It's now looking like the lockdowns may have been a huge mistake
By: Michael Barone (New York Post)
First of all it's necessary to understand that the country never locked down. Essential workers didn't have the option of hiding in their basements. The lights had to stay on, the internet kept running, trash collected, packages delivered, and store shelves stocked. Those producing necessities still had to go to work. The lockdowns only applied to a select few whose importance seems to be acting as consumers rather than doing anything essential.
Hundreds (if not thousands) of consumers are required to keep one restaurant in business. The 'experience' economy (restaurants, bars, tourism, entertainment, recreation, etc.) depends upon convincing consumers they need to spend a lot of money to experience life to the fullest. Happy memories are bought in today's economy. The lockdowns have deprived people of experiencing life to the fullest as they have been convinced to do.
Lockdowns create the impression that people are being cheated; people are not being allowed to experience life to the fullest. As we've seen, a large portion of our economy exists for that purpose. After having been indoctrinated with the need to buy experiences to have happy memories, the lockdowns would naturally fail. People have been forced to experience reality rather than an illusion of reality. And that hasn't provided happy memories.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Were lockdowns a mistake? To that nagging question, the answer increasingly seems to be yes.
Certainly, they were a novelty. As novelist Lionel Shriver writes, "We've never before responded to a contagion by closing down whole countries." As I've noted, the 1957-58 Asian flu killed between 70,000 and 116,000 Americans, between 0.04 percent and 0.07 percent of the nation's population. The 1968-70 Hong Kong flu killed about 100,000, 0.05 percent of the population.
The US coronavirus death toll of 186,000 is 0.055 percent of the current population. It will go higher, but it's about the same magnitude as those two flus, and it has been less deadly to those under 65 than the flus were. Yet there were no statewide lockdowns; no massive school closings; no closings of office buildings and factories, restaurants and museums. No one considered shutting down Woodstock.
Why are attitudes so different today? Perhaps we have greater confidence in government's effectiveness. If public policy can affect climate change, it can stamp out a virus.
Plus, we're much more risk-averse. Children aren't allowed to walk to school; jungle gyms have vanished from playgrounds; college students are shielded from microaggressions. We have a "safetyism mindset," as Jonathan Haidt and Greg Lukianoff write in "The Coddling of the American Mind," under which "many aspects of students' lives needed to be carefully regulated by adults."
So the news of the COVID-19 virus killing dozens and overloading hospitals in Bergamo, Italy, triggered a flight to safety and restriction. Many Americans stopped going to restaurants and shops even before the lockdowns were ordered in March and April. The exaggerated projections of some epidemiologists, with a professional interest in forecasting pandemics, triggered demands that governments act.
The legitimate fears that hospitals would be overwhelmed apparently explain the (in retrospect, deadly) orders of the governors of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Michigan requiring elderly care facilities to admit COVID-infected patients. And the original purpose to "flatten the curve" segued into "stamp out the virus."
But the apparent success of South Korea and island nations — Taiwan, Singapore, New Zealand — in doing so could never be replicated in the continental, globalized United States.
Governors imposing continued lockdowns claimed to be "following the science." But only in one dimension: reducing the immediate number of COVID-19 cases. The lockdowns also prevented cancer screenings, heart-attack treatment and substance-abuse counseling, the absence of which resulted in a large but hard-to-estimate number of deaths. What Haidt and Lukianoff call "vindictive protectiveness" turned out to be not very protective.
Examples include shaming beachgoers though outdoor virus spread is minimal; extending school shutdowns though few children get or transmit the infection; closing down gardening aisles in superstores; and barring church services while blessing inevitably noisy and crowded demonstrations for politically favored causes.
The new thinking on lockdowns, as Greg Ip reported in the Wall Street Journal last week, is that "they're overly blunt and costly." That supports President Trump's mid-April statement that "A prolonged lockdown combined with a forced economic depression would inflict an immense and wide-ranging toll on public health."
