Let me pose a hypothetical scenario.
It is mid-February 2020, and 10,000 random Americans are asked the question, “If epidemiologists determine that the coronavirus is life-threatening to the very elderly and others with pre-existing conditions as is the case with the flu but spreads at a factor several times greater than that of the flu, what should the government do?”
My guess is that roughly 98% of people would respond along the lines of, “Let’s isolate those with risk factors until we know it is safe for them to come out of isolation.” That “we know it is safe” would presumably be the time when we have either reached herd immunity in society (which is created when enough relatively healthy people have had and moved on from the virus) or developed a vaccine. My guess is that the remaining 2% would say that the government should not be involved. I cannot imagine that anyone would say, unprompted, “Let’s have everyone, save for a few essential workers, self-quarantine.” There are several reasons why nobody would say that. 1) Why would we destroy our economy when we can simply have those at risk self-quarantine? 2) Why would we close schools and have kids stay at home all day for a virus that is not dangerous for children? 3) Are we going to tell kids that they can’t play with their friends or do most things that kids usually do for fun? That would all be extreme.
Of course, in the second week of March, we arrived at the afore-mentioned lockdown scenario, a scenario at which I feel that nobody would have arrived in February. This lockdown approach has been bothersome to me since the moment that we went into lockdown mode, and I am one of the only people I know who seems to be bothered by it. Thus, it is entirely possible that I am crazy, but I am going to keep writing this blog entry anyway. After all, Candace Owens and Thomas Sowell agree with me, and they are two of the most brilliant minds on the planet. Simply put, the approach we have taken to fighting the virus would be valid if the virus was indiscriminately life-threatening to the population. That is not the case here. I would have instead taken the approach of having the United States federal government urge people in the at-risk categories to self-quarantine while allowing the rest of the country and economy to continue as usual.
This all begs an important question: If nobody in mid-February would have suggested on his/her own to quarantine everyone, why was everyone OK with it less than a month later? Sure, we knew more information about the dangers of corona after three or four additional weeks of its existence, but that is not the main reason for people’s mindset change. The big change is a matter of social media. People spend so much time on social media that corona discussion on social-media platforms ramped up greatly over those three or four weeks. Thus, by the second week of March, people were more and more panicked that we needed to “shut everything down”. If we did not have social media, I do not think we would have had the lockdown. (Furthermore, had this virus happened before the Internet, there is no way a lockdown would have ever happened. People back then would have had too minimal connection with those outside their homes.)
Anyway, as people became more and more panicked about the virus, I did not. Before the state governments started to “shut everything down”, I kept saying that it was ridiculous that we should quarantine everyone and destroy the economy. Again, I felt that option should be reserved only for a hypothetical virus that is equally deadly to all people. In that second week of March, many people (and many very intelligent people) debated the accuracy of various corona models, debated how much a quarantine would work, debated how well social distancing would work, debated how shutting down a multitude of events would work, etc. All the while, I kept saying that the one thing that we know for certain is that shutting down the economy will absolutely positively unequivocally “beyond a shadow of doubt” kill many people and ruin the lives of many more in the long run. That was a guarantee.
Therefore, for me, “quarantining everyone and destroying the economy” was never a viable option. In recent days, I have seen people debating on social media about how much the quarantine has worked, how much social distancing has worked, etc. This argument purportedly is to determine whether or not the shutdown was warranted. However, I find this to be a completely foolish debate. As Matt Walsh, of The Daily Wire, has often covered, it is silly when people debate “full lockdown vs. no action at all”. The question should be and always should have been, “Is the difference between the number of lives saved between full quarantine and at-risk self-quarantine greater than or less than the number of lives we will lose from destroying the economy?” I have not seen a model that measures this, but I have never wavered in my thought that the latter number is much, much greater.
How many lives would we have lost by doing an at-risk quarantine instead of a full one? We would have presumably had a few people who were unaware that they had risk factors who would have lost their lives. However, it is entirely possible that we have actually killed more people with the full quarantine than the partial one in this way: We did not yet develop herd immunity, and we have now sent kids to spend 24 hours a day at home. That might not be a big deal in a big house with healthy people; however, in places like New York City, where there is a likely a positive correlation between size of one’s dwelling and quality of one’s health, we could be creating many deaths by having kids bond so much with at-risk family members. I am not guaranteeing that we are going to lose more lives from full quarantine than we would have from quarantining solely the at-risk individuals (though it is a realistic possibility). However, I do feel safe saying that wrecking the economy will take more lives from us than the net (whether positive or negative) of doing an at-risk instead of partial quarantine.
