What Each Side of the COVID-19 Debate Should Understand About the Other - Reason.com
Category: News & Politics
Via: steve-ott • 4 years ago • 28 commentsBy: Brian Doherty (Reason. com)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
The war between Openers and Closers shouldn't be seen as a fight between idiot death-worshippers and unnecessarily frightened tyrants.
Brian Doherty | 4.21.2020 3:46 PM
Media Contact & Reprint Requests (ID 179894764 © Brandi Lyon | Dreamstime.com)
Beyond its devastating effect on the health of hundreds of thousands and the livelihood of millions, the COVID-19 crisis is a harshly vivid example of Americans' inability to understand, fruitfully communicate with, or show a hint of respect for those seen to be on other side of an ideological line.
Americans are divided about the best way to proceed from here, three months since the first case was diagnosed in the U.S. The division is more vivid and harsh on social networks than in the polls, where a vast majority of Americans still think strong lockdowns are the best idea moving forward. Such Americans think the economy needs to stay shut down by law until a vaccine or some effective treatment is developed that ensures no more, or a very tiny number of, people will be seriously harmed or killed by COVID-19.
On the other hand, some Americans think, on balance, the country's overall quality of life demands we start letting people and businesses make their own decisions about whether it is safe to go out in public or conduct business openly, especially given access to simple prophylactic measures such as gloves and masks.
To sum up each side in the language of their angriest opponents: The "Closers" want to demolish nearly all Americans' ability to live, and destroy nearly all the wealth our society has built up over decades, by halting the wheels of most commerce for the forseeable future. And the "Openers" are so dedicated to keeping GDP growing and so ignorant of science they want to see hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of Americans die of a hideous disease because they don't understand how contagion works.
Both Closers and Openers, though, have a combination of reasons, theories, guesses, and value judgments of a sort many sane people have always made, that make their respective positions make sense to them. Neither side should be blithely written off as either idiotic or sinister or not thinking, in their own way, of human well-being.
The Openers think they see many costs the Closers are not adequately considering, and wonder if the long-term benefits of closing are smaller than the Closers believe.
Openers are worried about over 15 million Americans out of work, and look at industries including hospitality, food service, entertainment not beamed in via smart TVs, sports, construction, oil, education, law, and even, counterintuitively, medical care (not to mention all non-food retail and any financial or other entities who depend on rents and mortgages continuing to be paid in the months to come) all either destroyed or seriously weakened and unable to move forward at anything near their old strength.
They worry that the web of commerce is so complicated and hard to build or to gently snip off portions of that as-yet-unrealized problems will arise with an economy that acts as if making, transporting, and selling food will keep working fine even if nothing else is.
Openers see the government's short-term solution of loans and giveaways both personal and corporate in the trillions and growing as seriously dangerous, with a real possibility of upending our fiscal and monetary systems under debt and/or money supply explosions that could become truly unsustainable and take decades to recover from. They see states and localities facing already near-impossible pension and other obligations and shrinking tax bases pushed closer, faster, to an abyss of complete inability to function, with dire effects on citizens.
Openers think it is worth seriously wondering about many as-yet-unknown facts, such as actual current infection rates, asymptomatic numbers vs. ill numbers, and death rates and age distributions of same. They understand that the Openers vs. Closers debate involves cost/benefit decisions, and they want to understand the benefits as well as possible. Openers do believe that one cannot build public policy as if "saving one life" (or, more accurately, delaying one death) is the sole goal and think it important to note that in no other situation and with no other illness have we acted as if that was a reasonable goal.
Openers do take very seriously the idea of "flattening the curve"—perhaps, an Opener might think, even more seriously than the Closers do, because Openers can't help but think that this virus will, over whatever length of time, infect everyone everywhere until herd immunity is reached or by whatever method R0 becomes less than one.
