Coronavirus Update 5-2: All Quiet on the COVID Front

 

I have a COVID-19 update for you, based on reported death data through yesterday (May 2, 2020). The daily rate of increase in total reported COVID-19 deaths is now under 3% for the US and all of the major nations of Western Europe, down to and including little Luxembourg. Daily reported deaths continue at a relatively low, but significant, level throughout the West, at an average of about 2,000 per day in both the US and Western Europe (the exact figures are 1,802/day in the US and 2,095 in Western Europe, for the past week).

I. Reported Death Data

As usual, my data source is Johns Hopkins (here). On to the graphs.

The first two graphs show total cumulative reported COVID-19 deaths, per 100,000 population. The first graph shows the larger countries, plus Belgium (the hardest-hit country in this sample); the second graph shows the smaller countries, with Italy for comparison.

Here, you can see that the UK has surpassed France slightly in deaths per capita. While the US has the highest total number of deaths, due to a vastly larger population, the per capita number is much lower than most other nations. Germany remains quite fortunate for reasons that are unclear.

Next, the same data in logarithmic scale. Remember that this scale displays whether growth is “exponential,” as exponential growth yields a straight line in logarithmic scale. I started this whole graphing project to rebut the claim that COVID-19 was growing exponentially, which was erroneous and hysterical nonsense even at the time.

Of course, people rarely concede that they were wrong, so I expect that the response of the catastrophizers will be that the damaging, and sometimes draconian, house arrest of much of the population is the only thing that saved us from exponential ruin. Pay no attention to the fact that the same non-exponential pattern is apparent in every country, regardless of their policy response.

My suspicion is that when the analysis is finally done, probably in a year or so, we will see that the death rate is largely dependent on two things: (1) the extent to which populations live in relatively crowded cities, especially cities with widespread use of public transportation systems, and (2) the degree of social and physical isolation of the elderly population. These are only hypotheses at present.

The next graph shows the precipitous decline in the growth rate of cumulative reported cases, using a three-day average for data smoothing purposes. Note that this graph starts later than the others — March 25 instead of March 1 — because the early data was very chaotic.

You can see that the rate of increase is now below 3% daily in all countries and regions, and generally continues to trend downward.

II. Jerry’s Commentary

I have been quite skeptical about the claim that various lockdown, house arrest, or other social distancing policies have caused the enormous reduction in the growth rate of reported deaths demonstrated above. I do not dispute, in principle, that such measures have slowed the spread of COVID-19. What we do not know is the extent to which the reduction has been caused by policy, and the extent to which the reduction would have occurred anyway.

I am actually not particularly optimistic about the future progress of this disease over the next 3-6 months. The policy response is causing almost incalculable economic damage, and enormous interference to daily life. I do not think that this disease has run its course. Not nearly. If and when we open things up, there will be an increase in the rate of transmission, and then an increase in the number of deaths. This is unavoidable. Even draconian lockdown policies only slow the spread. They don’t stop it.

The catastrophizers dismiss these concerns as heartless concern over money, or focus on trivial things — like people dying alone, cut off from their loved ones; the elderly who no longer get to see their children or grandchildren; the ruin of the financial future of tens of millions of hard-working people; all of the high school kids who won’t get a senior prom or a graduation; the churches and synagogues shut down. Even funerals are canceled.

Those things aren’t trivial. That is life.

But the catastrophizers don’t care. I am getting very frustrated and angry at them. If I’m not willing to live in some plastic-bubble pod, then I’m a murderer.

They are wrong. Some of you are in this camp. It is time to man up, and admit that you were wrong. You want to live in fear? Fine. Hide in your house. Quarantine yourself. Stop insisting that the rest of us be quarantined.

Do you know what? It’s like the darned flu. It’s several times more deadly than the flus in living memory, but probably only by a factor of between 2 and 5. It’s a relatively minor risk, and we simply need to face it and get on with life.

Many of you are frustrated at our politicians. The problem is not really the politicians. The problem is the overprotective mother attitude present in so much of the population, men and women alike. The problem is the “people will die” argument and the accusation that anyone bravely going about life as usual — and any politician willing to let them do so — is a murderer.

There is an irony about this disease because it is a respiratory disease. Quite literally, it is spread by breathing. So the coronaphobes demand that we not be allowed to breathe free.

My inclination is to respond with something that is not COC-compliant. Instead, I will say that I dissent. I will not say that I dissent respectfully.

ChiCom delenda est.

Published in Healthcare
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 70 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. RushBabe49 Thatcher
    RushBabe49
    @RushBabe49

    Defy Tyranny. Break the Lockdown. 
    My new motto. 

    • #1
  2. Jim McConnell Member
    Jim McConnell
    @JimMcConnell

    My sentiments exactly, Jerry, and thank you for all the research and analysis you are doing on this terribly disruptive crisis; a large part of which is the result not of the virus itself, but our reaction to it.

    • #2
  3. Al French of Damascus Moderator
    Al French of Damascus
    @AlFrench

    I’m coming around to that view as well.

    • #3
  4. Henry Racette Member
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio): They are wrong. Some of you are in this camp. It is time to man up, and admit that you were wrong. You want to live in fear? Fine. Hide in your house. Quarantine yourself. Stop insisting that the rest of us be quarantined.

    Amen.

    • #4
  5. Roderic Coolidge
    Roderic
    @rhfabian

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio): The policy response is causing almost incalculable economic damage, and enormous interference to daily life. I do not think that this disease has run its course.

