People are arguing right and left about when, how, and why to reopen the economy and advise people to go back to work and to living their public and social lives. You can read this opinion, Coronavirus Lessons by William Bennett and Seth Leibsohn. Or you can read this response in National Review, The Absurd Case Against the Coronavirus Lockdown by Rich Lowry.
I am arguing for neither immediate opening up of our social and economic lives nor for continued near-complete lockdown, but it seems to me that the arguments people are using for either action are extremely flawed. First of all, if I understand the actions we have taken as a society so far, we have prevented some unknowable number of deaths by staying home and not overwhelming unprepared hospitals with massive numbers of covid patients all at the same time. We have “flattened the curve” to some extent and prevented the escalation of new cases that would overwhelm the health care system and cause people to die without treatment of not only covid but also other diseases and injuries that are a normal part of life and might get “crowded out” in a crisis situation. There is really no way to know how many lives have been saved by the lockdown and other measures to date.
However, as far as deaths due to Covid-19, we have only postponed many of those deaths. We have not saved the lives of those who will continue to be infected and have very bad outcomes. If you “flatten the curve” you don’t change the overall numbers. You just stretch those numbers out over time, right? (Unless a vaccine or more effective treatments come along, pronto.) So we have saved lives by allowing hospitals to be supplied and to be less crowded, but many of those who haven’t been infected with covid will still become infected in the future when the lockdown is ended, and some of those will still die. And we still don’t have a good handle on what that death rate will be, how many deaths per number of people infected. There is some evidence that the death rate itself is very low because the number of people actually infected is much higher than we have been able to test and confirm, maybe as much as 50 or even 100 times as many people infected and recovered as have been tested and confirmed to have the virus.
We can’t wait forever to allow people to go back to work (and worship and even play), so when will the risk of complete societal and economic collapse outweigh the risk of massive infection and death from covid? I don’t know, and neither do you. I think all of the governors and mayors and even the president and vice-president are trying to figure that out the best they know how. And we need to to decide as individuals and as a society how much risk we can tolerate and how long we can survive in shutdown mode. Different states and different individuals will come to different decisions concerning this issue. Some will consider others’ decisions to be imprudent, foolish, or even cowardly.
We need to give each other grace. Trust yourself, your neighbors, and even your governing authorities to make the best decisions they can. Pray and make the best decisions you can for yourself and your own family. And quit sniping at each other for disagreeing. Yes, these are important issues, even matters of life and death. But it won’t help to make them into issues of partisan hatred and name-calling.
Thank you Sherry for this level-headed perspective.
I am enjoying your perspective.
Here in the UK, there is some discussion that the vulnerable and elderly may have to be shielded until a vaccine becomes available. There seems to be, generally, less pressure to go back to normal as soon as possible as there is in the US although obviously, the economic consequences will be pretty major.
You are such a voice of reason, Sherry. I really appreciate your perspective. The partisan sniping is harmful in many areas right now. Sigh…
I agree, Sherry, that no one really knows what the best approach is going to turn out to be. My fear is that when things begin to open up, way too many people are going to stop taking the necessary precautions to protect themselves and others. They are just going to assume that it’s safe enough to return to their old “worlds.”
As one of the elders out here, I’m concerned that I am going to have to stay put even when things start opening back up. Already, in just six weeks, some major milestones in my family have largely gone unmarked because of our isolation. My wife and I celebrated our 50th wedding anniversary alone and very quietly; my only granddaughter turns 21 in a few days with no family gathering to celebrate; my father turns 98 in 6 days, again with no celebration; and Saturday should have been the big ‘ring ceremony” for my granddaughter at Texas A&M (I was supposed to present her with the ring).
Now, to top it all off. My father fell yesterday and broke his right hip, and we are hoping that surgery is approved by his cardiologist today. But no family members or other visitors are allowed inside the hospital, so he’s on his own at the most critical time in his life. Needless to say, we are frantic on this end, but can do almost nothing to help him through this. I also learned last night that his 92-year-old sister has tested positive but seems to be doing a little better.
How our lives have changed in just six weeks! It is amazing.
How awful, Sam! I hope that the situation improves for you and your family soon. I think that keeping the elderly ‘sheltered’ is really age-discrimination, and even that would have a huge effect on the economy because it is the over-50s who mostly want to travel, see shows and shop and can afford to do these things. (At least, they could before). No one would dream of suggesting that people of working age be ‘sheltered’, but not other people in society, if a virus hit them hard. I am inclined to think that the ‘cure’ is worse than the disease, because of high unemployment, suicides, depression, and countless other problems. People lived with the risk of TB, polio, whooping cough, etc. once. As other diseases arise, we may have to do that again.
Lisa raises a good point about the other health issues that are likely worsened. Even the “elderly,” of which I am supposedly now a member, are getting less exercise and probably eating more, and having their routine health care postponed, so a lot of them will probably die younger than they would have. I hadn’t thought about us older people being discriminated against, but I have felt as though I’m considered guilty until proven innocent. I did get tested for antibodies but didn’t have them, so I’m still guilty!
At the same time, if you read the statistics, it looks like the death rate is *not* worse than the flu, even taking into account the quarantine. Politicians are probably using the situation with the help of the media the for political reasons, and not necessarily for the welfare of the nation, but that has been the reality of life throughout the ages. I don’t advocate for anger or uprisings; patience is still what we are called to, whatever the source of the tribulations.