First, let us grant that we continue to get a pantload of conflicting information about every aspect of this disease and its management. It is very difficult to know whether re-opening is the right thing to do. Federal state and local officials say some smart and empathetic and cool-headed things, and some stupid and thoughtless and nonsensical things. Our formerly ethical press has not helped matters with its poor and sensationalist reportage. When the story of The Contagion is written, there will be the usual heroes and villains around the world. We'll have to wait for that.
Second, let us grant that it is very appealing to think that human life is more important than money. How much more important? That we can think about.
We think about it every day, whether we're aware of it or not.
In fact, we do not live our lives in a way that reduces the risk of death at any cost. We balance risk with commerce every day.
-- We don't social distance for ordinary seasonal flu.
-- We don't drive 35 on the highways instead of 65.
-- We don't forbid the sale and use of alcohol.
We don't do these things, and many others, because the common sense of the populace is that the risk of death and illness is outweighed by the benefits of allowing seasonal flu to take its course, driving 65 on highways, and drinking alcohol, even though the death toll from those choices is huge and could be hugely reduced with the suggested restrictions. The risks of ordinary life are already baked into the health care system, the tax system, government spending, all infrastructure, commercial activity, and laws governing all manner of conduct, not to mention the common sense that guides us in our daily lives.
It is obvious that there is a point where as a society we must be willing to trade normal human activity (that is, the avoidance of economic collapse) for the risk of increased mortality -- remember we're not talking about all CV deaths, only the ones that have been avoided so far by the shutdown -- that would result from the easing social distancing rules and allowing businesses to open and people to gather.
So how would I feel if a loved one died of CV after re-opening? Real damned bad. But I would feel the same way I would feel if one died in a car accident going 65 when she wouldn't have died if the speed limit were 35. We can't sacrifice a world economy for the sake of any single individual (or some number greater than a single individual), and whether any are related to you is of no moment.
Of course, there is a fulcrum at which marginal deaths -- that is the increased deaths from reopening -- are so numerous that you are willing to kill a lot of the economy for a long period of time. What is that number? It isn't one, and it isn't a dozen, and it isn't several hundred. How about 10,000?
Is it OK to have a years-long depression for to avoid 10,000 additional deaths? Maybe, maybe. But what about the deaths caused by the shutdown? Caused by widespread economic depression? Caused by civil unrest when people have had their fill of house arrest? Today's news brings articles about hospitals suffering enormous COVID-19-related losses that threaten their continued operation.
I admit, it's a tough call. And it sounds awful to say it, but it is not -- marginal deaths are an acceptable price for the resumption of ordinary life.
There comes a point at which sentiment needs to be suppressed for the good of civil society, and we have reached that point. Re-opening should be undertaken in a sensible fashion with the full knowledge that some will be infected who otherwise would have avoided it.
And if you disagree -- you can stay home or be unemployed if it suits you.
That's part of civil society, too.
CoolHotCenter@gmail.com
@CoolHotCenter
Please share this post with interested persons.
I agree with you totally, Steve. No one seems to recall that the lock down/shut down/ shelter in place orders were NOT instigated to stop the disease but to ensure that our hospitals and health systems were not overwhelmed. In Chicago, where I live and work, this was very definitely the case and we have not been overwhelmed. I work for a major academic medical center that is caring for 25% of the state’s icu COVID-19 pts , but we are otherwise half empty. We need to reopen because for most people this is not a lethal disease, and for those for whom their livelihood is disappearing (or gone) it may very well be deadly. Stop the insanity over this one illness. And for those who argue this is a “new” illness, I would argue that for every cancer patient, that is a new illness also. With no guarantee of a cure.
ReplyDelete