    No, the virus is causing enormous economic damage, interference with daily life, and loss of life.  Had the shutdown not occurred (and I agree that might have happened without government involvement, especially when the pandemic got worse here) then it would have been a lot worse.  I think your analyses of this have been pretty tendentious, and there’s a lot you’re just refusing to consider.  Does it escape you that your graphs show that Sweden, where there is no lockdown, is doing worse than most other countries?  Refusing to credit virus suppression efforts is just being stubborn.

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio): They are wrong. Some of you are in this camp. It is time to man up, and admit that you were wrong. You want to live in fear? Fine. Hide in your house. Quarantine yourself. Stop insisting that the rest of us be quarantined.

    No, we are not wrong.  Unfortunately, what with virus suppression letting up too soon, events may prove that conclusively now.  The difference between things going well and total disaster and breakdown of society is just a  few days with this virus.  Greater than 95% of people are still susceptible.  Growth can go from 5% back to 35% a day in a heartbeat.  I’m hoping people will continue to be cautious and keep that from happening.

    It’s a bad time to go wobbly.  I hope this doesn’t wind up being a bigger disaster.

    • #5
  6. Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio) Member
    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio)
    @ArizonaPatriot

    Roderic, we both keep saying the same things.  The facts support my position, not yours.

    You are stating at least one falsehood.  The virus has not caused the economic damage.  The reaction to the virus has caused the economic damage, and the other disruptions in life.  This is a fact.

    Your cherry-picking of the data about Sweden shows the irrational way that this is analyzed, so I thank you for demonstrating it.  Sweden is worse than Denmark, so the lockdown worked, you seem to claim.  But Sweden is better than Belgium, or the UK, or France, which did lockdowns and are still in lockdown.  So you just ignore that data.

    • #6
  7. Brian Clendinen Inactive
    Brian Clendinen
    @BrianClendinen

    I think when flu season starts up again in Nov, we are going to see a another outbreak maybe as bad.  I have no idea how Republican politicians will react who just won elections (or re-won) will react. Mostly likely as bad or worse unless legislators curb their Executives power. I know how the Dems will respond (Hint worse).

    My only hope is Trump and Bar will say it is our Job to protect the constitutional freedoms and right of all citizens and take action against the excess in City/States. However I am not holding my breath that Trump will due this (sounds like Bar would like to due this).

    I am remember something Jordan Peterson has said about rightist. Those on the right can be just as tyrannical as lefties. However its different from different reasons. When Rightist are disgusted with a behavior or person they have no issues with stopping it out like they would a bug. Aka they become tyrants to stamp out that they are disgusted with.

    I think he is using the term to broadly. I think a more precise position is traditionalist (classic conservatives) from what I have seen. Classic Liberals don’t think or act this way.

    Over the years I have seen this with Family and Friends this string of Tyranny in some areas that to me appears to be related to disgust more than anything.

    So we have a lot of self describe Republicans/Conservatives  treating others who might infect them with disgust therefore they can mistreat them and impose on their natural rights. I don’t think there is anything we can due about this other than due what you have been doing and trying to educate them. So they can change their mind. Either that or they start getting hurt or have loved ones hurt by these actions but due not see anyone they know killed or hospitalized by the virus.

    • #7
  8. Henry Racette Member
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    Roderic (View Comment):

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio): The policy response is causing almost incalculable economic damage, and enormous interference to daily life. I do not think that this disease has run its course.

    No, the virus is causing enormous economic damage

    What is the quip? “Embrace the power of ‘and.’ “

    The virus has certainly caused a lot of economic damage. But I think it’s obvious that sweeping and often arbitrary shutdowns in areas barely touched by the virus have contributed enormously. I live in New York state, five hours away from New York City, and I can’t get my hair cut, despite that fact that we’ve never had more than three people in the ICU for this virus at one time.

    Given that the vast majority of the nation avoided overloading its ICU capacity, it seems likely that we can cautiously resume business, with more cautious personal habits, while monitoring the progression of acute cases. There are a lot of “virus suppression efforts” that don’t preclude my barber cutting my hair and continuing to earn a living.

    • #8
  9. Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio) Member
    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio)
    @ArizonaPatriot

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    Roderic (View Comment):

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio): The policy response is causing almost incalculable economic damage, and enormous interference to daily life. I do not think that this disease has run its course.

    No, the virus is causing enormous economic damage

    What is the quip? “Embrace the power of ‘and.’ “

    The virus has certainly caused a lot of economic damage. But I think it’s obvious that sweeping and often arbitrary shutdowns in areas barely touched by the virus have contributed enormously. I live in New York state, five hours away from New York City, and I can’t get my hair cut, despite that fact that we’ve never had more than three people in the ICU for this virus at one time.

    Given that the vast majority of the nation avoided overloading its ICU capacity, it seems likely that we can cautiously resume business, with more cautious personal habits, while monitoring the progression of acute cases. There are a lot of “virus suppression efforts” that don’t preclude my barber cutting my hair and continuing to earn a living.

    Hank, I agree technically, but I disagree as a practical matter.

    I think that you’re correct in part, because the virus itself has certainly done some damage.  We’re closing in on 70,000 deaths, and that alone is a significant harm, with economic impact as well as the personal impact.  There have been many more people hospitalized, some in very serious condition, and that will have caused economic harm as well as the obvious personal harm and suffering.

    But I suspect that 95% of the economic damage has been caused by the response to the virus, not the virus itself.  The economic damage would have been minimal, had we simply acted like Londoners during the Blitz, and gone about our business.

    I find this important, because those who supported the policy response to the virus should be held to account for the damage they have done.  They can argue that it was worth the price that has been paid, but I am not willing to let them evade responsibility for the bill by arguing that the economic harm would have occurred anyway.

    • #9
  10. Henry Racette Member
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio) (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    Roderic (View Comment):

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio): The policy response is causing almost incalculable economic damage, and enormous interference to daily life. I do not think that this disease has run its course.

