Interesting, but I think misses a major point: Many conservatives are not apathetic, nor do they feel less threat. Rather, they see a different balance of threats.
In particular, shutting down our medical system (ex COVID-19) means that large numbers of people will die of other diseases/conditions. Shutting down the economy means that large numbers of people will die of suicide and other syndromes associated with economic deprivation. This isn't just a guess--it's clear and well-documented.
For some reason, these factors seem to be being currently discounted by the Left. I cannot understand why.
I can somewhat answer why the left is discounting the economic factors. The short answer is there is historic precedence that taking strong action against a pandemic will help that economy recover quicker than places that took little to no action. More deaths and a drawn out pandemic had a worse long term economy than a hard and fast shutdown earlier. http://news.mit.edu/2020/pandemic-health-response-economic-r....
It's possible that a long, hard shutdown will result in a better economic result. Looking to 1918, though, raises a lot of questions. It's a small amount of data points from a time when far less reliable information was available.
Perhaps more importantly, it doesn't help us much in determining the total number of excess deaths from these alternatives. I'm guessing that few were even thinking about that question back then.
The larger point, IMO, is that it's not in evidence to assume that it's a tradeoff between saving lives and the economy. It's possible that prioritizing life saving, even at the expense of a worse economy in the short term, saves lives and spurs a better economic recovery.
How will the economy avoid shutdown when the virus is spreading like wildfire, people are terrified to leave their homes, and hospitals are overwhelmed?
The argument isn't that we can choose between economic shutdown or preventing the spread of the virus. It's that we choose between economic shutdown or the spread of the virus and economic shutdown.
In my mind, the question on a day-to-day basis is: Given what we know right now, how can we best minimize the total number of deaths (or perhaps quality-adjusted life-years if you want to go that way).
I'm quite risk-averse and started as a total "doomer" in this. When it was clear that we were seeing an exponential process with highly unknown effects, I locked down hard, even before any states or organizations were even discussing it. I'm still in that state, because our household is "old" and has health problems.
But, time has passed, and we're getting a lot more information about this. One thing that's starting to look clear is that people under (say) 50 aren't being killed by this in large numbers. The only reason for them to lock down or act in atypical fashion is to prevent them from spreading the virus to the old (or those with significant medical issues).
It's reasonable to ask whether we could not better protect the elderly by far more targeted measures. Yes, that might cost a lot, but locking down the economy seems to be both costing a lot more and likely less effective in reducing the death count.
Beyond that, it's entirely possible that if we could get most people under 50 to catch the virus (while keeping the elderly safe from it), society would achieve herd immunity and then the elderly would be far more protected than they are under current actions.
Simply shutting down the economy is a holding action. Clearly "flattening the curve" for fear of hitting the ceiling on hospital beds, etc., was worth doing. But now we know a lot more, and have a far wider range of reasonable options. Just being shut down does nothing in itself but delay the inevitable deaths.
A vaccine? Maybe, but it's a real long-shot. We've never had a coronavirus vaccine before, even though there's been a lot of work on it, and it's quite possible that we won't for decades.
We are learning more about treatment options, and that's good. But the clock is ticking and people are already dying from the shutdown itself. It's morally unacceptable to say that those people don't count. Every death matters.
In my county people are told it is okay to go to ER. Hospitals publish data showing they don't have in hospital transmission. But ER visits are down and people delay their visits sometimes with tragic outcome. People are making their own risk assessment, sometimes incorrectly. A simmering drawnout oubreak makes that assessment much harder. If a tougher shutdown had been in place we would have a lot fewer cases by now and risk assessment gets easier for everyone.
I appreciate you articulating this point so well. This is a very complex situation and people on all ends of the spectrum are being asked to compromise on their values for the sake of public good. Some people are more willing to compromise than others, and that's OK, but it's _hard_.
I really think there are no great choices, only less-bad ones, and even those less-bad ones are a matter of perspective and priorities.
Agree. And in particular, I think that a lot of death and suffering is already baked into the cake, in the sense that there is simply nothing we can do.
That said, we should try to do what we can to lessen the damage. We should all be "all ears" for the best thinking towards this end.
