Another instant classic! JP nails it again. Watch and share before our overseers remove the video (for our own good).
Another instant classic! JP nails it again. Watch and share before our overseers remove the video (for our own good).
In her Wall Street Journal column, Peggy Noonan opines about how the “protected” don’t have to worry about the consequences of economic shutdowns.
“…Since the pandemic began, the overclass has been in charge—scientists, doctors, political figures, consultants—calling the shots for the average people. But personally they have less skin in the game. The National Institutes of Health scientist won’t lose his livelihood over what’s happened. Neither will the midday anchor. I’ve called this divide the protected versus the unprotected. …“
By Robert Nelson, MD
The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states, in part, that…
“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Every state has its own criteria for declaring a public health crisis. The the Model State Emergency Health Powers Act that was was floated following 9-11, proposed a model legislation designed to update protocols among the states to account for bio-weapons and infectious agents; and to standardize the approach among the States. There were many concerns about infringement on civil liberties and over-reach abuse from Governors. But even though it never became law, most states already had similar, albeit outdated, protocols allowing their executive branch to declare health emergencies. These states’ laws currently on the books give governors the authority to varying degrees to deprive people of use of property (business closures, etc…), prohibit peaceful assembly of groups (religious gatherings, weddings, family events, etc…) and even confine citizens to their homes during times of public health emergencies (enforceable with fines or imprisonment) all without due process of law, if certain thresholds are met; and by extension of logic, those emergency measures may continue if those same threshold criteria remain operational.
Even if we set aside the contradictions between the 14th Amendment and the power granted to States’ Governors under EHPA-like laws — given the substantial knowledge amassed about the risk of COVID-19 infections, we must question whether the criteria for sustaining a “public health emergency” still meets operational thresholds.
Based on definitions in the original model state Emergency Health Powers Act, the original cases of human-to-human COVID-19 infections certainly met the criteria for “new…infectious agent” and initial reports out of Europe and Asia justified viewing the threat as having high potential for “…a large number of deaths…” and “…widespread exposure to an infectious or toxic agent that poses a significant risk of substantial future harm to a large number of persons…”
There was reasonable agreement among many experts, and based on the death and devastation we saw in Italy, that COVID-19 cases could overwhelm the hospital systems’ ability to provide care for the sickest patients. This was a valid concern and represented an unacceptable risk if the calculus was accurate. Most agree, the initial reaction to temporarily shut down normal societal operations was justified.
But data coming mainly in March and April strongly suggested the initially justified fear was over-stated. And despite evidence that predictive models repeatedly over-estimated cases and fatalities, even with distancing measured factored in, many Governors have not taken their foot off the regulatory gas peddle or seriously thought of changing directions even though the evidence shows that most people are not at high risk.
So given the criteria required for declaring a public health emergency detailed above, and in light of drop in case load and data showing a much lower over-all fatality rate than originally estimated, are we still at risk for…”a high probability of a large number of deaths, a large number of serious or long-term disabilities, or widespread exposure to an infectious or toxic agent that poses a significant risk of substantial future harm to a large number of persons.”(?)
According to the facts, the answer is “NO.” Here’s a summary of supportive data:
Let’s summarize what we know.
There is no clear correlation to when various States went into lock-down and the time to peak or the magnitude of cases or deaths per 100,000. There is a similar non-correlation between countries across the same metrics.
Prevalence studies indicate number of infected people is MUCH higher than most realized suggesting COVID-19 is highly contagious yet very mild in vast majority of people. This also suggests restrictive lock-downs are minimally effective. A higher prevalence indicates a much lower case fatality rate than was originally published.
Herd immunity is vital to protecting the vulnerable. Prolonged distancing slows the herd immunity, which is likely to be the quickest and safest way to protect those most at risk.
Opening the economy gradually will be important to support the efforts of our communities to continue vigilant case monitoring and appropriate care for severe cases.
The goal of not overwhelming healthcare resources was successful. But many of those who had legitimate concerns which triggered an emergency declaration have failed to critically evaluate new data, and worse still, they have failed to fully come to grips with the consequences of keeping society and their economies locked-down.
The ability of millions of citizens to earn a living and provide for their families and keep businesses afloat (and the jobs that accompany those businesses) was/is severely compromised by overly aggressive, often coercive and sometimes punitive restrictions on basic freedoms. The negative fallout from the lock-down of 2020 will continue to pile up long after the risk from the virus has been forgotten. More people may end up being harmed by the disruptions in healthcare delivery and the loss of “non-essential” jobs, than were saved by trying to prevent the spread of a COVID-19. Ironically, the reaction to the threat of the virus could result in our self-inflicted death unless we learn to live with it.
