Let's bring some humanity to the way we face this grim tradeoff, shall we?

My evidence is merely anecdotal, but it doesn't seem to me that the gradual reopening of several states around the nation has eased the digging-in of heels with regard to the hard-and-fast positions about the notion of a lockdown in general.

I know that in my state, the governor's team has announced a well-thought-out and responsibly presented five-stage plan for having the state basically completely reopened by July 4. 

At his presser to announce it, he did stress the caveat that the state would have to see a steady decline in COVID-19 cases requiring hospitalization over a two-week time in order to move from one stage to the next, and that counties and municipalities within the state might have to hit the pause button or even go backward.

What keeps us all going forward? Cooperating - with the rules and with each other. Cultivating a sense of responsible citizenship. Cheerfully looking at that July 4 date and taking the steps to see that it turns out to be all we envision.

Still, it's not enough for some people. We had a rally outside our statehouse loudly insisting that everything reopen instantly. It didn't get as militant as the rallies in Michigan and California, but words weren't minced.

The open-back-up-right-now crowd's argument hinges on one or more of these assertions: that the virus's impact on public health has been way overblown, that herd immunity will render the virus trivial, or that we're big boys and girls who have the constitutionally protected liberty to decide what risk level we're willing to assume for ourselves.

Dispensing with the first two assertions, which aren't grounded in reality, we're faced with addressing the third. And to it I would say this: It's not merely your own risk you're assuming.

Look, I'm a conservative. The hair on the back of my neck starts to stand up at the slightest suggestion of collectivism - under circumstances we've seen before in our lives. We have not seen this set of circumstances. And we're all still learning about its nature and means of posing a threat.

The primary form of impact to which those who embrace any of the above three assertions point is the economic harm the lockdown has inflicted. And that is real and dire.

But a principle tenet of the conservative worldview is that everything is a tradeoff. Decisions one way or another in any choice with which one is presented is going to have consequences, some of which may be long-lasting.

And the tradeoff with regard to this situation is a doozy:

As states consider relaxing coronavirus lockdown orders, a new report estimates that fully reopening the economy would lead to an additional 233,000 deaths nationally by the end of June relative to not reopening — but would at the same time save approximately 18.6 million jobs from being lost.

The University of Pennsylvania's Penn Wharton Budget Model analyzed the health and economic effects of states partially reopening (lifting emergency declarations, stay-at-home orders, and school closures) as well as fully reopening, which would include businesses and restaurants as well.

The model, released on Friday, projects on a national level that if states do not open before June 30 and maintain the status quo, the cumulative national deaths due to the virus would rise to about 117,000 by June 30 (including deaths before May 1), and approximately 18.6 million jobs would be lost between May 1 and June 30.

A partial reopening of the economy would cause 45,000 additional deaths by June 30, relative to not reopening, and about 4.4 million jobs would be saved, for a total of 14 million jobs lost between May 1 and June 30, the report projected.

Fully reopening the economy would lead to an additional 233,000 deaths by the end of June, and almost all net job losses between May 1 and June 30 would be eliminated, the report projected.

In the unlikely scenario that people saw a full reopening as a "return to normal" and as a result voluntarily chose to relax their own social distancing practices, behaving like they did on Feb. 1, 2020, then cumulative national deaths would reach 950,000 by June 30, the report projected. Job losses would turn to a net positive of 4.1 million jobs gained, which would erase some of the job losses before May 1.

The Wharton projections are based on estimating daily measures of social distancing, GDP growth, and changes in employment. In addition, they use an epidemiological model to estimate state viral reproduction rates, which are then used to forecast cases and deaths for each state.

It seems to me that the open-it-all-back-up-yet-this-afternoon crowd is going to have to offer something more convincing than what they've come up with in order to get the clear majority of Americans who see it otherwise to get on board.

Is it too late for us to come to an agreement that good people are trying mightily to craft plans that take into account the full panoply of factors at play here, and to sign onto the plan that pertains to where we live? Can we extend enough goodwill to those we've charged with formulating public policy to give what they've come up with a try? It will require surmounting any stubborn pride and cynicism we're tempted to embrace - and assume that, underneath the polarization that has beset our society for a sadly long time and has worsened since this pandemic hit, we still have the common goal of  freedom, prosperity and happiness for all of us.