Of course, we know that the government has tried to “fix” the economic issues by giving people (who qualify) $1200 payments, and, of course, this does not help a whole lot. The $1200 does not bring back lost businesses or cover much of people’s lost wages. However, I don’t understand how so many Republicans were OK with the lockdown but have an issue with this $2-trillion stimulus package. I am a Republican too, and one of the core Republican beliefs is that individuals know better what decisions to make for their own lives than the government does. There is no feasible way to distribute $2 trillion, so that it perfectly makes up for all different variations of economic, emotional, and psychological ruin that the shutdown has caused people. Each person’s situation is different, so there is no government stimulus plan that can perfectly fix each situation. That said, I am astounded by the fact that so many Republicans (and almost everyone) have been perfectly fine with the shutdown but are choosing instead to nitpick the ins and outs of the stimulus package.
Seriously, behind Door #1 was the self-quarantine policy. In this case, the government could have told us the risk factors that cause corona to be life-threatening. The bulk of people with those risk factors would have listened and self-quarantined. While plenty of people often like to disobey authority, the threat of “if you do not _____, your life could be in danger” usually causes people to listen to authority. Under the at-risk self-quarantine, the government would have been responsible for two main things: 1) Easing sick-day policies on individuals who are self-quarantining and having companies/workers affected apply for government compensation. 2) It is unclear whether or not this policy would have caused more or fewer people to need major medical care in the near term. Thus, in the case of “more”, the government might have had to provide additional mobile-care units as it has done in New York City. However, as I mentioned earlier, it is entirely possible that, by having fewer young people quarantined with older people, the number of mobile-care units needed (behind Door #1) would be less than it has been behind Door #2.
Behind Door #2 was the policy of full lockdown. With that one, not only has the government chosen the path of more deaths and harming more lives, but the government has also chosen the path of drastically increasing the national debt. The government is going to have additional stimulus packages that could add to $6 trillion. Throw in the fact that most companies are shuddered, and we have a recipe for not only large debt but also massive inflation (and thus further economic turmoil). Also, while I have never cared too much whether I shop “big” or shop “small”, the fact that the government is forcing many small businesses to stay closed while bigger ones stay open feels bad to me too. Most importantly, Door #2 requires the government to rebuild the entire economy and to try to fix the lives of tens of millions of lives, while Door #1 would have required the government to handle the financial situations of the self-quarantined and possibly to jump-start a larger increase in mobile medical units. (I say “possibly” again because of what I said earlier about the possibility that an at-risk quarantine would have actually rendered fewer people with life-threatening corona cases.)
Also, I cannot understate the fact that the government, by choosing Door #2, is choosing to take youth away from our youth, if you will. I give a lot of credit to today’s youth, because they are saying all the right things. However, it does not sit great with me that, to deal with a virus that is not dangerous to young people (barring those with major pre-existing conditions); we have taken these kids out of school, eliminated their sports seasons, proms, playdates, and so much more. That stuff all matters. As adults, our greatest joy should be in seeing joy in our children, and we are robbing our children from a whole lot of joy these days. Again, this all matters. The only argument against that stuff mattering would be that we are cancelling young people’s joys in order to save lives, which brings me to my next big point.
What is the bar here? Nobody would ever dream of cancelling children’s activities to keep people from dying of the flu. Similarly, nobody would dream of shutting down the whole economy because of the flu. Therefore, where is the line of demarcation? Yes, corona is more contagious than the flu, and people can be asymptomatic for longer with corona. However, the groups of people to whom the viruses are life-threatening are essentially the same, and the symptoms for those are not in the life-threatening category are roughly the same. It is funny how so many people seem to forget that, when one has the flu (the legit flu, not a cold), it is an absolutely miserable experience and one that can last a week or two. Therefore, if we experience another virus – one with similar symptoms and life-threatening profiles as those of the flu and corona but with a spread rate between that of the flu and that of corona – what do we do? Do we shut everything down (like with corona), or is it business as usual (like with the flu)?
There is not really much of a happy medium here. We saw the slippery slope this go-round with corona. The first big domino to fall was the NHL and NBA suspending their seasons alongside the NCAA cancelling the basketball tournaments. (And yes, I do feel terrible for kids on teams like Dayton who were having their best seasons, only to have the tournament taken away at the last second. We would not have done that for the flu, so where is the line?) Then governors presumably decided, “If we can’t have people packing 18,000-seat arenas, then we can’t have 1000 people in schools”. Thus, governors shut down schools, which led to shutting down 65-person restaurants, which led to preventing any two people who do not live together from being within 6 feet of each other. It is a slippery slope.