> Shutting down the economy means that large numbers of people will die of suicide and other syndromes associated with economic deprivation.
I think that these arguments sounds empty, because to qualify them we would need to compare them to deaths from pandemic. That is not being done all that much and when being done, the numbers for pandemic unrealistically low.
I would also expect people whose care is well being of poor to promote social distancing measure that does not harm economy - masks, closed beaches, limit amount of people in store simultaneously, mandate hands disinfection upon entering store or other public area.
I would also expect them to support stay-at-home-if-sick policies for workers to protect others. Support people who are old or otherwise at risk and decide they dont want to come to work and replacing them by younger people willing to risk in exchange for more money.
I would expect promoting voting by mail too to avoid crowds to voting stations.
I dont see any of that, I see claims that threat is exaggerated.
How many people will go undiagnosed with heart disease or cancer because hospitals are only seeing emergencies/COVID? Shutting things down has a real and measurable cost and it is going to be massive in terms of lives lost. We didn't all go to work every day for the hell of it.
How many people already went undiagnosed because they couldn't afford their copays or insurance because of the healthcare system in the US? Now all of a sudden we're reopening the economy for "compassion?"
For example, people who should get screened will be able to get screened and treated, and presumably lives will be saved. The UK paper I mentioned thought it would be a lot of people. (no link, but it surfaced recently, so you can probably find it)
That was a concern early on. Now we have a sub-optimal excess of empty hospital beds, medical staff are being furloughed, and patients that should be seen are not. Clearly we'll need to adapt, higher or lower, watching things in real time. (in USA)
Some lazy Googling told me that mostly non medical hospital and healthcare workers are being laid off. And dentists and other medical practices are shedding medical staff. Dentists have been forced to close in California, except for emergency procedures. But doctor offices and practices are allowed to stay open, and people are free to go in for checkups and visits. Heck my local vet's office is open and I took my pet in for a non-emergency (i.e. concerning but not immediately life-threatening) checkup. People have been avoiding the doc's office for non-urgent stuff out of caution and fear, not because it's forbidden.
I can't add much. My wife does significant but non-urgent care and is not working. My dentist is not doing cleanings and checkups. I do have a couple of friends with broken bones that got them set. Personally, I wouldn't be caught dead in an ER unless there were simply no alternative.
> People have been avoiding the doc's office for non-urgent stuff out of caution and fear, not because it's forbidden.
I'm sure it's both. Either way, it matters. Hypothetically, if we can hit herd immunity fast, that fear would probably diminish quickly. I don't know if that's a good plan or not, but certainly it needs to be considered.
> Shutting down the economy means that large numbers of people will die of suicide and other syndromes associated with economic deprivation. This isn't just a guess--it's clear and well-documented.
Is there data for this? I remember seeing a study that although suicides and drug overdoses went up in 2008-2009, overall mortality went down.
The real world is not as simple as "economy vs lives saved". Most of the businesses that are having problems because of COVID will not recover when the government "opens up". The government can say whatever it wants - people know the virus is out there, and many of those people will not go back to consuming like they did before the pandemic. Most people are not going to go back to dining out at restaurants, going to bars or taking flights all over the place just because the government says that the lockdown is over.
The only way people will go back to consuming like they did before is if the cause of the lockdown is gone. Releasing the lockdown will make the coronavirus spread more, and in turn could very well make the economic effects worse as people get more scared and consume less and travel less for a much longer period of time, as the virus continues to roam free.
It's a possibility. I agree that we need a lot of people to "science the crap" out of this one. It does need to be done, though--we can't just assume than a COVID-19 death saved is a net life saved.
I'm not the most informed person out there, but I haven't seen many conservatives arguing along the specific lines you've laid out here. The conservative perspectives I've personally experienced seem to coalesce around a couple basic positions, namely that:
a) The government is violating basic rights in its reaction to Covid-19, and/or
b) Covid-19 is not a significant threat (and may even be a conspiracy); therefore any government reaction is excessive and unwarranted.
I emphatically agree with you that deaths of despair and lack of access to healthcare are both huge problems in the US. Of course, this was clearly true long before Covid-19 existed, though, so I'm going to be a bit skeptical if I encounter conservatives suddenly championing these issues. [0]
0 - Being that, of course, American conservatives typically oppose policies meant to expand access to healthcare or provide relief to those on the economic margins of our society.
