April 20, 2020
The Long Haul
Day 32
Science or economics?
Physicians or politicians?
Hearts and minds or pocketbook-pragmatism?
The Covid-19 pandemic has produced a lot of questions; the wrong answers will kill us.
Who do Americans trust the most? Or the least? What is the right way and right time to release us from our homes? Who will safely lead the country, all of us, back to prosperity? When will it all end?
The discussion is raging and one thing is clear: for-the-moment science is losing the debate and that means older, vulnerable Americans are losing. And it means more older, vulnerable Americans will die.
Our first problem is that our policy is being driven by a leader who has says one thing and does another. His motto:
“Do not do as I say; do as I tweet!
The President told us to wear masks yet he does not wear one. Even his wife wears a mask in public, but then she is European by birth.
The President issued clear guidelines that warn Americans to stay home until a combination of good science and economics say it is time to venture out.
Within hours he tweeted: “LIBERATE VIRGINIA” and “LIBERATE MINNESOTA” in support of protesters massing, shoulder-to-shoulder outside state capitols demanding that stay-at-home orders be rescinded immediately, science and the health of older Americans be damned!
Even a cursory examination of the photos and videos from the LIBERATE rallies reveals there were not many, if any seniors, in the crowd. They were all at home watching their offspring on CNN demand policy be changed so more seniors can die before their time.
LIBERATE defenders argue deadly tradeoffs must be considered because the economic shutdown is also a killer; Americans will die because they can not go to work. Economists have produced damning statistics to buttress this argument. The unvetted studies demonstrate an increase in the unemployment rate will dramatically drive up deaths from opioid overdose, alcoholism, depression and violent crime.
There is at least anecdotal evidence that the shutdown has saved lives. Deaths from heart attacks, automobile accidents and serious crime have declined during the shutdown!
Even if you accept the economic-doomsday data as valid and the danger as real, the debate posited earlier remains the same, the questions are unchanged. Should we listen to the scientists and the doctors or the economists and the politicians?
There is real evidence elsewhere in the world that caving to economic pressure and relaxing restrictions based on a decline in the number of people infected and falling death rates will produce a second spike of new cases and eventually even more deaths. Singapore was thought to have kicked the virus in the teeth weeks ago and in late March the World Health Organization advised other Southeast Asian nations to follow that example.
Emboldened by its early success Singapore began to plan to kick-start its economy again and Covid-19 said:
“Not so fast.”
Today 1,429 new cases were reported in Singapore, a whopping 21.6 percent increase since just yesterday. There were no deaths reported today because the virus's spread had been slowed and deaths typically follow more than 14 days after a case is initially detected. Expect more deaths there in two weeks. Singapore found a spike in cases in clustered populations — mostly guest worker housing — but there was also evidence of community spread.
We have long been a nation divided. Red states and blue states. Conservatives and liberals. Big government is the source of all evil. Big government is all that protects us from anarchy.
And so it is not surprising that the arguments have jumped to the center of the Covid-19 debate.
Liberals use terms like “vulnerable populations” to describe those needing extra help from government. Conservatives call many of those same people “deadbeats” or argue that the private sector and not-for-profits should and do take care of the most needy.
Seniors were thought to be immune from the partisan bickering. People who receive Medicare and Social Security love it. That’s good because they paid for it. Those who pay and are not yet enrolled have always tolerated it. One day they too will be recipients.
But recently Social Security and Medicare have been under attack from politicians who say it costs too much. They want to cut it or privatize it to reduce spending. Look for this debate to flare up again when and if the Covid-19 outbreak abates.
The bottom line for many who embrace all these arguments about the very real, growing cost of the shutdown is simple: seniors cost too much and they are going to die soon anyway. So let’s move things along and get back to work!
It is a blunt but fair, if rarely unspoken, assessment.
If you doubt my assertion that seniors will die needlessly, the statistics are clear. Early theories that Covid-19 only affected the elderly have been debunked. But it kills seniors disproportionately, especially those in senior living and nursing homes.
More than 7,000 deaths have been reported in US nursing homes and senior living facilities. Data from two states paint an even darker picture:
Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker, speaking from his Beacon Hill office, reported last Friday than 50 percent of the state’s deaths; 702 of 1,402, occurred in nursing homes. That same day, 51 miles to south on Smith Hill, Rhode Island Governor Gina Raimondo reported that 94 of the states 188 deaths or about 76 percent occurred in nursing homes.
Many of the younger patients to die have been front-line health care workers and first responders.
As I have said before, seniors are a target-rich environment for the coronavirus.
If the young and healthy return to work too soon, some will get infected and spread it to those less able to fight it. Covid-19 will find and kill our most vulnerable populations because they will only be shut in, not locked in! Eventually someone is going to hug grandma and Covid-19 will make the jump!
What is the best way to proceed? The President’s plan, the one he dissed, seemed reasonable. It embraced science and economics and produced a rough formula for states to use to allow people to resume their lives in a larger world. I avoided using “reopen the economy” because this debate should be about lives not economics.
The governors’ will decide when it is time to hit the restart button. They need to listen carefully to the science. In all that I have read and watched I have not seen one credible scientist or medical professional boldly assert now is the time to get cracking. They say the restrictions in place are working; they need to be allowed to work a bit longer.
To paraphrase Tony Fauci, America’s favorite family doctor:
We are not in charge of the near-term future. Covid-19 is in charge.
To ignore that will cost lives.
Be safe!