April 9, 2020. New unemployment claims surged to 6.6 million today in face of the COVID-19 shut down.
The joblessness rate will remain high until July when subsidies for non-work end.
Timing is key. The study of recessions shows us that employment usually rises (mysteriously) when unemployment benefits end. The connection should be obvious, especially for millions whose unemployment is more than their previous wages. This is the case for a family member of mine who is making $600 more per month now than before he was laid off.
This is why Germany’s approach during the recession of 2008 made sense. They paid employers to keep people on payroll. This had psychological and economic benefits.
Without question, remuneration/compensation to pay bills for those who’s jobs have ended due to mandated shelter at home and mandated closures (gov’t should reimburse those it shuts down) is justified. From the employer’s standpoint, unemployment benefits act like a tax on labor in addition to wages for each employee; they essentially have to pay premium to make it worthwhile for employee to return.
Sure, workers realize the benefits are temporary and many, if they liked their jobs, will return sooner if called back. And the astute workers will save the excess unemployment payments or pay off debt; most will spend it or, worse, incur more debt. History tells us that many will delay returning to work as long as possible if they are making more by not working. And who could blame them. This can force employers to hire possibly less qualified people at a higher wage than the value they produce.
And furthermore, history also tells us that as unemployment remains high, the political response is to extend the unemployment benefits longer, further prolonging recovery; and the cycle is perpetuated.
On the macro-economic level and policy level, this is why we need incentives to become a nation of producers and savers, rather than spender and debtors. From a tax policy perspective, we must stop punishing savings and investment and create incentives to save and proper disincentives for debt. This includes a “debt brake” for the federal government like they have in Switzerland.
“Economics studies human choice under scarcity. Humans must act in the present to provide for the future. Informed choice relies on market data in the form of prices—specific prices for specific things, as we assess various different means to satisfy our ends—that is what economics is about.
” “What a country wants to make it richer, is never consumption, but production. Where there is the latter, we may be sure that there is no want of the former,” said John Stuart Mill, citing Say’s law.
In a tune of rapid change and disruption, we need prices to do their job more than ever so the entrepreneurial process can work. High prices show which industries to move more resources into, and low prices show which ones to move resources out of to free them up for more urgent uses. From the point of view of consumers, high prices show us what we should cut back on, and low prices show where we can pick up bargains.
This process takes time. Interfering with this process just locks in shortages and surpluses.
So-called “stimulus,” just thrown at “the economy” to increase “aggregate demand” in the abstract, cannot work, when there are supply constraints in some industries and prohibitions in others.
Smoot-Hawley and the New Deal are hardly the only examples of government actions making a panic worse.
As Sowell explains, however, there was not an actual scarcity of gasoline. There was nearly as much gas sold in 1972 as the previous year (95 percent, to be precise).
It is no coincidence that crises—foreign wars, terrorist attacks, and economic depressions—have often resulted in vast encroachments of freedom and even given rise to tyrants (from Napoleon to Lenin and beyond). In his book Crisis and Leviathan, the historian and economist Robert Higgs explains how throughout history, crises have been used to expand the administrative state, often by allowing “temporary” measures to be left in place after a crisis has abated (think federal tax withholding during World War II).
Like an economic panic, pandemics incite mass fear, which can lead to flawed and irrational decision making.
Restraining Government in America and Around the World
For bloggers who aspire to inspire
Expressions of a doctor
Richard Feinman, the Other
Our Rights come from God, not government. Physician/ Patient/ Survivor/ Wife/ Mother of 4 daughters/ Small biz owner/ Limited Government/ No Socialized Medicine/ Texan/ President www.AAPSonline.org
Stories, news, and advice for the folks who visit, work in, or own a private medical practice (and their friends😊)!
Independent physicians for patient independence deny insurance and government limitations on patient care.
Welcome to Concierge Medicine Today | Est. 2007 | High-Touch, Concierge Medicine & Precision Medicine News | (770) 455-1650 | firstname.lastname@example.org | This site does not constitute medical advice. | Educational, News and Information Trade Publication
Patient-Driven Affordable Healthcare
Making Defined Contribution Health Insurance Easy for Everyone
Independent Online News Organization. Our Editorial Mission is to Cover the Direct Primary Care Economic Ecosystem & Employer-Centric DPC Programs Spurred by the Advent of Subscription-Based Healthcare Delivery Models | email@example.com
Indulge- Travel, Adventure, & New Experiences
The works and artistic visions of Ken Knieling.