Probably most here would label me a "conservative" (or at least, a "Conservative"), but I generally don't think about things that way. Labels are mostly useful as a pretext for ignoring someone's arguments.
As for skepticism, okay, but reaching across the aisle for common ends is how political change actually happens in the real world. Preaching to the choir is worthless, except for getting re-elected.
Regarding my skepticism - In the post-Gingrich era, it seems imprudent to assume that unsubstantiated political claims are being made in good faith. While I'd personally be delighted if American conservatives were to suddenly support expanding access to healthcare and implementing policies that target so-called "deaths of despair," I'll believe it when I see it at the polls. I hope that this crisis does lead to positive political change, but, for conservatives to reach across the aisle and work on expanding access to healthcare, they would first have to stop trying to reduce access to healthcare.
Until we get past Covid-19, I don't think it's unreasonable to treat conservative concerns regarding access to healthcare and/or economic precarity with a bit of skepticism.
This is exactly the perspective that most on the American right in my circles are coming from. The libertarians and economic populists are far more concerned about the long-term implications of endorsing mandatory lockdowns, and contact tracing programs, as well as the effects of effectively shutting down nearly every non-restaraunt business too small to sell non-essential items.
The few conservatives I know who legitimately consider reopening to be first/foremost about minimizing deaths are the kinds of conservatives who live affluent lives working desk jobs they inherited through nepotism, who only endorse the ideas of individual liberty and rights because they think it'll keep their taxes lower, and who endorsed lockdowns until they started to affect their pocketbooks.
> The few conservatives I know who legitimately consider reopening to be first/foremost about minimizing deaths are the kinds of conservatives who live affluent lives working desk jobs they inherited through nepotism
Wow, I must have missed that queue.
As for taxes, they're screwed, for decades. I don't think it really matters which path we take--our tax load to pay for it all will be epic.
There is another balance of threats here as well. Government overreach vs the benefit the government provides. Conservatives are concerned about government overreach. When the governor tells you you can't leave your home that's a massive step in the direction of authoritarianism, while it was initially justified. History shows those in power rarely excise it judicially, especially in times of crisis. The balance of power is tenous and exists because we push back against the government's authority and question its decision making.
The range of government actions taken internationally in response to covid includes, "please stay home" and welding apartment doors shut. I'm not worried about the government welding my door shut, not because I trust my government, but because I know our citizens won't let them. While I appreciate the early lockdowns buying us time in California each park and beach that close scares me more and more, there is no line for those in power they will infringe as much as we let them. I'd rather push back on infringement of liberties too soon rather than too late.
While we don't have to worry about getting our doors welded shut. They government has already shown it can't be trusted to care for us.
The quick money that was promised to go to the people spent a long time working it's way through a corrupt beurocracy as our politicalians all tacked on their agendas and most of it was redirected to line the same pockets the government has for years. People not having money to pay the bills or buy food would be irrational to listen to the government telling them to stay home for their safety.
> The government has already shown it can't be trusted to care for us.
Insofar as socialist medicine is concerned, the US VA is quite good. I do not have the same confidence across the general population. I do believe there is evidence that the incompetence at the executive level has too much sway over something like a national medical plan for citizens and I would not be trusting by default.
Have you ever actually been treated at a VA? I have. I'm a disabled vet. Let me be clear: few people would chose care at a VA if private care were an option.
I've heard many bad things about the VA. It's also true that a vet friend of mine who works in many old folks' homes has told me that the nearby VA one is the best and the one she'd like to be placed in, when the time comes.
I do think we owe it to our vets to have care at least as good as what non-vets get, at a minimum.
I'm a member of the left and how they've acted during this has turned me off.
It's showed me that the left follows their mainstream media narratives just as much as the right follows their mainstream media narratives.
No checking of data, no looking at alternatives, no risk of group rejection to say 'hey maybe this is overblown or incorrect or other alternatives exist'
It's intellectual laziness to just go with a narrative without questioning it to see if it stands up to scrutiny... and the mainstream media just profits off of the sensationalism so it's not in the business of providing rational level headed analysis.
