Categories
too much government

Cure and Consequences

“As the nation enters a third month of economic devastation, the coronavirus is proving ruinous to state budgets,” the Associated Press reports, “forcing many governments to consider deep cuts to schools, universities, health care and other basic functions that would have been unthinkable just a few months ago.”

Notice the breezy attribution to the pandemic of the devastation caused by governments’ reactions to the pandemic.

Official tallies have it that COVID-​19 has killed over 80,000 Americans. And it will kill more. But state government revenue is nose-​diving “because government-​ordered lockdowns have wiped out much of the economy and caused tax collections to evaporate.” 

Why make much of this fine distinction between the disease and the response?

Because it is easier to control our response than it is a disease.

The people we elect are supposed to understand such things. 

But, do they?

The fact that this is a political as opposed to medical predicament is clear: “Now state finances are in peril regardless of the actual number of infections.”

And note: a few states aren’t going to experience the problem nearly so badly: Arkansas, Iowa, Nebraska and the Dakotas. Why? These states have done pretty much what Sweden has done: avoided lockdown orders and treated the disease like a health problem and not a political opportunity to flex their “leader” complexes.

No matter how we reacted, the pandemic was going to be devastating. But generally cures shouldn’t be worse than the disease, and we should wonder whether our politicians’ lack of understanding here is indicative of a co-​morbidity … of the “body politic.”

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob. 


PDF for printing

body politic, Covid, corona virus, epidemic, pandemic,

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
national politics & policies too much government

The Rationale Has Ended

Early on, we feared the worst. Based in no small part on the extravagant predictions of serial alarmist/​lockdown scofflaw Neil Ferguson, a British epidemiologist, the worry quickly became: our hospitals will be swamped!

To prevent that, governments around the world 

  1. instituted lockdown orders, shutting down most commerce and peaceable assembly, to “flatten the curve,” thereby postponing many incidents of coronavirus and giving hospitals a steadier workload over time; and
  2. set up emergency clinics and hospitals, to take on overflow.

In the U.S., the Army Corps of Engineers contracted with private companies to set up field hospitals. Given the alarmist talk of “exponential growth,” that sure seemed like a prudent use of $660 million.

Now?

Well, most never sawpatient.

Many field hospitals are being dismantled.

And so is the case for the lockdowns: the hospitals are generally not being swamped, which means that as summer approaches we can open things up and let herd immunity build up.

Indeed, we may already have reached that condition, according to Nic Lewis writing on Judith Curry’s Climate Etc. blog. 

At issue is the “Herd Immunity Threshold” (HIT). The disgraced Ferguson’s original HIT was over 50 percent, while Lewis argues that the actual HIT level “probably lies somewhere between … 7% and 24%,” suggesting that “total fatalities should be well under 0.1% of the population by the time herd immunity is achieved.” 

Why the lower HIT? 

More realistic models take into account human diversity — a point also made by economist Daniel B. Klein, who adds important truths like “[f]or most people COVID-​19 is scarcely a disease at all!”

It turns out that being reasonable about this pandemic requires neither complete gloom and doom nor risky response.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


PDF for printing

hospital, bed, pandemic, corona virus, Covid, lockdown,

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
media and media people national politics & policies

Of Light and Darkness

Josh Disbrow runs a pharmaceutical company called Aytu Science.

So far, so good. We all know that we need medicines in order to treat pandemic infections and so forth.

But the company blundered. It promoted technology that President Trump found occasion to refer to publicly, perhaps in a too offhand way, as a means of fighting the COVID-​19 virus: “Supposing,” said the president, “you brought the light inside the body.…”

As you know, all presidential utterances must be reviewed beforehand by committees and focus groups in order to perfect the calibration. Apparently that didn’t happen this time.

Disbrow reports that the work Trump mentioned — using ultraviolet light against microbes — “has been in development since 2016 … and is a promising potential treatment for COVID-​19.” Aytu had licensed the tech, called Healight, from Cedars-​Sinai Medical Center.

After Trump spoke, Disbrow knew there’d be ill-​informed controversy about Healight (the man’s an oracle!). So Aytu Science created a video to explain it, posted the video to YouTube and Vimeo, and promoted it through Twitter.

But YouTube and Vimeo quickly took down the video, and Twitter suspended Aytu’s account.

These guardians of “platform” discourse apparently contend that given the life-​and-​death stakes, it’s crucial to weed out misinformation. One must simply smother discussion about “a light inside the body,” etc. Because it makes the president look reasonable.

Strange standard. 

Open discussion and debate help us learn what is true, breaking down rigid opinion and prejudice, in effect shining light where it could not reach before.

YouTube and Vimeo and Twitter have embraced darkness.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


PDF for printing

AYTU, ultra violent, UV, light, Covid, Corona Virus, epidemic, pandemic,

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
international affairs media and media people

Soft on China

Last Saturday’s Washington Post editorial blasted both President Donald Trump and his presumptive Democratic challenger Joe Biden for a “sleazy stratagem” — namely, “accusing the other of being a stooge for Communist China.”