For many, that economic damage has been of Great Depression proportions. Restaurants and small businesses have been closed forever, even before the last three months of "mostly peaceful" urban rioting. Losses have been concentrated on those with low income and little wealth, while lockdowns have added tens of billions to the net worth of Amazon's Jeff Bezos and Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg.
The anti-lockdown blogger (and former New York Times reporter) Alex Berenson makes a powerful case that lockdowns delayed, rather than prevented, infections.
There are old lessons here. Governments can sometimes channel but never entirely control nature. There is no way to entirely eliminate risk. Attempts to reduce one risk may increase others. Amid uncertainty, people make mistakes. Like, maybe, the lockdowns.
Tags
Who is online
88 visitors
Carpe diem. Be happy. Go for the gusto. You only live once.
What we should have done is from the beginning looked at the virus as a challenge to our patriotism and spirit of national community. Everyone should have been ordered to wear masks from the very beginning and factories should have been commandeered to make sure enough masks were available asap.
All non essential businesses should have closed almost everywhere in the US from the beginning. Yes, there is financial loss. That loss should have been absorbed by the federal government, which has the ability to sustain endless debt (States and localities do not have that ability). If we had acted immediately the duration could have been cut very short, as it was elsewhere.
I remember fairly close to the beginning when people here on Newstalkers complained because in the state they lived they werent allowed to go to the home improvement store. Seriously? Amazon and UPS were still delivering every day. But people want FREEDOM. No matter what harm it brings to the larger community.
We will have outbreaks continuously now until the vaccine works. This is Trump's final gift to America.
It was a huge mistake. Understandable but still a mistake for most of the country. The sad thing is that blue city mayors and blue state governors are perpetually expanding the mistake and doubling down on it in a vain attempt to harm the national economy for the election.
That's because US citizens and legal immigrants live in a constitutional republic - not Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, Communist China,or the former USSR.
Just like we have flu outbreaks each year, because even the flu vaccines "work" only approximately 40% of the time. Did you think that a COVID-19 vaccine is going to be a permanent viral cure?
Yes, a COVID-19 vaccine will be Trump's and his medical advisors' gift to America.
What does that have to do with responding to a national health emergency?
Please refer to two very important sentences in your comment 2 that express a desire for socialism and communism ...
'Community' is a code word for socialism and communism? What if JR had used the word 'society' instead of 'the larger community'? What sinister meaning would that impart?
They are more worried about phantom communism than they are about having their fellow countrymen live.
All well and good, but be honest. If the administration had ordered everybody to wear masks how many states would have filed lawsuits against President Trump for exceeding his authority? Not to mention that there were not enough masks available in the country at that time. Masks and PPE supply chains have been tuned to run on just-in-time logistics which supply based on normal need. The factories to make the equipment were all over in other countries as it was cheaper to manufacture oversea, and there were not empty factories all tooled up and just waiting for the need. Also included in that supply chain is the raw material to make masks and PPE, so that must also be increased in order to increase the manufacture of masks. That is one of the reasons used by Dr Fauci as to why he said not everybody needs to wear masks. They just didn't exist yet. And you can pass all the laws you want to demand faster manufacturing but it takes time to retool factories and to realign the supply chains to bring in the raw material.
Again, did you want the administration to order all non essential business to close? Isn't that action unconstitutional for the President to attempt? If it was that important then why didn't the House try to pass a bill ordering businesses to close so that there would be a law? I don't remember hearing anybody in Congress talk about any bills to lock down businesses or schools or anything.
As for the economic loss being absorbed by the federal government, I seem to remember seeing posts from you where you were blaming Trump for the large deficit. Yet you seem to be ok here in increasing the deficit to cover the loss by states and individuals in order to further increase a national lock down. So if you are in favor of increasing the deficit how can you still blame Trump for the deficit?
This is one instance where we're in complete agreement.
What we should have done was to avoid going ape shit. Panic isn't conducive for constructive action. But the press and a variety of expert opinionators have been advocating the ape shit approach.
