Bad cash flow, not meeting expenses/debts payments due to local/state restrictions? Likely going to have to close indefinitely or permanently? Many are likely going to fail, unfortunately their timing was bad and luck ran out. It sucks for the businesses, but the second failure is that there's no/limited safety net for individuals to help them get back on their feet and back out into the workforce. The dirty part of pure capitalism is that while there is great opportunity to become rich, there's also a great risk of failing miserably, and there may be factors you just can't control. That mom & pop small business could also fail if one of the owners were to get sick (due to interactions with a public that doesn't mask/distance/quarantine appropriately) and run any lengthy complications or hospital stay. A larger small business could have the same outcome if several employees get sick and are out (and poor sick leave policies may encourage workers to come in sick and get more workers sick). Either way, there's risks, and there's no "right" answer, despite what the pundits say. Some business may be more capable of adapting to the new environment and rules, and others not so much. But there's going to be winners and losers no matter what the pandemic response is (and government doing nothing/absence of action is a decision). A 4-6 week hard shut down/lockdown early on followed by forced quarantine when entering US borders might've stopped the pandemic from spreading early on. Doing nothing and hoping for herd immunity may have just gotten the whole thing over quickly at the cost of some potential extra deaths due to capacity issues. But in either scenario, there are going to be winners and losers, businesses that adapt and succeed, or can't and fail. So the question becomes: what is more important, businesses or individuals? Should taxpayer money go to businesses to keep them open, or to individuals to assist them meeting basic needs (food/shelter) so they can be able to work in the future? The two are intertwined, businesses provide jobs to individuals, and together it contributed to the economy. But without healthy individuals to work, businesses can't stay afloat. And they need individuals to sell their goods and services to. We all have our own interests, and we advocate for them. In a sense, it's great that we can debate what or response as a community or as a country should be, and why I take the time to respond on this message board. The downside is that takes time, and time is not always on our side. The hard part of the pandemic is it's a slow motion train wreck, versus a much shorter, discrete catastrophic event. We as a country seem to do decently with response to discrete events, but anything that takes any real effort over a length of time where consequences are in the future and we start falling apart. It's possible we just did too little too late, and now we're just along for the ride and trying to mitigate or delay the damage that's coming. It feels like for the most part our response has been largely for show-mandates to show government is doing *something*, though not really enforced or enacted in a way to make the desired effect. Part of it has been poor messaging (the initial "the general public doesn't need a mask" in order to ensure healthcare workers had access to masks given limited supply probably did irreparable harm to getting people to wear masks later, though people can be irrational and hoard supplies far in excess of what they need). Though partial credit for the healthcare system not getting overrun, though NY went through its challenges and now LA is facing similar challenges with capacity. It's hard to say what things would've liked like if we did nothing, but Sweden's response probably could be used as an analogy for estimating what the impact could've been.