At issue are dueling advertisements from each campaign and a pair of SuperPACs.

The Trump ad features Fox Business’s Stuart Varney declaring that “Biden’s son inked a billion-​dollar deal with a subsidiary of the Bank of China,” followed by Biden telling an audience that the Butchers of Beijing “aren’t bad folks, folks.” 

“For 40 years, Joe Biden has been wrong about China,” warns the America First Actiom PAC spot. “I believed in 1979 and I believe now,” offers Biden, “that a rising China is a positive development.”

Biden’s campaign responded with an ad charging that “Trump rolled over for the Chinese” — uttering their praises “as the coronavirus spread across the world.”

“Trump trusted China,” claims an American Bridge PAC spot, noting that “everyone knew they lied about the virus.” 

While acknowledging “that China’s government contributed to the global spread of the coronavirus by covering up initial reports” and “has tried to use the pandemic to advance its authoritarian political model globally at the expense of democracy,” The Post nonetheless bemoaned the “irresponsible” “rhetoric” that “could complicate cooperation with China.” 

What the Post’s editors did not make clear — while explaining that China should be “pushed for greater transparency” and “its propaganda … rejected” — was the inconvenient fact that the paper has for a decade published reams of Chinese government propaganda.

For an undisclosed sum, likely in the millions, as I wrote last week.

So let the campaign heat up. Americans are far less interested in cooperating with totalitarian China than is our nation’s compromised newspaper of record. 

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


PDF for printing

China, Washington Post, virus, Covid, coronavirus, totalitarian, freedom,

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
Accountability national politics & policies

Incentives Going Viral

Back in the 1850s, when the Fugitive Slave Act was in force, the federal commissioners who determined whether a nabbed black person in the North could legally be “returned” to the South to serve as somebody’s slave were paid $5 a head if the answer were No, and $10 a head were the answer Yes.

It is universally agreed among scholars that this incentive resulted in free blacks being kidnapped and turned into slaves.

It was one of the reasons why there was so much resistance to the Fugitive Slave Act in the northern states.

Incentives matter.

Similarly, though with far less momentous initial consequences, hospitals get paid more from the federal government if doctors or administrators list a patient as a coronavirus patient when placing them on ventilators.

This became an issue because a medical doctor, Minnesota State Senator Scott Jensen, made it one in several venues, including on Fox News.

The Snopes fact-​checking service rated Jensen’s claims a “mixture,” but USA Today diagnosed the claims “as TRUE.”

Not only do hospitals and doctors get paid more, laboratory-​confirmed tests are not required — all “made possible under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act through a Medicare 20% add-​on to its regular payment for COVID-​19 patients.”

Incentives making a difference, you can see how this might inflate the numbers of COVID-​19 cases and deaths.

We do not know the extent of the resulting misinformation. But we know it has some effect. 

Muddying up statistics is itself a danger, since evaluating the pandemic and our reactions to it is going to be a huge issue in the next few months — and years.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


PDF for printing

Covid, corona virus, epidemic, pandemic, incentives,

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
general freedom The Draft

Why Not Ask for Help?

“When this is all over, the NHS England board should resign in their entirety,” Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet, quoted an employee of Britain’s National Health Service. 

Horton agrees. It’s “a national scandal.”

But now things are looking up.

“[T]he British government asked people to help the National Health Service,” reports The Washington Post, “it called for a ‘volunteer army.’”

“The NHS is ‘rallying the troops’ for the war on coronavirus,” reads the NHS webpage, “with volunteers being called up to help vulnerable people stay safe and well at home.”

The results? 

“Within four days, 750,000 people had signed up,” The Post quantified, “three times the original target and four times the size of the British armed forces.” 

The newspaper story recounts several endearing tales of people inspired to serve their fellow Brits. And now the website’s sign-​up page notes recruiting has been paused — to process the applications.

That’s certainly not the tack taken by New York’s Bill de Blasio. “Mayor de Blasio today called on the federal government to institute an essential draft of all private medical personnel to help in the fight against COVID-​19,” informed the city’s website.

Sadly, the mayor wasn’t alone. At Foreign Policy, University of Massachusetts professor Charli Carpenter asked, “But why isn’t compulsory service on the menu of policy options right now?”

Why would a politician and a professor demand to conscript citizens of a free Republic? 

Without ever asking for volunteers. 

Meanwhile, ABC News notes that “[m]ore than 9,000 retired soldiers have responded to the U.S. Army’s call for retired medical personnel to assist with the response to the novel coronavirus pandemic,” and others are rushing to help

As free people are known to do.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


PDF for printing

pandemic, shut down, epidemic, freedom, voluntary, covid,

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts