Tom Paine 1949
Diamond Member
- Mar 15, 2020
- 5,407
- 4,503
- 1,938
The hysteria and dysfunctional partisanship that categorizes the U.S. response to Covid-19 is rather unique in the world. In Asian countries particularly, where there has been more experience in mobilizing resources to battle recent epidemics, there has been much less confusion, partisanship and much greater success in stopping the virus spread.
There are those that argue that nothing can be done, that we should simply let “herd immunity” run its course, as that will lead to fewer deaths in the long run (and allow an immediate opening of the economy). Lockdowns combined with full tracing can save lives — and lead to quick economic recovery. Look at China. Now reopening, the immediate threat China faces is contagion from outside the country. Otherwise, there are few or no new cases. Democratic South Korea has accomplished much the same results without lockdowns but just using modern electronic health monitoring and tracking systems. Starving the virus of human contact was what they aimed for and mostly achieved. Of course without an eventual vaccine or effective treatment there is permanent danger of new outbreaks or contagion from outside.
Second, a lot depends on the virus itself. To take an extreme example, the first EBOLA outbreak was stopped by quarantine and not “herd immunity.” Fortunately, since EBOLA's lethality was plague-like. This Covid-19 sucker is far less lethal, spreads more easily and asymptomatically. Given these particular characteristics I agree a "total lockdown" at this stage — when it has gotten almost completely out of control in the U.S. — is now probably politically and economically impossible. The U.S. will almost certainly not introduce effective enough tracing and testing and quarantining measures to stop SARS-CV2 spread here. General population "shelter in place" measures are becoming less and less viable over time, even with all the creative work and study-at-home changes that are occuring. There is a price to be paid even in health terms for extending such lockdown measures. That doesn't argue for a policy of ending all social distancing, however, at least as I see things.
Of course we never really had a full lockdown. Crucial production and work MUST continue, and much of it MUST be done outside the home. So we are stuck with difficult choices in the next period. If no vaccines are proven effective, we will probably "achieve" herd immunity the old fashioned way. But even that assumes the virus doesn't mutate into something worse. It is even possible that lasting "immunity" does not develop, as with “common cold” corona viruses in general.
Because new pandemics can be expected in the future, and the lethality of those diseases is yet unknown, we must still move toward modern rational electronic tracing and reporting techniques so feared by our libertarian right, toward a dramatic strengthening of our public health services. Also we need more and better funded international research and coordination, and a real expansion and development of rapid response capabilities. We must learn the same lessons South Korea learned in its earlier battles against SARS.
I believe we can and must accept that abandoning "shelter in place" executive orders by governors is reasonable where hospitals are not overwhelmed. For the old and those with special health conditions, like me with asthma, of course “shelter in place” remains important. But if it is reasonably established that some real immunity comes from catching this disease, then we are better off letting the young and strong slowly and responsibly return to a more normal life in this difficult intermediate time. My niece and her husband both caught the virus, and recovered without hospitalization. When the test results came back as they suspected showing antibodies, we were all happy. They are still being careful, but they are no longer sitting in their apartment all day.
“Shelter in place” should not be a "litmus test" for liberal political orthodoxy. Neither should Republicans carry on as they do with hysterical witch-hunting and anti-scientific conspiracy thinking.
Of course I don't claim to be an expert on any of this. I’m just ... "ventilating."
There are those that argue that nothing can be done, that we should simply let “herd immunity” run its course, as that will lead to fewer deaths in the long run (and allow an immediate opening of the economy). Lockdowns combined with full tracing can save lives — and lead to quick economic recovery. Look at China. Now reopening, the immediate threat China faces is contagion from outside the country. Otherwise, there are few or no new cases. Democratic South Korea has accomplished much the same results without lockdowns but just using modern electronic health monitoring and tracking systems. Starving the virus of human contact was what they aimed for and mostly achieved. Of course without an eventual vaccine or effective treatment there is permanent danger of new outbreaks or contagion from outside.
Second, a lot depends on the virus itself. To take an extreme example, the first EBOLA outbreak was stopped by quarantine and not “herd immunity.” Fortunately, since EBOLA's lethality was plague-like. This Covid-19 sucker is far less lethal, spreads more easily and asymptomatically. Given these particular characteristics I agree a "total lockdown" at this stage — when it has gotten almost completely out of control in the U.S. — is now probably politically and economically impossible. The U.S. will almost certainly not introduce effective enough tracing and testing and quarantining measures to stop SARS-CV2 spread here. General population "shelter in place" measures are becoming less and less viable over time, even with all the creative work and study-at-home changes that are occuring. There is a price to be paid even in health terms for extending such lockdown measures. That doesn't argue for a policy of ending all social distancing, however, at least as I see things.
Of course we never really had a full lockdown. Crucial production and work MUST continue, and much of it MUST be done outside the home. So we are stuck with difficult choices in the next period. If no vaccines are proven effective, we will probably "achieve" herd immunity the old fashioned way. But even that assumes the virus doesn't mutate into something worse. It is even possible that lasting "immunity" does not develop, as with “common cold” corona viruses in general.
Because new pandemics can be expected in the future, and the lethality of those diseases is yet unknown, we must still move toward modern rational electronic tracing and reporting techniques so feared by our libertarian right, toward a dramatic strengthening of our public health services. Also we need more and better funded international research and coordination, and a real expansion and development of rapid response capabilities. We must learn the same lessons South Korea learned in its earlier battles against SARS.
I believe we can and must accept that abandoning "shelter in place" executive orders by governors is reasonable where hospitals are not overwhelmed. For the old and those with special health conditions, like me with asthma, of course “shelter in place” remains important. But if it is reasonably established that some real immunity comes from catching this disease, then we are better off letting the young and strong slowly and responsibly return to a more normal life in this difficult intermediate time. My niece and her husband both caught the virus, and recovered without hospitalization. When the test results came back as they suspected showing antibodies, we were all happy. They are still being careful, but they are no longer sitting in their apartment all day.
“Shelter in place” should not be a "litmus test" for liberal political orthodoxy. Neither should Republicans carry on as they do with hysterical witch-hunting and anti-scientific conspiracy thinking.
Of course I don't claim to be an expert on any of this. I’m just ... "ventilating."
