.ca.gov which shows that the hospital bed occupancy projection with intervention is wildly overestimating actual occupancy.
That indicated the current lockdown measures are perhaps overly restrictive, where the secondary impact from lockdown could be on the same order of magnitude as covid19, such as
- underutilized hospital occupancy compared to pre covid19 means that a lot of cases that would normally be treated are not being treated.
- elective procedure can include preventive/early measures for a more serious underlying disease, like biopsy for detecting cancer early.
- impact of unemployment will start being noticeable and accelerates
From another tweet by Elon, he is not suggesting lifting the lockdown measures completely. The current restriction placed on business are overly restrictive that it likely does more aggregated harm in total (because of secondary impact) compared to controlled lifting of lockdown measures. Simplified:
A) Let's keep the current lockdown going and see what happens
B) Let's carefully evaluate where we are, and come up with necessary measures to reopen economy carefully and safely.
C) Let's just reopen everything.
Elon Musk seems to be in the B) camp. Both A) and C) option will likely do a larger aggregated damage (i.e. covid19 + secondary damage). Alameda County so far seems to be in the A) camp.
Relevance to TSLA: B) option should be the optimal solution that minimizes overall damages. Given what Tesla learned with giga shanghai, fremont plant can copy their mitigation technique and not introduce additional risk.