Thank you very much for your thoughts, Lynx. I suspect you’re right that leaders opted for decision #2 because they believed temporarily closing the economy would cause the lesser harm. And I agree that it’s impossible to know at the outset exactly what we’re dealing with. My primary concern is that leaders avail themselves of all available information at any given time, and based on the information that was easily available early in this crisis, I question whether this was done. Early on, it was very clear that the mortality rate was not nearly as high as WHO claimed. On March 16 doctors were learning that the fatality rate could be 1.4% or lower, suggesting that “the worst consequence of the coronavirus will be uncommon”: https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/16/lower-coronavirus-death-rate-estimates/
This wasn’t the only early evidence of significantly reduced lethality at the time; there was much more that I didn’t include in my article. But it seems that leaders reacted almost exclusively to events unfolding in Italy and NYC (which now appear to be outliers in this pandemic), without regard to what was happening in the rest of the world and the rest of the U.S. Most other states, especially those less densely populated, did not (and still don’t) have a mortality rate anywhere near that of NY, which accounts for nearly 50% of cases. In Montana, where I live, we’ve engaged in very loose social distancing, and 60–75% of businesses were deemed “essential” and remained open. We’ve had 15 deaths in 1 million, and given the number of cases in the state and our lax shelter in place policy, I’m fairly certain this virus has deeply penetrated our population. Nebraska, which had no shelter in place, has a fatality rate of 1.6% (and given that this is based on the number of confirmed cases, the real rate is probably a lot lower). In other words, population density may be a major factor.
It’s all hindsight vision, as you say, but a lot of damage has been done — not just economically, but mentally and psychologically, to our population. I accept that overreaction is always a risk, but going forward, with the knowledge we are now gathering about the true mortality rate, I hope we don’t overreact again in the Fall when a second wave returns. I’m hoping we don’t see a decision #2 lock down in the entire country from October-May. That would be a tragedy beyond imagination and ultimately cost far more lives than the 2.2 million at risk of Coronavirus.
A one-size-fits-all approach may not work going forward. It may be better to implement social distancing, quarantine nursing homes and those with underlying conditions, and lock down more densely-populated metro areas. These are common sense strategies that can be pursued without destroying the mental health and livelihoods of 98% of the population. Let’s learn from our mistakes and assess all available information instead of laser-focusing on data that supports our fears and worst case scenarios.