    No, the virus is causing enormous economic damage

    What is the quip? “Embrace the power of ‘and.’ “

    The virus has certainly caused a lot of economic damage. But I think it’s obvious that sweeping and often arbitrary shutdowns in areas barely touched by the virus have contributed enormously. I live in New York state, five hours away from New York City, and I can’t get my hair cut, despite that fact that we’ve never had more than three people in the ICU for this virus at one time.

    Given that the vast majority of the nation avoided overloading its ICU capacity, it seems likely that we can cautiously resume business, with more cautious personal habits, while monitoring the progression of acute cases. There are a lot of “virus suppression efforts” that don’t preclude my barber cutting my hair and continuing to earn a living.

    Hank, I agree technically, but I disagree as a practical matter.

    I think that you’re correct in part, because the virus itself has certainly done some damage. We’re closing in on 70,000 deaths, and that alone is a significant harm, with economic impact as well as the personal impact. There have been many more people hospitalized, some in very serious condition, and that will have caused economic harm as well as the obvious personal harm and suffering.

    But I suspect that 95% of the economic damage has been caused by the response to the virus, not the virus itself. The economic damage would have been minimal, had we simply acted like Londoners during the Blitz, and gone about our business.

    I find this important, because those who supported the policy response to the virus should be held to account for the damage they have done. They can argue that it was worth the price that has been paid, but I am not willing to let them evade responsibility for the bill by arguing that the economic harm would have occurred anyway.

    Jerry, I agree that the greatest cost, by far, has been caused by government shutdown. Since we don’t know to what extent the mandated shutdowns actually curtailed the spread of contagion, we have to speculate about what would have been the result if we hadn’t done the mandated shutdown. I suspect that, absent the shutdown, we’d have had a significantly greater loss of life but a substantially lower economic impact. How the public would have responded to a significantly higher fatality rate, I don’t know.

    • #10
  11. MarciN Member
    MarciN
    @MarciN

    Roderic (View Comment):

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio): The policy response is causing almost incalculable economic damage, and enormous interference to daily life. I do not think that this disease has run its course.

    No, the virus is causing enormous economic damage, interference with daily life, and loss of life. Had the shutdown not occurred (and I agree that might have happened without government involvement, especially when the pandemic got worse here) then it would have been a lot worse. I think your analyses of this have been pretty tendentious, and there’s a lot you’re just refusing to consider. Does it escape you that your graphs show that Sweden, where there is no lockdown, is doing worse than most other countries? Refusing to credit virus suppression efforts is just being stubborn.

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio): They are wrong. Some of you are in this camp. It is time to man up, and admit that you were wrong. You want to live in fear? Fine. Hide in your house. Quarantine yourself. Stop insisting that the rest of us be quarantined.

    No, we are not wrong. Unfortunately, what with virus suppression letting up too soon, events may prove that conclusively now. The difference between things going well and total disaster and breakdown of society is just a few days with this virus. Greater than 95% of people are still susceptible. Growth can go from 5% back to 35% a day in a heartbeat. I’m hoping people will continue to be cautious and keep that from happening.

    It’s a bad time to go wobbly. I hope this doesn’t wind up being a bigger disaster.

    My daughter is a veterinarian who lives in Manhattan. We had a long talk about the virus last night. She would agree with every word you’ve written here.

    • #11
  12. DanDraney Coolidge
    DanDraney
    @DanDraney

    Clearly the virus has done a lot of damage, both in terms of lives lost and suffering endured. It’s hard to believe that everyone would have carried on as normal had there been no quarantine/shutdown orders. People aren’t suicidal and the scenes from NYC were quite a shock. So not all the economic damage is directly caused by lockdowns. There would have been a big hit to the economy even without mandatory restrictions. Here in Nebraska we have guidelines and not ironclad rules, but most people are following them. (Because they make sense, for the most part.)

    It also seems clear to me that the populace (largely, although imperfectly) embracing social distancing has slowed the spread of the virus. I think most people overestimate how important it was that restrictions were made mandatory. The costs are vastly underestimated by most people, including our opinion leaders. Some of this is dawning on our elected officials now, as they see tax receipts evaporate and look to Washington for a bailout. The massive amount of money already thrown at the problem has been like trying to put out a forest fire with a teacup. It will not be possible to bail out everyone wanting/needing it.

    The only solution is to reopen the economy, and that will not happen right away as restrictions are eased. It will be easier/faster in some places than others, and the reopening must take into account local conditions to assure hospitals do not become overwhelmed as they were in NYC. 

    Some reasons for optimism: 1) the deaths are concentrated in a specific, relatively small population that can be easily identified (already sick, mostly old are 98% of the deaths in Massachusetts). 2) We have already taken appropriate steps to protect those in nursing homes (59% of the deaths in MA) and hospitals. 3) These steps can be continued indefinitely without hindering the activities of most people. 4) Arrangements can be made to protect the most vulnerable who are outside of nursing homes, as well, as restrictions are lifted. 5) For most healthy people younger than 50 the main risk of catching the disease is that you will pass it on to someone vulnerable.

    • #12
  13. Sisyphus (Rolling Stone) Member
    Sisyphus (Rolling Stone)
    @Sisyphus

    Definitely. Stuff the lockdown, and commence a five year plan to make the security of free men independent from the whims of criminal fools (are your ears burning, Xi?).

    Never again.

