I hate being stuck at home. We all do. The general consensus in the American public is that “non-essential” members of society must remain at home in order to mitigate the spread of Covid-19. But is this really the best way to handle this? Are countries with more moderate approaches making the right decision?
The best way to currently answer these questions is to look at a case study: Taiwan. Despite not being part of the WHO due to the organization’s sympathies towards the Chinese Communist Party, Taiwan has perhaps been the most successful country on the planet to have stunted the spread of the virus. Despite its close geographic proximity to China and the early emergence of cases in Taiwan (the first cases emerged in early February), the island has a mere 428 cases with 6 deaths (on April 24).
This seems like magic, but it is a result of useful – and relatively minimal – government action that didn’t emulate the tactics of the Wuhan lockdown. Arrivals from overseas must turn over their phones so they can be tracked at airports, restaurants and businesses. They must regularly sanitize themselves and undergo fever checks. Other East Asian countries such as Hong Kong, South Korea, and Japan have all mitigated the spread of coronavirus through stringent social distancing rules and contact tracing.
Now let’s get back to the United States. Mainstream news pundits have touted stay-at-home orders as the reason behind the recent “flattening of the curve”. While it may be true that the amount of daily new cases has plateaued in the last few weeks, this actually may not mean anything. A new study in New York – the epicenter of the American and global pandemic – reveals that up to 20% of New York City and 14% of the state may have already had the virus based off of antibody tests. Another study in Los Angeles county revealed that up to 55 times more people have immunity to Covid-19 than is actually reported. Scientists now believe that the coronavirus was infecting thousands of people across the United States as early as January.
All of this means one thing – we have greatly overestimated the severity of the disease and greatly underestimated its infectivity. Based on the current New York data, Covid-19 has a whopping mortality rate of 7.8% in the state. However, as the new estimate suggested, this number is drastically inflated. Assuming 2.8 million (14%) people have already had the disease and survived, the mortality rate in New York drops to 0.7%. This is still 7 times more deadly than the flu, but it is nowhere near the WHO’s estimate of 3.4%.
Granted, there was no way to have known how infectious coronavirus would be when the first lockdowns in the United States were started. At the time, in early March, it seemed as though Italy’s healthcare system would be overwhelmed, and much of our predictions were based on phony data from Iran and China. Our federal bureaucracy seemed incompetent to stop the spread, so governors across the country believed that stay-at-home orders were the best way to mitigate Covid-19.
However, stay-at-home orders reflect a key tenet of government control in history: those in charge feel that they are better qualified to make decisions for their constituents than people can make for themselves. Given that coronavirus disproportionally affects elderly, sick people, it would have been smarter for the government to have recommended – not forced – guidelines for this group to shelter-in-place until a vaccine is developed. With these recommendations, those most at risk from the disease would have been able to make the decision for themselves about how to react to the pandemic. Meanwhile, younger members of society would have been able to socially distance at work or school by avoiding close contact, wearing facial masks, and washing their hands frequently. This would have led to an effective response to the disease by the American people, rather than by the government, which preserves societal norms and our economy while mitigating the virus.
As Lord Acton’s proverb states, “absolute power corrupts absolutely.” During the pandemic, the government’s power right now is not absolute, but it is clear that coronavirus orders in some states have gone too far. Prisoners in states across the country are being released from “high risk” facilities. Several states have closed down parks, preventing families from leaving their homes to one of the only places where social distancing comes easily. A Pennsylvania woman was fined $200 for driving around her neighborhood by herself.
Meanwhile, millions deemed “non-essential” by politicians like Governor Cuomo are being forced into unemployment by the state and federal governments that are too inefficient and bureaucratic to adequately provide for businesses and workers in desperate need of financial help. As unemployment in the United States bolts to Great Depression levels, more and more people are wondering if the government got it wrong. As the economic crisis will continue, the government will need to continue to bail out businesses and states, which will squash our generation with debt and economic hardship.
Perhaps the most convincing argument against maintaining stay-at-home orders is the inevitability of a second surge in cases. Given how infectious Covid-19 is, cases will begin to reemerge following the lifting of restrictions, no matter when this happens. The stay-at-home orders delay this from happening, but they in no way prevent it.
The only way to stop coronavirus’s effect on society is to achieve herd immunity (60% of the population must be immune). This can be done either by mass vaccinations or by letting the disease play itself out. Vaccines won’t be ready for at least another year, and it will be impossible to keep the country locked down for much longer. Therefore, the best way to keep the curve flattened (in order to avoid overwhelming the health care system) is to practice proper social distancing and hygiene and to avoid behaviors that put people at greater risk, such as smoking. Those with the greatest risk must practice the greatest caution by avoiding public places and limiting outside contact. Only then can our country move on from Covid-19.
