With many States Shelter in Place, Stay at Home, Lockdown Orders coming to an end at the end of April, a few weeks ago there began much discussion about the wisdom of lifting these orders. In some States people were taking to the streets in support of lifting the orders. In others Governors took action to extend the orders to later dates. What are the pros and cons in such a discussion? Can we base the discussion on science as some suggest? How much do emotions, such as fear, play into the discussion? I will do my best to answer these questions.
Before we get to the answers to these questions, let's take a look at a video providing some background. The video is produced and made available at Journeyman Pictures. They have several videos of interviews and commentary on the pandemic.
The pros of re-opening include rebuilding our economy, getting back to work, getting back to school, returning to a sense of normalcy, interacting with people once again, and enjoying more of life. The cons include resurgence of virus, more illnesses, and more deaths. While these are very negative and unwanted outcomes are they enough to out weigh the pros? To answer this it is appropriate to better understand and set realistic expectations. But first, how do we get rid of the virus? How do we get rid of any microbial, bacterial or viral disease? Through immunity. Immunity can be acquired in two ways. First through infection and recovery. Second through a vaccine developed for that purpose. A vaccine, we are told, won't be available until next year. People are scared to death of becoming infected. So are we to remain under lockdown until next year?
How do we get rid of any microbial, bacterial or viral disease? Through immunity. Immunity can be acquired in two ways. First through infection and recovery. Second through a vaccine developed for that purpose.
What everyone seems to forget, is the lockdown has been all about "flattening the curve", not about getting rid of the virus. What does this mean? By flattening the curve and extending the period in which people become infected, and die, over a longer period of time, we do not place the same burden on our healthcare system, i.e. we reduce the number of patients requiring attention at any particular time to something more manageable. In the end infections will still be about the same and deaths will be about the same. Just spread over time. The only way to avoid this is through a vaccine rendering everyone immune in a short period of time. The real question now is, as we re-open can the health system handle any new spikes? Based on experience to date the answer would seem to be yes. Will it be painful seeing people get sick and dying? YES
How do we base the question of re-opening on science? Well, we pretty much just did that by the discussion of immunity and flattening the curve. Their is, however, some additional science to consider. Are the health effects of the lockdown significant enough that they are actually worse than the disease? The answer to that would seem to be yes. A recent study published by Just Facts Daily delves into this question and highlights several negative health outcomes due to the lockdowns.
Some of these health outcomes are the result of the media and politicians rhetoric and efforts to create a state of fear. For the media it is always the old axiom, "if it bleeds, it leads." By creating a state of fear they ensure people are constantly attentive to any new information on what is happening or going to happen. Retained readership and viewership leads to greater advertising revenue for them. This is true for every single media outlet you may choose. It is not about informing the public in a way allowing them to form their own open ion, it is about helping the public form an opinion that will bring them back over and over again.
Politicians have other motivations. The politicians have seen this crisis as the ideal opportunity to exert control and exercise their power. This is true of all parties and sides in politics. Each wishes to lay claim to whatever they see as being a positive piece of legislation. Each wants to blame the other for any negative consequences of the legislation. Each is trying to incorporate into new legislation, meant to combat either the disease or the economic outcome, other line items they have been unable to pass under other circumstances. I.e. if airlines are to receive money to help cover their losses make sure they agree to reduce their carbon footprint in exchange. I am sure you have heard of other examples.
Lobbyists lie behind a lot of the actions undertaken by politicians. Lobbyist representing those who stand to benefit from the crisis, large hospitals and healthcare institutions who would welcome the billions of dollars to pay for additional infrastructure and facilities, big pharma who stands to benefit from development of tests for the virus, tests for antibodies, drugs to alleviate symptoms and vaccines to increase herd immunity, medical and biological research organizations and institutions who stand to get billions in grants to study the how, why, when, where, of the outbreak, so they can produce new models and gain better understanding. There is nothing wrong with these groups wanting these things for all contribute to making our lives more secure and safe. What is wrong is for them to use and promulgate the crisis to this end. But then they all think, "the end justifies the means."
I do not know where you stand relative to this issue but as for me, I want to End America's Lockdown.