    • #13
  14. colleenb Member
    colleenb
    @colleenb

    First thanks for all your work on the charts. It is amazingly helpful in trying to understand the progression of the disease. I think the authorities should have started out with a 2 week or so lockdown. This would have alerted everyone to the seriousness that needed to be taken with this disease and especially its easy spread. It would have given businesses a chance to prepare and decide if they could open safely. Also would have been time to prepare nursing homes, other medical facilities. Then open back up. Of course hindsight is 20/20 (or Hindus are as would have come up with spell check 😃). Oh and I add in no meetings, gatherings, etc over 20 or so. Unfortunately this would/ does include houses of faith. I think because the CCP did lockdown everyone felt they had to act the same way.

    • #14
  15. MichaelKennedy Inactive
    MichaelKennedy
    @MichaelKennedy

    The work you have done on the charts and reports is greatly appreciated.  I think the hysterical reaction to the virus and the underlying hope by Democrats that an economic recession would help defeat Trump in the election created a perfect storm.  The Democrat Governors seem to be the ones most determined to control people. Gavin Newsom is a good example. Unfortunately, the AZ Governor has caved on reopening the state economy, it is not just Democrats.

    The other phenomenon we have observed is the incredible politicization of a valuable drug in treatment, namely hydroxychloroquine.  Because it was mentioned by President Trump, it has become necessary for certain people to raise false concerns about its effectiveness and the risks of toxic effects.  A European study has reported that, of 60,000 patients taking the drug for lupus and rheumatoid arthritis, only 20 have become infected by the virus and none has required hospital care or has died.  My wife has been taking it for three years for RA.  I wonder how many deaths have occurred due to this political issue ?

    The Orange County Register had an article two weeks ago about an elderly couple, 90 and 88, who both tested positive for the virus and were started immediately by their physician son on HCQ.  They were briefly admitted to Hoag Hospital in Newport Beach and discharged recovered after 5 days.  Interestingly, the alleged “Infectious Disease” physician of the hospital posed with them for a photo and then announced he would not prescribe the drug for any other such patients.

    https://www.ocregister.com/2020/04/16/coronavirus-elderly-oc-couple-recovers-swears-by-controversial-treatment/

     

    • #15
  16. jeannebodine Member
    jeannebodine
    @jeannebodine

    Here’s my central question: what’s the difference between opening up now vs. opening 6 weeks from now? There is no cure or vaccine. Aren’t we just putting off the inevitable? No matter when we open there will or will not be a spike. We’ve flattened the curve, perhaps it will rise again. But what exactly do stay-at-home orders accomplish this point, other than those for the most vulnerable.

    Is there a tangible benefit for delaying the inevitable that I can’t see? My thinking may be simplistic and I’d welcome hearing from others who think lock down extensions are valuable.

    • #16
  17. MiMac Thatcher
    MiMac
    @MiMac

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio) (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    Roderic (View Comment):

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio): The policy response is causing almost incalculable economic damage, and enormous interference to daily life. I do not think that this disease has run its course.

    No, the virus is causing enormous economic damage

    What is the quip? “Embrace the power of ‘and.’ “

    The virus has certainly caused a lot of economic damage. But I think it’s obvious that sweeping and often arbitrary shutdowns in areas barely touched by the virus have contributed enormously. I live in New York state, five hours away from New York City, and I can’t get my hair cut, despite that fact that we’ve never had more than three people in the ICU for this virus at one time.

    Given that the vast majority of the nation avoided overloading its ICU capacity, it seems likely that we can cautiously resume business, with more cautious personal habits, while monitoring the progression of acute cases. There are a lot of “virus suppression efforts” that don’t preclude my barber cutting my hair and continuing to earn a living.

    Hank, I agree technically, but I disagree as a practical matter.

    I think that you’re correct in part, because the virus itself has certainly done some damage. We’re closing in on 70,000 deaths, and that alone is a significant harm, with economic impact as well as the personal impact. There have been many more people hospitalized, some in very serious condition, and that will have caused economic harm as well as the obvious personal harm and suffering.

    But I suspect that 95% of the economic damage has been caused by the response to the virus, not the virus itself. The economic damage would have been minimal, had we simply acted like Londoners during the Blitz, and gone about our business.

    I find this important, because those who supported the policy response to the virus should be held to account for the damage they have done. They can argue that it was worth the price that has been paid, but I am not willing to let them evade responsibility for the bill by arguing that the economic harm would have occurred anyway.

    No-the economic effects are due to the PUBLICS response to the virus- (check econlib.org)- Sweden’s economy is just as severely effected as the rest of the EU despite their NOT locking down. The downturn started before the lockdowns b/c the public, logically, began to self isolate to a large degree b/c of justifiable fears of getting COVID-19. Obviously, we need to begin to reopen-but intelligently. Various degrees of social distancing and other measures will need to remain until we develop a vaccine (hopefully late this year-best case scenario) but some events cannot return as before until we get the vaccine or acquire “herd immunity”-but that means many thousands more dead. Events such as restaurants, bars, sporting events, concerts, and church will have to be altered so much they may bear little resemblance to last year. Unfortunately, these are the events that make life enjoyable &/or worth living. Experts such as Avik Roy and AEI have outlined some useful plans for reopening. But we need to stop the mantra that it is the fault of the governments action or “it is just like the flu” if we want to make an effective policy response. Do not let disgust at petty tyrants like Whitmer et al cause us to make equally bad policy decisions.

    • #17
  18. Full Size Tabby Member
    Full Size Tabby
    @FullSizeTabby

    jeannebodine (View Comment):
    Here’s my central question: what’s the difference between opening up now vs. opening 6 weeks from now?

    Or a year from now or 5 years from now? Are we going to abandon “life” and live in terrified hibernation forever?

    • #18
  19. Henry Racette Member
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    MiMac (View Comment):

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio) (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    Roderic (View Comment):

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio): The policy response is causing almost incalculable economic damage, and enormous interference to daily life. I do not think that this disease has run its course.