Everyone is supposed to know how to avoid spreading infectious diseases and protect themselves. At one time, that was an important part of health education for elementary grades. People shouldn't need to be told to cover coughs and sneezes, wash their hands, or clean surfaces. Since that basic education has been missing then it doesn't matter if God almighty showed up on TV and told people what to do. Proper education would have made these basic steps second nature.
Since the population is responsible for spreading the virus then the proper government response would have been to distribute face coverings, soaps, and disinfectants. A government mandate doesn't provide the population what is needed. A mandate is only CYA for politicians and an invitation for profiteers. Mandates are an ape shit approach that are specifically intended to shift blame onto the public..
Yes, essential workers weren't given the option to avoid going out in public. Those essential workers were still travelling around and spreading the virus. Even the areas that imposed strict lockdown mandates didn't actually shut down.
Yes, we will continue to have outbreaks. But that's because we can't shut down everything. We can't force everyone to stay home and then hope that the lights stay on, the cell phone network continues to work, the internet stays up and running, and everyone has enough supplies to sustain themselves.
What has been amazing is how essential workers have been completely ignored. It's like everyone thinks the country runs on magic.
While the desire for mindless magic thinkers to blame Trump is understandable, the virus is China's gift to the world. But these mindless magic thinkers are the people who go ape shit because they haven't received basic health education as children.
It is what Joseph Heller would call "a catch-22."
We started with no supplied to fight the pandemic and Dr Fauci telling us we had nothing to worry about!
Then Dr Fauci told us we didn't need masks:
Then after being prodded by Chuck Todd Dr Fauci said this:
"Would you prefer a 14-day national shutdown?" Todd asked.
"I would prefer as much as we possibly could. I think we should be overly aggressive and get criticized for overreacting," Fauci explained. "...I think Americans should be more prepared that they're going to have to hunker down significantly more than we, as a country, are doing."
In hindsight we should have simply had eveyone wear a mask, social distance and frequently wash hands. Then again, in the beginning we had no masks and no recognition of how serious the disease was from Dr Fauci. Hindsight now means very little.
As you can see, the far left LOVES the coronavirus China gave us, despite lives lost/destroyed. All they care about is - we finally got him now!
This has been repeatedly expressed by far left governors and city mayors in CA, MI, NY, NJ, etc.
They don't even try to hide it anymore.
In February Trump told Bob Woodward that the virus was 5 times more deadly than the worst flu. Please tell me what kind of leadership Trump showed at that time. As I recall, I think he told the public that it would "go away every quickly".
Are you getting residuals from this book you keep talking about?
What kind of leadership was being shown.. gee, I don't know. Maybe, just maybe he was trying to hold off a financial collapse that could have brought about a depression and hurt even more people. Is that a possibility? Would things have been better if he had talked about 200,000 dead and caused a panic? Hell, the little mini-panic's we had on store shelves was bad enough. How bad could it have been if there was general panic in the streets and banks were flooded with people withdrawing whatever money they could?
No, it was not a huge mistake, it's what needed to happen....I'm still working remotely from home. My place of employment takes this very serious and does not want anyone in jeopardy.
Oh how nice, and what do you say to those who can't work from home and lost their jobs?
Look for another job, aren't republicans always crowing about all the jobs orange conman created
Yeah.........let's trade in a six figure job for a job as an order picker at Amazon........../s
I'll tell them of your concern.
It's a job isn't it
In April, tone-deaf arrogant Andrew Cuomo snarkily told unemployed people in NY to get "an essential job" instead of whining about losing their well-paying jobs.
There is no doubt the lockdown was a mistake here. We now have far less new cases with most businesses open in this community than we did during the lockdown.
Do you consider the possibility that during the past 6 months the American people are now more aware of the dangers and are being more careful? That supplies such as masks are now easily acquired? That stores have instituted effective policies for enforcing social distancing and the use of masks?