That is, Openers think it reasonable to consider that we are not facing a choice to "save lives" (or delay deaths) in the sense of preventing infections from ever occurring, which is more or less impossible now. The only really important consideration now is excess deaths or serious illness complications caused by inadequate medical facilities because at some given day in some specific hospital COVID cases are overwhelmingly large.
Openers thus wonder why more public policy decisions aren't being made based on a rigorous calculation of that number, now and in a reasonably foreseeable future based on best understanding of our hospital capacity, how quickly we could increase that capacity if that became public policy priority one, and the prevalence, percentage symptomatic, and percentage brought to brink of death by the disease. Openers tend to believe a "testing" solution or a "vaccine" solution are both outside the realm of plausibility now and for any foreseeable future.
The Closers, meanwhile, are seen by hostile Openers as driven by some sinister desire for a scenario in which the only "reasonable" endgame for living anything like a free life is either or both enforced vaccination and constant registered surveillance, or who for partisan political reasons want to make 2020 so miserable in America that Trump will lose the election.
However, the Closers have many reasons that make sense to them to keep things closed that don't involve a mad desire to tyrannize the country or harm Trump. Closers see and acknowledge the economic damage we are suffering, but they see most of that damage already inherent in the unchecked spread of a disease that kills or seriously harms people to a greater extent than any we've dealt with in a century. They thus don't see the economic problems as solvable just by "opening up America."
Closers see anyone who, aware that COVID-19 exists and can spread asymptomatically, then does anything that could in any way risk someone else catching it as morally akin to murderers. The Closers are very concerned with the fact that people are dying from this disease, in the tens of thousands—that COVID-19 is indeed after just three months by best available data likely killing nearly double as many Americans as were killed by the flu this flu season. Closers thus consider some Openers' niggling obsessions about marginal accuracy in that fatality count as irrelevant to any policy decision we are now facing. Even if those numbers are not 100 percent accurate, they are large enough to make worrying over their precise size peculiarly beside the point.
Closers also recognize that the death count is not the best or most accurate way to assess the threat COVID-19 presents and thus what sacrifices are reasonable or prudent to try to keep it from spreading faster. The disease is known or suspected to be neurotoxic and hepatoxic, not merely a respiratory illness, and might cause serious and possibly long term damage to the heart, blood, liver, and nervous systems of those who contract, it even if they "recover."
Closers are also sure that we can't know how much damage COVID-19 will eventually cause in our nation just based on the experience of the past 6 weeks, when we have been doing our best to keep people from getting close enough to each other in large enough numbers to truly and quickly unleash COVID-19. Thus to the Closers, any calculations based on "existing data" that are supposed to settle the question of whether we've done enough, or even too much, and can now "open up" are beside the point, in a genuinely dangerous way. If it's not an intolerable nightmare yet, they would say, that's because we are staying shut down.
The damage done by the disease and/or the policy reaction to the disease is baked into our nation, and will almost certainly echo strongly through at least the rest of this decade. Our nation might be slightly better off, though, if more of us did not compound that civic damage through a ferocious and unmanageable cultural and political squabble based on refusing to consider the reasons the other side thinks what they do with anything approaching intellectual charity and empathy.
We could, though might not ever, know the answer to every currently unanswered question about the disease's spread, extent, and damage. We might figure out accurately the long term damage to life and prosperity the economic shutdown is causing. Even if or when we do, though, human beings of goodwill and intelligence might come to a different value judgment about what policy is best overall. Because we all have to make those tricky, very hard-to-discuss-dispassionately decisions (of a sort we have always made every day on the margins without explicit debate) about when we think it best to stop shaping policy toward the sole goal of extending every possible life. The answer either side might come to need not be condemned as based in idiotic recklessness or tyrannical fantasies.
Tags
Who is online
544 visitors
“The damage done by the disease and/or the policy reaction to the disease is baked into our nation, and will almost certainly echo strongly through at least the rest of this decade. Our nation might be slightly better off, though, if more of us did not compound that civic damage through a ferocious and unmanageable cultural and political squabble based on refusing to consider the reasons the other side thinks what they do with anything approaching intellectual charity and empathy.