    No, the virus is causing enormous economic damage

    What is the quip? “Embrace the power of ‘and.’ “

    The virus has certainly caused a lot of economic damage. But I think it’s obvious that sweeping and often arbitrary shutdowns in areas barely touched by the virus have contributed enormously. I live in New York state, five hours away from New York City, and I can’t get my hair cut, despite that fact that we’ve never had more than three people in the ICU for this virus at one time.

    Given that the vast majority of the nation avoided overloading its ICU capacity, it seems likely that we can cautiously resume business, with more cautious personal habits, while monitoring the progression of acute cases. There are a lot of “virus suppression efforts” that don’t preclude my barber cutting my hair and continuing to earn a living.

    Hank, I agree technically, but I disagree as a practical matter.

    I think that you’re correct in part, because the virus itself has certainly done some damage. We’re closing in on 70,000 deaths, and that alone is a significant harm, with economic impact as well as the personal impact. There have been many more people hospitalized, some in very serious condition, and that will have caused economic harm as well as the obvious personal harm and suffering.

    But I suspect that 95% of the economic damage has been caused by the response to the virus, not the virus itself. The economic damage would have been minimal, had we simply acted like Londoners during the Blitz, and gone about our business.

    I find this important, because those who supported the policy response to the virus should be held to account for the damage they have done. They can argue that it was worth the price that has been paid, but I am not willing to let them evade responsibility for the bill by arguing that the economic harm would have occurred anyway.

    No-the economic effects are due to the PUBLICS response to the virus- (check econlib.org)- Sweden’s economy is just as severely effected as the rest of the EU despite their NOT locking down. The downturn started before the lockdowns b/c the public, logically, began to self isolate to a large degree b/c of justifiable fears of getting COVID-19. Obviously, we need to begin to reopen-but intelligently. Various degrees of social distancing and other measures will need to remain until we develop a vaccine (hopefully late this year-best case scenario) but some events cannot return as before until we get the vaccine or acquire “herd immunity”-but that means many thousands more dead. Events such as restaurants, bars, sporting events, concerts, and church will have to be altered so much themay bear little resemblance to last year. Unfortunately, these are the events that make life enjoyable &/or worth living. Experts such as Avid Roy and AEI have outlined some useful plans for reopening. But we need to stop the mantra that it is the fault of the governments action or “it is just like the flu” if we want to make an effective policy response. Do not let disgust at petty tyrants like Whitmer et al cause us to make equally bad policy decisions.

    First, I don’t think there’s sufficient comparable data to state with certainty that this or that percentage of the economic destruction we’re experiencing is attributable to voluntary versus mandated behavior changes. Cross-country comparisons are difficult. Perhaps we could pick a single specific sector within our own country — say, barber shops or used car dealerships or clothing stores — and compare how they are doing in states that have few or no mandated restrictions with states that have extensive restrictions. That might be more illustrative.

    Secondly, if it’s true that voluntary behavioral change was so extensive as to crash the economy, then that would seem to argue against the value of mandated behavioral change: if people are doing it anyway, it’s less important that we compel them to do it.

    The current mandated restrictions are extraordinary, and demand extraordinary justification. No plausible extraordinary justification has been provided, and so the mandated restrictions should end now.

    • #19
  20. MiMac Thatcher
    MiMac
    @MiMac

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    MiMac (View Comment):

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio) (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    Roderic (View Comment):

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio): The policy response is causing almost incalculable economic damage, and enormous interference to daily life. I do not think that this disease has run its course.

    No, the virus is causing enormous economic damage

    What is the quip? “Embrace the power of ‘and.’ “

    The virus has certainly caused a lot of economic damage. But I think it’s obvious that sweeping and often arbitrary shutdowns in areas barely touched by the virus have contributed enormously. I live in New York state, five hours away from New York City, and I can’t get my hair cut, despite that fact that we’ve never had more than three people in the ICU for this virus at one time.

    Given that the vast majority of the nation avoided overloading its ICU capacity, it seems likely that we can cautiously resume business, with more cautious personal habits, while monitoring the progression of acute cases. There are a lot of “virus suppression efforts” that don’t preclude my barber cutting my hair and continuing to earn a living.

    Hank, I agree technically, but I disagree as a practical matter.

    I think that you’re correct in part, because the virus itself has certainly done some damage. We’re closing in on 70,000 deaths, and that alone is a significant harm, with economic impact as well as the personal impact. There have been many more people hospitalized, some in very serious condition, and that will have caused economic harm as well as the obvious personal harm and suffering.

    But I suspect that 95% of the economic damage has been caused by the response to the virus, not the virus itself. The economic damage would have been minimal, had we simply acted like Londoners during the Blitz, and gone about our business.

    I find this important, because those who supported the policy response to the virus should be held to account for the damage they have done. They can argue that it was worth the price that has been paid, but I am not willing to let them evade responsibility for the bill by arguing that the economic harm would have occurred anyway.

    No-the economic effects are due to the PUBLICS response to the virus- (check econlib.org)- Sweden’s economy is just as severely effected as the rest of the EU despite their NOT locking down. The downturn started before the lockdowns b/c the public, logically, began to self isolate to a large degree b/c of justifiable fears of getting COVID-19. Obviously, we need to begin to reopen-but intelligently. Various degrees of social distancing and other measures will need to remain until we develop a vaccine (hopefully late this year-best case scenario) but some events cannot return as before until we get the vaccine or acquire “herd immunity”-but that means many thousands more dead. Events such as restaurants, bars, sporting events, concerts, and church will have to be altered so much themay bear little resemblance to last year. Unfortunately, these are the events that make life enjoyable &/or worth living. Experts such as Avid Roy and AEI have outlined some useful plans for reopening. But we need to stop the mantra that it is the fault of the governments action or “it is just like the flu” if we want to make an effective policy response. Do not let disgust at petty tyrants like Whitmer et al cause us to make equally bad policy decisions.

