Keeping the U.S. economy indefinitely closed will very literally destroy the country as we know it.

We've taken extraordinary measures for more than a month to avoid the worst-case public health scenario, but those steps have resulted in north of an unprecedented 22 million jobless claims. We now have to recalibrate our response and address the economic devastation.

Any mention of that fact is greeted by Democrats and liberals in the media as a gleeful invitation to kill a million citizens, but here are the facts: From everything we’ve seen so far, the coronavirus is statistically deadly for a minority of people. The vast majority of those who die from the infection are elderly or have underlying health conditions. Most others recover on their own after two weeks at most, if they experience symptoms at all. Every death is tragic, and young and healthy people are not immune from the effects. But on the other side, young people are also shouldering a disproportionate share of the economic burdens caused by lockdown orders. A recent Data for Progress survey found that more than half of voters under 45 have "already lost their job, been furloughed, placed on temporary leave, or had [their] hours reduced.”

A new strategy will have to hyper-focus on people in vulnerable populations taking extra precautions while allowing those who are younger and healthier to return to work. A recent proposal by policy analysts Lanhee Chen, Bob Kocher, and Avik Roy at the Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity lays out an approach along those lines. It would have that governments lift stay-at-home orders for most non-elderly individuals. As the authors argue, "This is not to say that there is no risk to younger individuals from COVID-19, but rather to suggest that the human benefits of reopening the economy with younger individuals is likely worth that risk."

The Trump administration and Congress have acted to provide some relief, spending more than $2 trillion, with more likely on the way. But this is all going to have to end soon, lest we drown in our own debt and starve to death. We'll have to return to mostly normal commerce and economic productivity, probably in May.

This is entirely reasonable, given that it appears the goal of social distancing — i.e., keeping hospitalizations below the point of medical capacity — is being met after about 25 days, with about half a month still to go, per White House advisory.

For certain places, which haven't seen their peaks yet, or where there is a greater risk of an outbreak, it may be necessary to move more slowly. Their local governments should accommodate that need, perhaps with some additional local assistance from the federal government.

But the idea that everyone nationwide must continue to adhere to the same restrictions and require the same government aid indefinitely is absurd and, again, will itself contribute to mortality.

Until there is a proven treatment or vaccine, again, an area where there is optimism among scientists, there is only so much we can do on a national scale as far as "reopening" the economy. The public needs assurance that there is a test for any person who wants to get one (which is not to be confused for testing every single person in the United States). And we need to know that should there be another outbreak come the colder months, healthcare providers will have all of the personal protection equipment and ventilators they need to cope. All of that is largely up to state-level management.

If those things aren't addressed, schools, daycares, and everything else will remain closed, preventing parents from returning to work. And then the alternative is simply printing more and more money, putting more and more people on welfare, and pushing this this country further and further to the brink of catastrophe.

Liberal New York Times columnist Jamelle Bouie wrote very smartly about the looming welfare issue on Friday, though he was more favorable to that destiny:

In one short month, the United States has made a significant leap toward a kind of emergency social democracy, in recognition of the fact that no individual or community could possibly be prepared for the devastation wrought by the pandemic. Should the health and economic crisis extend through the year, there’s a strong chance that Americans will move even further down that road, as businesses shutter, unemployment continues to mount and the federal government is the only entity that can keep the entire economy afloat.

In other words, a shutdown with no end in sight is the equivalent of electing Bernie Sanders as president and replacing every Republican in Congress with a clone of Ilhan Omar.

President Trump keeps talking about how “popular” the business loan program is. Of course it’s popular — it’s free money.

And Vice President Mike Pence said he wants the government to cover all coronavirus-related treatment, a declaration that must have been music to the ears of hospital executives and small practice owners everywhere as they ready to rack up the bill with unnecessary tests and treatments.

Something has got to give. Either we get serious about rapidly restoring the economy, or we turn ourselves into the United Sanders Socialist America.

It's true that even if businesses like movie theaters and bars were to reopen, a lot of would-be consumers might otherwise choose to stay home in fear, rendering those establishments unprofitable. That's a risk we'll have to be willing to take, and at the very least, any economic harm will have been self-inflicted rather than government mandated.

Reopening the country isn’t reckless. If we wait too long to do it, we won't have a country left to reopen.