Of course, I would have been fine going to packed arenas this whole time. After all, I was at the Prudential Center on March 9, four days before schools were shut down. I was at The Rock for the New Jersey high-school hockey championships, and I had no fear being packed with a bunch of people. As per my herd-immunity approach, I would also be fine going to concerts, hockey games, baseball games, etc. right now because I do not have risk factors. That said, not having those big-venue events (sports, concerts, big religious gatherings, etc.) is devastating on its own when one considers how many people work the events and the spillover venues (neighboring bars, restaurants, parking garages, etc.), as well as the multiplier effect from that spending. Plus, it would definitely boost the morale of those quarantined to be able to watch sports on TV.
I would hope that for future viruses, the powers that be would thinking about the panic that shutting down sports creates. The NHL and NBA suspensions kicked off the panic increase for corona, and this panic can manifest itself in many ways. I have already mentioned that the panic is at least partially responsible for the fact that most people ended up on board with shutting down the economy. Additionally, the ramped-up panic has made some people go to the hospital for minor issues but fearing the worst (using resources that could be better used for people with major issues), while it makes others with other major health issues avoid hospitals for fear of infection.
Returning to an earlier point, I have not understood the people who were OK with shutting down the economy at first but, a week later, were clamoring for us to reopen the economy. If those people simply changed their minds about what was best for the country, I respect that. We are all able to change our views over time. However, I do not understand the people who genuinely thought that we could shut down the country and open it up again two weeks later like nothing had happened. That type of logic (or lack thereof) displays a complete misunderstanding of how people think. By going into shutdown mode, something that we have never seen in the history of this country; the government essentially told people, “This pandemic is horrific, and your lives are in great danger.” How then would one expect the masses to be OK a few weeks later with the government saying, “OK, we are ready to open things up again. Yes, more people now have the virus, but you will be fine.”? While I would welcome the reopening, I have been analyzing the costs and benefits here from Day 1. Most people do not do that. Most people are simply following the government’s lead, and this makes it impossible to do a 180 from “shut it all down” to “open it all up again” so quickly without causing a complete mess.
This leads me to some political criticisms. I am sick of Republicans applauding President Trump every time he talks about wanting to reopen the economy in the future. First off, he said three weeks ago that he wanted to reopen the economy by Easter, which has arrived. Clearly that is not happening. Thus, why should I applaud him now when he talks about reopening the economy? Plus, he talks about how we had the greatest economy in the world, and we will rebuild to be the greatest again. That is the most backhanded self-compliment I have ever heard. We went from having the greatest economy in the world a month ago to having potentially the biggest depression this country has ever seen, and we are supposed to applaud him for simply saying that we will become the best again? I find it hard to believe that all of the newly unemployed people find much comfort in those speeches.
Furthermore, there are two ironies with my criticism of the president. The first is that I have spent President Trump’s entire presidency saying more or less, “No, I don’t like a lot of what he says and tweets, but I like things that he does….and that matters.” On the other hand, he has now taken what I feel to be the worst action of his presidency, but he is saying good things. Go figure. As far as the other irony, we have heard countless leftists call President Trump a “fascist”. Now, we see governor after governor (many who are democrat) implement Draconian measure after Draconian measure while (along with Nancy Pelosi) criticizing the president for not issuing a national lockdown. In other words, Dems are now criticizing President Trump for not being a fascist, while I sit here wishing he would act like a fascist and tell governors not to lock down their entire states. Politics make strange bedfellows, as they say.
Lastly, let me just speak of what will age well from this whole experience and what will age badly. I am really glad to see the outpouring of support for medical personnel and other essential workers. Hopefully, this sticks with us over time. It likely won’t, but it is nice to see people applauding nurses, doctors, EMTs, police officers, firefighters, etc. Meanwhile, anyone who has been calling the cops on kids who have been riding bikes or playing basketball probably won’t feel great about that choice in the years to come.
Anyway, as I wrap up this post, allow me to say that I hope that I am wrong about all of my predictions. I hope that the economic mess ends up being less severe than I have feared. I hope that the difference between numbers of lives saved between the two different quarantine policies is greater than I predicted. I hope that our leaders have done what is best for the United States. Right now, I feel that my beliefs are correct, but I do hope that, in time, I am proven wrong.
Spot on
ReplyDelete