    First, I don’t think there’s sufficient comparable data to state with certainty that this or that percentage of the economic destruction we’re experiencing is attributable to voluntary versus mandated behavior changes. Cross-country comparisons are difficult. Perhaps we could pick a single specific sector within our own country — say, barber shops or used car dealerships or clothing stores — and compare how they are doing in states that have few or no mandated restrictions with states that have extensive restrictions. That might be more illustrative.

    Secondly, if it’s true that voluntary behavioral change was so extensive as to crash the economy, then that would seem to argue against the value of mandated behavioral change: if people are doing it anyway, it’s less important that we compel them to do it.

    The current mandated restrictions are extraordinary, and demand extraordinary justification. No plausible extraordinary justification has been provided, and so the mandated restrictions should end now.

    I am sorry you don’t consider the lives of your fellow countrymen plausible justification. The lockdowns did flatten the curve (altho not as much as hoped) and bought us time-time to learn about what works & to increase our healthcare capacity. We certainly learned that not all locales need to be treated the same-NYC and mass transit depended areas are at much higher risk-but we didn’t know that 8 weeks ago. The restrictions should be altered but not ended entirely. Mandation is required b/c it is CONTAGIOUS-if it only harmed those doing foolish things I would agree we shouldn’t mandate it- but almost none of those people who died in the nursing homes did anything foolish. We have often MANDATED actions in the past- I have treated a number of TB patients who were committed to a state hospital b/c they didn’t comply with therapy for a CONTAGIOUS disease. But the need to mandate some actions doesn’t excuse arbitrary actions like those by Whitmer. The burden of being a rational animal is we have to make judgements but those need to be as best informed as we can reasonably make them.

    • #20
  21. Henry Racette Member
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    MiMac (View Comment):
    I am sorry you don’t consider the lives of your fellow countrymen plausible justification.

    Do you consider the lives of your fellow countrymen “plausible justification” for reducing the maximum legal speed limit to 20 miles per hour? Because that would save more lives, ultimately, than our Wuhan virus mandates.

     

    • #21
  22. MiMac Thatcher
    MiMac
    @MiMac

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    MiMac (View Comment):
    I am sorry you don’t consider the lives of your fellow countrymen plausible justification.

    Do you consider the lives of your fellow countrymen “plausible justification” for reducing the maximum legal speed limit to 20 miles per hour? Because that would save more lives, ultimately, than our Wuhan virus mandates.

    Strawman argument- I said we need to make judgments but those need to be the best informed as we can reasonably make-ie taking TEMPORARY measures to avoid 200K deaths this year is reasonable-but causing a PERMANENT standstill on the nation’s highways to lower the accident rate isn’t reasonable (not to mention it would have little effect on drunk driving deaths & other causes of accidents). This is particularly true b/c we have a significant chance of developing alternate ways of stopping the coronavirus in the next 9-24 months (vaccine, drugs) so any methods we use now are temporary- but we will always need to travel- and making cars impractical at this time in particular is bad policy b/c the alternatives (public transport) are less safe during a pandemic.

    • #22
  23. MichaelKennedy Inactive
    MichaelKennedy
    @MichaelKennedy

    MiMac (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    MiMac (View Comment):
    I am sorry you don’t consider the lives of your fellow countrymen plausible justification.

    Do you consider the lives of your fellow countrymen “plausible justification” for reducing the maximum legal speed limit to 20 miles per hour? Because that would save more lives, ultimately, than our Wuhan virus mandates.

    Strawman argument- I said we need to make judgments but those need to be the best informed as we can reasonably make-ie taking TEMPORARY measures to avoid 200K deaths this year is reasonable-but causing a PERMANENT standstill on the nation’s highways to lower the accident rate isn’t reasonable (not to mention it would have little effect on drunk driving deaths & other causes of accidents). This is particularly true b/c we have a significant chance of developing alternate ways of stopping the coronavirus in the next 9-24 months (vaccine, drugs) so any methods we use now are temporary- but we will always need to travel- and making cars impractical at this time in particular is bad policy b/c the alternatives (public transport) are less safe during a pandemic.

    I disagree with much of this.  I do agree we didn’t know as much in March as we do now.  We know that high density cities with mass transit are dangerous in epidemics.  We know that nursing home patients  are particularly at risk.  Those of us who are at greater risk, and I am one, are usually able to self quarantine with little financial risk.  We know that AmerIndians, like the Navajos, are at great risk.  The rest of the working age population should be allowed to resume their lives.  They are at low risk.  Cytokine storm is as likely with severe influenza as with the Chinese virus.

    • #23
  24. colleenb Member
    colleenb
    @colleenb

    Hi @MiMac: I think you are being unfair to Henry or anyone else who has doubts about the course of action taken with the lockdowns. People point to Sweden but maybe they are doing better than the rest of us on herd immunity and will not be as affected come a second wave or next winter. I don’t think we know. I think we need to think ‘rationally safe’ rather than ‘not one death.’ The lockdowns are probably causing many non-Wuhan deaths that we have not even counted. I think we should all be as humble as we can about what to do and avoid attributing to others any bad motives. Except Nancy Pelosi. I don’t think she should be given a pass on bad motives EVAH.

     

    • #24
  25. D.A. Venters Inactive
    D.A. Venters
    @DAVenters

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    MiMac (View Comment):
    I am sorry you don’t consider the lives of your fellow countrymen plausible justification.

