Fauci’s ‘Inconvenient’ Policy
If public health officials are calling the shots,
President Donald Trump unfortunately continues to present our anti-viral options as doing nothing or a massive government response which disrupts American society and sends federal debt surging. This is especially concerning because the infectious-disease experts on whom he is relying for advice cannot reasonably be expected to also forecast the economic results of their policies.
A poll out today from Grinnell College is consistent with other surveys of people and businesses. It finds both a major economic impact on people as a result of the virus battle and also significant voluntary changes in personal habits to prevent the spread of infection. Fighting the virus does not necessarily have to mean broad government prohibitions on vast categories of human activity. (As this column has noted previously, shutdowns are primarily the work of mayors and governors. But the President can either encourage or discourage the economic health that is necessary for public health.)
The Grinnell poll finds overwhelming majorities who have adopted frequent hand-washing and various distancing measures to help flatten the curve. It also finds, consistent with other data, that many already bear an acute financial burden.
A full 28% of respondents say that the virus has already caused them to lose wages or other personal income and another 16% expect this to happen soon. The survey also finds that 16% of respondents report being laid off or furloughed due to the virus and another 12% expect this to occur soon. Yes, the government is borrowing trillions of dollars to engineer stimulus measures and some of this money will make its way to people who need help. But there’s no guarantee their jobs will be restored.
Today the White House released the following Presidential statement:
During National Financial Capability Month, we recognize the importance of financial literacy to a free and prosperous society, and we commit to ensuring that all Americans have the resources they need to make informed financial choices and provide opportunities for a brighter and more secure future.
The President might consider providing financial briefings for the people whose decisions now have enormous financial implications. For example, Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Fauci said at a White House briefing on Tuesday:
If you look at our history, we’ve been through some terrible ordeals. This is tough. People are suffering. People are dying. It’s inconvenient from a societal standpoint, from an economic standpoint to go through this, but this is going to be the answer to our problems.
Dr. Fauci has spent a laudable career leading the federal effort against infectious diseases. His belief that the current economic impact is merely “inconvenient” illustrates that he cannot reasonably be expected to also serve as an expert on the costs of virus countermeasures.
The Journal’s Paul Hannon and Harriet Torry report:
Factories across the U.S., Asia and Europe cut output and jobs at the fastest pace since the global financial crisis, a sign the global economy has entered a deep freeze as governments lock down their populations in an effort to contain the novel coronavirus and minimize mortality.
In the U.S., individual states continue to limit human interaction. Dan Petrella and Jamie Munks report in the Chicago Tribune:
April is canceled too, Illinois.
Gov. J.B. Pritzker said Tuesday he’s extending his stay-at-home order through April 30 as part of the state’s effort to slow the spread of the new coronavirus, bringing Illinois in line with the federal government’s latest recommendations. The governor’s order will also keep schools closed until the end of the month...
Acknowledging the missed paychecks and lost jobs that have resulted from his decision to close down “nonessential” businesses, Pritzker said he’s been guided by the advice of experts in his actions to slow the spread of COVID-19.
What would we do without experts?
In the Land of Lincoln, citizens are no doubt hoping that the experts advising the state government on virus response are wiser than the state’s fiscal experts. A recent Tribune editorial noted:
In dealing with the needs of people hurt by the coronavirus crisis, the state of Indiana has a notable advantage: a rainy day fund that holds more than $2 billion...
Too bad Illinois was not so farsighted. Its Budget Stabilization Fund has only $58,655. That’s enough to cover the state government’s normal expenses for about 30 seconds.
Meanwhile on the left coast, Tyler Silvy reports in Santa Rosa, California’s Press-Democrat:
Sonoma County’s top emergency management official enjoyed a family road trip to the beach despite a strict shelter-in-place order that has closed Sonoma County parks, beaches and open spaces in an effort to slow the spread of the coronavirus.
Chris Godley, the director of Emergency Management and leader of the county’s Emergency Operation Center, said he regrets the Saturday trip to the Sonoma County coast, which came to light after photos of the family trip were posted on Facebook.
Morgan Phillips of Fox News reminds:
A statewide shelter-in-place order took effect on March 18 to combat the coronavirus pandemic, limiting the operation of all but essential businesses and prohibiting travel except for that deemed to be essential.
On March 23, Sonoma County’s top public health official closed all parks and beaches after weekend crowds swarmed the coast.
Alan Goldman urges study of the “marginal benefits of the many interventions being employed” against the novel coronavirus. He adds:
This is especially important since our metric for success or failure is the number of hospitalized, number of ICU beds, or number of dead, each of which has its own problems. They are all late indicators if the incubation period for the severe respiratory illness is 10 to 14 days or more. At the point of contagion (where we apply the most bruising economic measures), we don’t know what we are accomplishing...
Two things stand out, from my point of view. One is the need for serological testing so we can readily see who has already had it and recovered. The other is to get rid of the “peacetime” FDA model (if it is even appropriate for peacetime). Get remdesivir tentatively approved at once... It’s safe enough, as is plaquenil and z-pak, for a life and death struggle like this one. And why do we have to wait until 2021 for the vaccine? I am ready to roll up my sleeve right now for any vaccine that shows itself to be antigenic.
Post a Comment