To reopen or not reopen, that is the question

There is a lively debate now about when to reopen the economy from its CORVID-19 lockdown. Of course this issue has taken on partisan political overtones in a heated election year, which doesn’t help promote rational dispassionate discussion. Since Trump proposed reopening soon, that meant a segment of the population automatically thought it was a crazy idea. And then there is the fact that the political elites and their media allies who are all for keeping us closed down haven’t lost their own jobs – they are still getting a paycheck, their businesses and jobs aren’t in danger of being lost for good, they can still pay their mortgages – so they aren’t feeling the pain (or even desperation) that much of the rest of the population is feeling.

There are those who argue that CORVID-19 is really no worse than a bad influenza. That certainly is not true. As a physician friend pointed out, the annual influenza doesn’t kill hundreds of doctors and nurses and health workers. Certainly, a significant proportion of those infected show no or very mild symptoms, but those who get the more serious cases report it is far worse than the annual flu. On the other hand, is it really bad enough that we needed to shut down the entire economy?

For some perspective, CORVID-19 in the US, thus far, exhibits a mortality rate of about 160 per million population. All causes of death in the US, as of last year, exhibits a mortality rate of about 8,639 per million, so thus far, CORVID-19 accounts for something like 2% of deaths in the US, less, so far, than a bad influenza year. More than that, almost all the deaths are among the old and those with serious health problems, some of whom would have died of other causes soon anyway. New York statistics show only 4.5% of deaths among those aged 0-45, and most of those had serious pre-existing health issues. Estimates of the real mortality rate are hard to come by, because we still have no idea of the total number of people who have been infected, but there is growing evidence that we have badly overestimated the mortality rate. And indeed, the dire predictions of some of the early epidemiological models that drove public policy seem in retrospect to have seriously overestimated the death rates. The Army has dismantled most of the emergency field hospitals it assembled in various US cities, most of which were never used.

Certainly we ought to protect that vulnerable segment of the population (certainly, because that segment includes me!), but does that really mean we have to put most of the young and middle-aged out of work?

On the other side of the equation is the issue of just how much damage the shutdowns are doing to the economy. The Dept of Labor estimates current unemployment at about 16%, and predicts that by the end of the month it could reach as high as 30%. For perspective, in the worst depths of the Great Depression of 1929, unemployment was between 20% and 25%. As of last week 26.5 million people had filed for unemployment insurance – that’s 1 out of every 6 workers in the US. And most businesses are still hanging on, drawing on their cash reserves – when they finally run out of money and close for good the unemployment figures will spike even higher.

For some non-Trump supporting arguments for opening up sooner rather than later (though probably still with social distancing restrictions), see John Hinderaker’s article here, and much more supporting data about his model at his website here.  Hinderaker is a prominent economist at the Univ of Chicago, and sometime Head Economist of the White House Council of Economic Advisers. He is no outlier.

Also see Dr. John Ioannidis’ recent article The Bearer of Good Coronavirus News in the Wall Street Journal. Ioannidis is also no slouch. Holder of the C.F. Rehnborg Chair in Disease Prevention, Professor of Medicine, of Epidemiology and Population Health, and co-Director, Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford, he is among the most-referenced scientists in his field. He is getting a lot of flak for questioning the prevailing wisdom about shutdowns, but he makes a good case that we have over-reacted.

  

I have no idea where I come down on this issue, but it is certainly clear that there are valid arguments on both sides. The idea that we ought to reopen sooner rather than later is not just some wild right-wing nutty idea – it deserves to be seriously considered. And perhaps by at least some people who aren’t financially insulated from the drastic effects of the current shutdown.