    Do you consider the lives of your fellow countrymen “plausible justification” for reducing the maximum legal speed limit to 20 miles per hour? Because that would save more lives, ultimately, than our Wuhan virus mandates.

    About 100 people per day, on average, are killed in auto accidents in the US.  Covid-19, over past couple of weeks, has been killing around 2,000 per day.   If the number of car accident deaths suddenly rose to that level for no immediately apparent reason, I’m sure there would be calls for quickly lowering the speed limit, reducing trips, etc…until people figured out what was going on.  That would be a perfectly reasonable reaction to a new danger. 

    It is really a similar situation with the virus in most places.  The initial reactions, both the voluntary and mandatory distancing, were reasonable reactions to a new, relatively unknown, threat.  As more is learned, various states are trying to figure out how to get people economically active again and still maintain some safety.  This is reasonable, too. 

    While people on the extremes shout at each other and engage in all kinds of hyperbole, call each other tyrants and cowards on one side, lunatics and heartless greeds on the other, most of the reasonable leaders, and most everyday folks, are really just doing what reasonable people do, trying to balance various concerns and find a way through as best they can.

    • #25
  26. Henry Racette Member
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    MiMac (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    MiMac (View Comment):
    I am sorry you don’t consider the lives of your fellow countrymen plausible justification.

    Do you consider the lives of your fellow countrymen “plausible justification” for reducing the maximum legal speed limit to 20 miles per hour? Because that would save more lives, ultimately, than our Wuhan virus mandates.

    Strawman argument- I said we need to make judgments but those need to be the best informed as we can reasonably make-ie taking TEMPORARY measures to avoid 200K deaths this year is reasonable-but causing a PERMANENT standstill on the nation’s highways to lower the accident rate isn’t reasonable (not to mention it would have little effect on drunk driving deaths & other causes of accidents). This is particularly true b/c we have a significant chance of developing alternate ways of stopping the coronavirus in the next 9-24 months (vaccine, drugs) so any methods we use now are temporary- but we will always need to travel- and making cars impractical at this time in particular is bad policy b/c the alternatives (public transport) are less safe during a pandemic.

    You and I have very different ideas about the value of freedom versus public health risks.

    There is no way of knowing whether or not a treatment will be available within the next year or two. I don’t think it’s defensible to dramatically curtail the rights of American citizens in the hope that an adequate treatment will be found within the next year or two.

    I don’t think it’s worth plunging the nation into a depression in order to avoid an additional 200,000 lives lost this year to the Wuhan virus. I don’t think that’s any more worthwhile than dropping the speed limit to 20 miles per hour to save vastly more lives in the future. Both strike me as unacceptable compromises.

    There is no evidence that the mandated work stoppages are essential to preventing the spread of the disease. We don’t know if voluntary public behavioral changes would be adequate to make the contagion manageable. Continuing to deprive people of their liberty on the assumption that voluntary behavioral changes will prove inadequate is, in my opinion, indefensible.

    We face an unknown but roughly parameterized public health risk: we’ve experienced the peak of the epidemic and not exceeded our health care capacity. We are experiencing a known and unacceptable loss of freedom. I think we should immediately remove all shutdown mandates, and monitor ICU utilization carefully so that, if necessary, narrowly focused mandates can be reinstated in those areas where they prove necessary. It’s time for Americans to be free again. There are more important things than preventing avoidable deaths.

    • #26
  27. MiMac Thatcher
    MiMac
    @MiMac

    MichaelKennedy (View Comment):

    MiMac (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    MiMac (View Comment):
    I am sorry you don’t consider the lives of your fellow countrymen plausible justification.

    Do you consider the lives of your fellow countrymen “plausible justification” for reducing the maximum legal speed limit to 20 miles per hour? Because that would save more lives, ultimately, than our Wuhan virus mandates.

    Strawman argument- I said we need to make judgments but those need to be the best informed as we can reasonably make-ie taking TEMPORARY measures to avoid 200K deaths this year is reasonable-but causing a PERMANENT standstill on the nation’s highways to lower the accident rate isn’t reasonable (not to mention it would have little effect on drunk driving deaths & other causes of accidents). This is particularly true b/c we have a significant chance of developing alternate ways of stopping the coronavirus in the next 9-24 months (vaccine, drugs) so any methods we use now are temporary- but we will always need to travel- and making cars impractical at this time in particular is bad policy b/c the alternatives (public transport) are less safe during a pandemic.

    I disagree with much of this. I do agree we didn’t know as much in March as we do now. We know that high density cities with mass transit are dangerous in epidemics. We know that nursing home patients are particularly at risk. Those of us who are at greater risk, and I am one, are usually able to self quarantine with little financial risk. We know that AmerIndians, like the Navajos, are at great risk. The rest of the working age population should be allowed to resume their lives. They are at low risk. Cytokine storm is as likely with severe influenza as with the Chinese virus.

    Read some of the work by AEI (esp Dr Gottlieb) and Avik Roy- what they outline has much along the lines you mentioned. The reopening has to be phased in (keep high risk people in a stricter regime, allow schools to open up, be very vigilant in urban areas etc) and not an all at once nor one size fits all. Obviously, those with low risk will get “phased in” 1st-but we will not return to normal in the near term. The problem with saying all young people can return to “normal” is that many of them live with or work with at risk individuals. As I said earlier-bars, restaurants, sporting events, and churches are very problematic. There has to be some legal guidance so that employers who take reasonable steps aren’t held liable. We need to open up the economy or we face a catastrophe-but it needs to be based on what we have learned and what we can reasonably project. But I believe many are out there saying demonstrably foolish things like the lockdowns didn’t work & it is like the flu-so all these steps are a sham or a way to increase gov’t power (not that the left will let a crisis go to waste)-when all the evidence is the other way.