The Long Haul
Day 32
Science or economics?
Physicians or politicians?
Hearts and minds or pocketbook-pragmatism?
The Covid-19 pandemic has produced a lot of questions; the wrong answers will kill us.
Who do Americans trust the most? Or the least? What is the right way and right time to release us from our homes? Who will safely lead the country, all of us, back to prosperity? When will it all end?
The discussion is raging and one thing is clear: for-the-moment science is losing the debate and that means older, vulnerable Americans are losing. And it means more older, vulnerable Americans will die.
Our first problem is that our policy is being driven by a leader who has says one thing and does another. His motto:
“Do not do as I say; do as I tweet!
The President told us to wear masks yet he does not wear one. Even his wife wears a mask in public, but then she is European by birth.
The President issued clear guidelines that warn Americans to stay home until a combination of good science and economics say it is time to venture out.
Within hours he tweeted: “LIBERATE VIRGINIA” and “LIBERATE MINNESOTA” in support of protesters massing, shoulder-to-shoulder outside state capitols demanding that stay-at-home orders be rescinded immediately, science and the health of older Americans be damned!
Even a cursory examination of the photos and videos from the LIBERATE rallies reveals there were not many, if any seniors, in the crowd. They were all at home watching their offspring on CNN demand policy be changed so more seniors can die before their time.
LIBERATE defenders argue deadly tradeoffs must be considered because the economic shutdown is also a killer; Americans will die because they can not go to work. Economists have produced damning statistics to buttress this argument. The unvetted studies demonstrate an increase in the unemployment rate will dramatically drive up deaths from opioid overdose, alcoholism, depression and violent crime.
There is at least anecdotal evidence that the shutdown has saved lives. Deaths from heart attacks, automobile accidents and serious crime have declined during the shutdown!
Even if you accept the economic-doomsday data as valid and the danger as real, the debate posited earlier remains the same, the questions are unchanged. Should we listen to the scientists and the doctors or the economists and the politicians?
There is real evidence elsewhere in the world that caving to economic pressure and relaxing restrictions based on a decline in the number of people infected and falling death rates will produce a second spike of new cases and eventually even more deaths. Singapore was thought to have kicked the virus in the teeth weeks ago and in late March the World Health Organization advised other Southeast Asian nations to follow that example.
Emboldened by its early success Singapore began to plan to kick-start its economy again and Covid-19 said:
“Not so fast.”
Today 1,429 new cases were reported in Singapore, a whopping 21.6 percent increase since just yesterday. There were no deaths reported today because the virus's spread had been slowed and deaths typically follow more than 14 days after a case is initially detected. Expect more deaths there in two weeks. Singapore found a spike in cases in clustered populations — mostly guest worker housing — but there was also evidence of community spread.
We have long been a nation divided. Red states and blue states. Conservatives and liberals. Big government is the source of all evil. Big government is all that protects us from anarchy.
And so it is not surprising that the arguments have jumped to the center of the Covid-19 debate.
Liberals use terms like “vulnerable populations” to describe those needing extra help from government. Conservatives call many of those same people “deadbeats” or argue that the private sector and not-for-profits should and do take care of the most needy.
Seniors were thought to be immune from the partisan bickering. People who receive Medicare and Social Security love it. That’s good because they paid for it. Those who pay and are not yet enrolled have always tolerated it. One day they too will be recipients.
But recently Social Security and Medicare have been under attack from politicians who say it costs too much. They want to cut it or privatize it to reduce spending. Look for this debate to flare up again when and if the Covid-19 outbreak abates.
The bottom line for many who embrace all these arguments about the very real, growing cost of the shutdown is simple: seniors cost too much and they are going to die soon anyway. So let’s move things along and get back to work!
It is a blunt but fair, if rarely unspoken, assessment.
If you doubt my assertion that seniors will die needlessly, the statistics are clear. Early theories that Covid-19 only affected the elderly have been debunked. But it kills seniors disproportionately, especially those in senior living and nursing homes.
More than 7,000 deaths have been reported in US nursing homes and senior living facilities. Data from two states paint an even darker picture:
Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker, speaking from his Beacon Hill office, reported last Friday than 50 percent of the state’s deaths; 702 of 1,402, occurred in nursing homes. That same day, 51 miles to south on Smith Hill, Rhode Island Governor Gina Raimondo reported that 94 of the states 188 deaths or about 76 percent occurred in nursing homes.
Many of the younger patients to die have been front-line health care workers and first responders.
As I have said before, seniors are a target-rich environment for the coronavirus.
If the young and healthy return to work too soon, some will get infected and spread it to those less able to fight it. Covid-19 will find and kill our most vulnerable populations because they will only be shut in, not locked in! Eventually someone is going to hug grandma and Covid-19 will make the jump!
What is the best way to proceed? The President’s plan, the one he dissed, seemed reasonable. It embraced science and economics and produced a rough formula for states to use to allow people to resume their lives in a larger world. I avoided using “reopen the economy” because this debate should be about lives not economics.
The governors’ will decide when it is time to hit the restart button. They need to listen carefully to the science. In all that I have read and watched I have not seen one credible scientist or medical professional boldly assert now is the time to get cracking. They say the restrictions in place are working; they need to be allowed to work a bit longer.
To paraphrase Tony Fauci, America’s favorite family doctor:
We are not in charge of the near-term future. Covid-19 is in charge.
To ignore that will cost lives.
Be safe!
Comments
Post a Comment