Many businesses are operating in a remote mode; employees continue to safely work from home where practical. Far fewer deals are being done through physical travel and pressing the flesh but instead through technologies such as Zoom. Consumers are voluntarily steering clear of areas such as gyms (attendance is very low) and continue to minimize their social interactions. Restaurants are operating mostly on take-out but when seating is available, masks and social distancing are in effect. Travel by jet is extremely low. Hotel occupancy is down. And high-contact areas such as concerts, sporting events, etc. remain shut down and, in so doing, flat out prevent infection by attendees (since there are none). Bars and similar venues are limited in capacity and enforce social distancing and at least employee masks to mitigate infection.
The point is that there are plenty of precautions in place now that were not in place when the virus first hit our nation. And the American people are certainly far more aware of this pandemic now. The lock-down is a blunt force instrument. It is a tourniquet to curtail the bleeding to buy time.
Let's get a vaccine and create a natural barrier to the spread of infection (herd immunity). Then we have something that allows us all to get back to a new normal. Life will likely not be as socially carefree as it was pre-COVID-19, but we will be able to then return a life of safely (relatively speaking of course) mingling sans masks.
The whole point of the lock down was to contain or limit the spread of Covid. Especially since people didn't know how to properly deal with it of have adequate precautions. The mistake was in the timing of lifting the lock down in the states.
I suppose that it depends on the family. We've been very lucky; I know we've been blessed. I have a job I can perform completely from home and it makes damn good money. My husband was out of work for 3 years and we managed on just my income, but then he got a job and about a year later, COVID lock downs happened and he didn't have a job again for a few months. He is back to it, but right now, it's not continuous, but again, we've lived on just my income for 3 years before. It's tight but doable.
In regards to "buying experiences" to live life to the fullest, we've never really had enough money to do those things; therefore, this is nothing new for us. We play board games as a family all the time. We have a pool table and a dart board and ping pong and movies and a projector. All of these things don't cost anything to do once acquired. We didn't pay full price (if anything at all) for all of the aforementioned stuff. Pool table was $200 about 10 years ago, dart board free, ping pong top for the pool table $40 online, projector was a birthday present for one of my kids a few years back and it was about $110 and the movies have been collected over decades. Board games, most were free or really inexpensive from flea markets, garage sales, and estate sales. A few that were new, were Christmas and birthday gifts. We go for bike rides and walks and go to the park... all free to do. This is what we've been used to for as long as I can remember. I suppose when you grow up not being able to go and blow a bunch of money on buying experiences, you don't really miss it when it's taken away. I guess that's one bonus to being broke most of my life... that and when you have shitty credit, but already have everything you need, there's no worries to someone stealing your identity (they can't do anything with it).
What i think we all saw with this virus is that it was recognized that there was NO one size fits all , so the lead in what to do was given to the individual states and their health depts , and they all handled the situation as it was relevent to their own perspective states with the best available information . and mistakes were made .
What would be required to be done for a larger urban setting , would be considered , even scientifically , overkill in east west camel toe flyover states
Some states had areas that did not even reach outbreak status let alone endemic status with this virus , and though precautions would be prudent , they sometimes were not warranted because of actual conditions those people were experiencing.
it sounds like some would have rathered everyone suffered the same across the board to share the misery , when in fact that would have done absolutely nothing .
That's an excellent point. The upper peninsula of Michigan didn't require shut downs, but they did have to stress to those in the lower peninsula NOT to travel up north where there were very few cases. So, it's not even necessarily just by state; it's by region as well. Gov. Whitmer specified more strict requirements in certain, more populated counties and I think that was probably the best method given the circumstances. Wayne and Oakland Counties were hit hardest, but they are the most populated. There are a few other densely populated counties, but you get the idea.
I agree that it wouldn't have been a good call to shut down the entire country. I do believe that it was the best call to leave it to the state and localized levels.
And therein lies the rub with a lot of people it seems. Some seem to think that Uncle Sugar is supposed to hold their hands because they had no idea of what the hell to do. Mr. Trump If they could not prep and make their own decisions on how to handle something of the potential magnitude of this virus, what in the world were they doing? Much like mandating Obamacare using the Romney model. What is good for one state is not necessarily good for a whole country. And some want to use South Dakota as an example. Problem is, they are probably one of the lesser affected by what some would call, deplorable way to handle it..