    • #27
  28. cdor Member
    cdor
    @cdor

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio) (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    Roderic (View Comment):

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio): The policy response is causing almost incalculable economic damage, and enormous interference to daily life. I do not think that this disease has run its course.

     

    Jerry, I agree that the greatest cost, by far, has been caused by government shutdown. Since we don’t know to what extent the mandated shutdowns actually curtailed the spread of contagion, we have to speculate about what would have been the result if we hadn’t done the mandated shutdown. I suspect that, absent the shutdown, we’d have had a significantly greater loss of life but a substantially lower economic impact. How the public would have responded to a significantly higher fatality rate, I don’t know.

    We are not finished with this Wuhan poison. What will be the final real death toll actually caused by the virus is yet to be ascertained. What will be the real damage economically, mentally, and socially has barely begun to be defined.  The shutdown was done, ostensibly, to flatten the curve so as not to overwhelm the hospitals. Instead the hospitals are going broke from lack of customers. Talk about success on steroids. In the meantime how many “elective” procedures that were postponed will end up causing a shortened lifespan. Life years is what we are talking about here. Dying is an absolute. We all do that eventually. So the question becomes how many life years were lost because of this disease? If it continues killing mainly older people who had considerably less years “in the bank” anyway, then destroying lives of younger healthier people to protect those older folks is not a reasonable thing to do. And I have to say, it may not be a smart way to fight the virus. If after causing so much economic and social damage, we crawl out from under our beds only to find the poison still out there waiting for us, what will we have accomplished?

    • #28
  29. cdor Member
    cdor
    @cdor

    jeannebodine (View Comment):

    Here’s my central question: what’s the difference between opening up now vs. opening 6 weeks from now? There is no cure or vaccine. Aren’t we just putting off the inevitable? No matter when we open there will or will not be a spike. We’ve flattened the curve, perhaps it will rise again. But what exactly do stay-at-home orders accomplish this point, other than those for the most vulnerable.

    Is there a tangible benefit for delaying the inevitable that I can’t see? My thinking may be simplistic and I’d welcome hearing from others who think lock down extensions are valuable.

    How many here would take a vaccine that was rushed through the process without normal testing so that it would be available in 6 months? I wouldn’t. Talk about potential lethalities…as @michaelkennedy stated, a 65 year old proven non-problematic drug like HCQ gets the dangerous hyperbole, so what are we to say about a weakly tested vaccine that could actually kill you?

    • #29
  30. MiMac Thatcher
    MiMac
    @MiMac

    MichaelKennedy (View Comment):

    MiMac (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    MiMac (View Comment):
    I am sorry you don’t consider the lives of your fellow countrymen plausible justification.

    Do you consider the lives of your fellow countrymen “plausible justification” for reducing the maximum legal speed limit to 20 miles per hour? Because that would save more lives, ultimately, than our Wuhan virus mandates.

    Strawman argument- I said we need to make judgments but those need to be the best informed as we can reasonably make-ie taking TEMPORARY measures to avoid 200K deaths this year is reasonable-but causing a PERMANENT standstill on the nation’s highways to lower the accident rate isn’t reasonable (not to mention it would have little effect on drunk driving deaths & other causes of accidents). This is particularly true b/c we have a significant chance of developing alternate ways of stopping the coronavirus in the next 9-24 months (vaccine, drugs) so any methods we use now are temporary- but we will always need to travel- and making cars impractical at this time in particular is bad policy b/c the alternatives (public transport) are less safe during a pandemic.

    I disagree with much of this. I do agree we didn’t know as much in March as we do now. We know that high density cities with mass transit are dangerous in epidemics. We know that nursing home patients are particularly at risk. Those of us who are at greater risk, and I am one, are usually able to self quarantine with little financial risk. We know that AmerIndians, like the Navajos, are at great risk. The rest of the working age population should be allowed to resume their lives. They are at low risk. Cytokine storm is as likely with severe influenza as with the Chinese virus.

    What do you disagree with? The fact that we faced a serious risk of 100-200+K deaths due to the pandemic? That we are more likely to have better ways to confront the virus in the future? That lockdowns, in the short run, lowered the spread & therefore deaths d/t COVID-19? That lowering the speed to a ridiculously low number isn’t good policy? I hate the effects of the pandemic as much as anybody-but disagreeing with it isn’t an option-we have to confront it with sensible policies- and accepting hundreds of thousands of deaths so we can go to bars and the NCAA tournament wasn’t an option. We only had bad & worse options-public authorities made a difficult, and probably, correct call on the lockdowns (do you think Trump wanted to crater the economy when it was his signature achievement?). Now we have to make decisions about re-opening and my point is those who think we can just go back to “normal” are seriously misinformed about the likely outcome of such a policy. Much of the US population ISN’T at low risk- many, many Americans have co-morbidities (look around: 40+% of us are obese-over 100 MILLION have hypertension etc). Many live with, or work with, people at risk. About 40 Million Americans are over 65-the list goes on. Even if you are willing to accept a high death rate in the so called at risk population, treating them will be extraordinarily expensive-unless you just refuse to treat anyone over 65 with respiratory symptoms we will have a real problem if a 2nd wave is large. Remember, even in Italy it was “just” the old & those with co-morbidities that died from COVID-19- yet it was overwhelming their medical system. We have a more resilient medical system (Thank God & freer enterprise) but it is possible a 2nd wave like the 1918-1919 flu could occur & it would overwhelm our system as well (NYC was severely stressed).

    We need to be prudent and not be blinded by ideology or our over-reaction to bad policy decisions made by a few politicians-don’t throw the baby out with the bath water.

    • #30
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.