> Many conservatives are not apathetic, nor do they feel less threat.
But IIUC, the study is predicated on research asking about how much of a threat these people feel in the first place. That there are other, significant threats doesn't mean checking the box that says "I don't think COVID-19 is very serious" - or if it does, that's itself interesting.
That said, your post is still important because it's good to remember that even while there are trends, none of these groups of people are homogeneous.
First, please support this statement with some forecasts or well established documentation that would quantify the problem:
> In particular, shutting down our medical system (ex COVID-19) means that large numbers of people will die of other diseases/conditions. Shutting down the economy means that large numbers of people will die of suicide and other syndromes associated with economic deprivation. This isn't just a guess--it's clear and well-documented.
Second, and I see this often in "conservative" postings - this ignores the fact that "the other team gets to bat too". In other words, the virus gets a vote.
There is no evidence that the economy will recover without containing the virus. The economy had already cratered - OpenTable had documented a 74% drop in reservations before the first closure order occured - without public confidence that they won't be acquiring and spreading the disease.
The way to contain the virus is to 1) lock down to reduce the epidemic to a size that is manageable by other means than shutdown, and 2) put in place the necessary staff, technology, and infrastructure to contain it by less onerous means.
"2" means: widespread, no-charge testing with results in hours, not days; very rapid contact tracing, which means large staff doing so; and quarantine of contacts outside the home when appropriate, so that inter-dwelling infection does not occur. This is working in several countries. The US, being somehow exceptional, seems to believe it can't work here.
The problem with the conservative-led "let 'er rip, they're going to die anyway" approach is that it doesn't get the economy back. It just inflames the epidemic, which continues to crater the economy for the next several years.
I don't understand why conservatives can't see these things. I suspect it is some form of motivated reasoning that makes them reject reality in this form.
Don't have time to find the links, but one study indicated that Japan had an excess of 10,000 or more (??) excess suicides per year as a result of its economic downturn in the 90s (?).
And a recent paper in the UK asserted that there have already been 20,000 (??) excess deaths due to people who need cancer screening and treatment not going (or not being able to go) to medical facilities.
Perhaps most tragically, people with stroke symptoms are far less likely to go to the ER in the first critical hours to possibly receive (clot-busting?) medical treatment. Wait a day or two, and it's too late.
My memory on those numbers might be wrong, but if anything, I think they're too low. But these are just for a few cases in a few places. Extrapolate that out to the whole situation, are we're talking about a huge amount of death and suffering caused by the lockdowns.
It's true that many people (like me) are going to stay locked down for months if not years no matter what the government says. That seems like more of an argument for letting up (like Sweden) than locking down harder.
Most importantly is to understand that there is no endgame other than herd immunity. That might be achieved by a vaccine, but many scientists doubt that this will be had soon, if ever. No one is seriously talking about wide-spread vaccination in less than 12-18 months, and even that seems wildly unrealistic. More realistically, we might simply have to "choose" which 70% (or whatever) of the population gets the virus and when. We should choose the young and healthy, and "when" should be pretty soon, if we want to save lives.
In any case, this needs to be studied hard and quickly by lots of boring, disinterested people. We can't just stop with "everyone who wants to loosen the lockdown is a money-grubbing bastard". People are dying.
> And a recent paper in the UK asserted that there have already been 20,000 (??) excess deaths due to people who need cancer screening and treatment not going (or not being able to go) to medical facilities.
Won't letting the virus spread make it even harder for others to access treatment?
Doing this right will certainly take some thought. As long as it's spreading among the "young" (under 60 or so), those people will miss a week of work or two and that will be it.
It's protecting the "old" that's going to matter here. Many of them are old enough that screening doesn't matter much anymore. In any case, if we let up on the lockdowns, that would free up a lot of money to pour onto careful protection of the old, which arguably would cut ultimate deaths more than the status quo.
In particular, shutting down our medical system (ex COVID-19) means that large numbers of people will die of other diseases/conditions. Shutting down the economy means that large numbers of people will die of suicide and other syndromes associated with economic deprivation. This isn't just a guess--it's clear and well-documented.
For some reason, these factors seem to be being currently discounted by the Left. I cannot understand why.