We could, though might not ever, know the answer to every currently unanswered question about the disease's spread, extent, and damage. We might figure out accurately the long term damage to life and prosperity the economic shutdown is causing. Even if or when we do, though, human beings of goodwill and intelligence might come to a different value judgment about what policy is best overall. Because we all have to make those tricky, very hard-to-discuss-dispassionately decisions (of a sort we have always made every day on the margins without explicit debate) about when we think it best to stop shaping policy toward the sole goal of extending every possible life. The answer either side might come to need not be condemned as based in idiotic recklessness or tyrannical fantasies.”
Neither side is a death cult, neither side is a willful destroyer of the world.
Both sides are leaning against the same fence, yet neither side sees what the other is looking at.
Both sides hate each other because of their “authoritative views”, yet both sides have “authoritative views”. Personally, I reject “authoritative views” from any side. You are no more an authority on my life than I am on yours. Yet, if we were both talking at the bus stop, we could find much in common.
Very well said, Steve. I totally agree.
Thank you Raven Wing.
I think the mistake that was made was not putting a date certain as an end to the shutdown. The states should have said from the beginning, we're locking down for six weeks, or ten weeks, or whatever the figure would be, and stuck to that date. It would have given everyone a sense of certainty that is missing now and making people anxious. Its true that a set date may have turned out to have been too soon, but "guidelines" could have addressed that, and if things on that set date were so catastrophic then most people would have understood delaying the date.
Now we have a certain chaos. Trump gave guidelines which his own supporter governors are evidently ignoring. The national leadership has been poor, but what do you expect given the "leader".
I don't think there was any rational way to give a date.
I don't think there was really any rational way to give a date as to when the shutdown should have started, either. Schools in our county shut down weeks before there was a single confirmed case in the county. Given that our state also has one of the latest dates to end our stay-at-home order, that leaves us closed to some degree for almost 3 months. I don't think anybody really foresaw that.
I think that would/is difficult as we still don't really know anything about this virus. The models change daily. Humans don't react well to uncertainty, that is for sure.
Without knowing with high certainty how quickly the virus would spread in a population, the rate of infected, and the efficacy of prevention measures to reduce viral spread, establishing a set lockdown might be detrimental and undo any progress against infections if the lockdown ends prematurely. The government could give a best guess estimation, but leave the possibility of extending the lockdown if the viral outbreak is not sufficiently contained. The opposite is also true: the lockdown could end sooner if the spread is contained.
The only thing that is certain is that if you're infected, you're going to probably be in a miserable state for a week or 2 and possibly not survive.
See first statement.
See second statement. Things are essentially "catastrophic" now. Infections and deaths continue to rise, even if the rate is slowing at this point. There is no effective vaccine or treatment yet either. Apparently, some people either don't understand that or don't care and do not want to remain inconvenienced.
It's been that way since day one.
Given how poor the initial response was, this is all happening exactly as I thought it would.
One of the biggest problems effecting the non infected people now , which is 99% of the population , is the sense of confusion and uncertainty that is across the land. A date certain to reopen would have alleviated a great deal of that uncertainty. Its too late now though.
Anyone with some common sense would understand there is a pandemic going on and everyone is potentially at risk for contracting a deadly disease. So they should understand measures to prevent the spread is for their health and others health.
If a date was set and couldn't be met, then what? People need to understand things are just not that simple. But someone (a government leader perhaps) should have said from the very beginning, "there is a deadly pandemic happening and certain measure have been enacted to limit the spread of Covid. We can't say for sure how long these measures must be enforced. All we can do is take things day by day and as the situation improves, then we can better determine when these measures can be loosened or lifted. This is done to protect the health and well being of all people, especially those more vulnerable. We understand it's a terrible inconvenience and a big change right now. But it is only temporary until the pandemic in this country improves."
That's actually not what's certain or probable. If you're infected, it's close to 50% that you won't even have symptoms. Of the remaining infected group, most will have mild to moderate symptoms requiring no medical treatment and they can just ride it out at home. A very small percentage of those people will require hospitalization, and an even smaller percentage of them will die.
Out of curiosity, what is the source of that claim? If one is infected, even if they show no symptoms, they can still infect others. Symptoms can take anywhere from 2 days to 2 weeks to manifest.
While many do just that, there is still a risk one can experience complications requiring medical intervention. It's even more of a risk if one has other health issues.
And yet, hospitals are overwhelmed with Covid patients. Not to mention almost 50,000 people in the US have already died. I suppose that is a small percentage given the total U.S. population. But also probably a small comfort to those who have family and friends infected or dead from Covid.
Several sources. A sampling:
'Between 25% and 50%' of people who get the coronavirus may show no symptoms, Fauci says. Here's the latest research on asymptomatic carriers.
As many as 50 Percent of People with COVID-19 Aren’t Aware They Have the Virus
Our New York City labor and delivery unit found 88 percent of infected patients had no symptoms
Yes, but that is a new point and not what I was commenting on.
Of course there is. I never said there was no risk that people would require medical intervention. I specifically said there was. A small one. Not certain or probable that one will be miserable and the chances of death are actually very small.
Mayo Clinic :
Some are. Many aren’t. There is a danger of overstating things with sweeping generalizations about how severe it all is. e.g., you’ll be miserable and possibly die, hospitals are overwhelmed, and so on. It isn’t like that for all people or all places.
Yep. It’s not a good situation. It also may not be as bad as we feared. We should be prepared to make adjustments as facts are revealed and not just entrench ourselves because of fear.
Thanks for that. Quite interesting.
This is a good summary.
Much appreciated.
time is a funny thing....
At minimum, letting some people go back to work will provide a market for the commercial toilet paper industry, taking some of the pressure off of the home market. Just knowing they don't have to camp out at dawn at the local Target for toilet paper would make the whole crisis a lot more bearable for a lot more people.
First of all, the United States has not completely closed. The partial closure has targeted the parts of the economy that depend upon social gathering and more intimate personal interaction.
Even with social distancing measures in place we have seen continuing increase in the number of infections. Social distancing is not stopping the spread of infection. The stated goal of social distancing measures are intended to slow the spread of infection. Social distancing is not a cure and will not stop spread of infection. The purpose of social distancing is to lengthen the duration of the pandemic so that the increasing number of infections is spread over a longer period of time to 'flatten the curve'.
The number of Infections will continue to increase until herd immunity is achieved. That will only be achieved either from infections or from vaccination. Since vaccines and drug treatments are not available, the only way to stop the pandemic with any confidence is through increasing number of infections. While candidate vaccines and drug therapies are being developed and studied; when these remedies will be available to the public is highly uncertain. We have seen the difficulties associated with increasing testing of the population. The same sorts of difficulties will be experienced deploying any remedy should they become available.
The objective is to create barriers between people and the virus to 'flatten the curve'. Avoiding contact with people is one obvious method. But there are palliative measures that reduce risks associated with social gathering. Face masks create a barrier between people and the virus and slows the spread of infection. Increased personal hygiene create a barrier that slows the spread of infection. Sanitizing surfaces create a barrier that slows spread of infection. These palliative measures can be applied on a larger scale in public places. Maintaining public hygiene stations and sanitizing surfaces in public places would create jobs and would contribute to slowing the spread of infection and 'flattening the curve'.
The idea is not to avoid people, the idea is to avoid the virus. And social distancing isn't the only way to avoid the virus. The debate shouldn't be about a stark contrast between open or close. We really can achieve the desired objective without resorting to extreme measures.
Wear a face mask. Wash your hands. Keep surfaces clean. Those activities can be provided as a public service in public places just as well as in the home. We know what works; we just lack the determination to do what works. We all must do our part. And if we refuse to do our part then the only practical public measures must be extreme.