The hysteria over Covid-19 is out of control. It never ceases to amaze me how the vast majority of quote unquote smart people can act in such a sheepish, thoughtless manner. Politicians I get. But that the only pushback to excessive, expanding and lengthening lockdowns are coming from the utterly thoughtless extreme right is absurd. And enormously damaging.
Studies around the U.S. and around the world are very consistently showing that the number of people exposed to coronavirus (that is, who test positive for antibodies) vastly exceeds scientists’ and doctors’ initial estimates. And by vastly, I mean by orders of magnitude. The true number of people exposed will wind up being somewhere between 10x and 1000x the number of people who have, to date, tested positive. This has been found in New York City, in Miami, in Massachusetts, in California, in Japan, and elsewhere.
This is incredibly good news, yet the mainstream media and politicians have either completely ignored these findings, or have started to view this information as instead, dire. Using the lower and most conservative estimate of 10x means that the actual mortality rate from being exposed is one tenth what the science community first thought, what the mainstream media continues to report, and what the general population continues to believe. In other words, the death rate isn’t the reported 3-5% of Wuhan or the assumed 12% of Northern Italy but, at worst, 0.3%-1.2%.
A more likely exposure rate of 20-50x compared with the number of people who have tested positive leads to an overall mortality rate somewhere in between approximately as fatal as the seasonal flu and one to three times more fatal than flu. I’ll venture to guess that when all is said and done, the overall fatality rate will wind up no more than 0.2%. Perhaps twice the 0.1% of the flu. Deadly yes. Reason to be hysterical, no. And while it is very helpful for science to confirm these numbers, this state of affairs should have been obvious to the well-informed from the beginning, since we knew how few people we were testing. Instead, the media and the politicians both benefited from grasping onto high death figures. And now they won’t let go.
Beyond the clinical fatality rate is the fact that for the majority of people, being exposed to Covid-19 will prove asymptomatic. Even more good news is that children are almost always asymptomatic and have very low viral loads. Children don’t pass this on to adults, something many adults (and especially teacher’s unions) are fearful. So called grown-ups pass it on to children, who have a fatality rate of close to zero, almost certainly less deadly than a bad influenza year.
Add to the fact that deaths due to Covid are as likely, if not more likely to being overcounted in the U.S. than undercounted. Deaths are being attributed to the virus if the hospital patient or nursing home inhabitant tested positive or showed signs of the virus. However, many such people, especially those in nursing homes, would, statistically, have died anyway of other causes (nursing home inhabitants in the U.S. have a median life expectancy of about 5 months!). In other words, not every Covid-positive or Covid-assumed-to-be-postive death is a death caused by the virus. We also know that at least in Europe, a milder than normal flu season left more vulnerable people alive in the fall and early spring, leading to more deaths being attributed to coronavirus.
Totally unlike the Spanish flu of 1918-1919, Covid-19 is overwhelmingly affecting the old and the unhealthy, not the young and healthy.
So why, as I mentioned above, is the media reporting this good news (to the extent they are reporting it at all) as dire? Because they believe it means that Covid-19 spreads more rapidly than expected, and use that information to justify even more drastic lockdowns.
It is indeed possibly, perhaps likely, that Covid-19 spreads more easily than expected. It almost certainly spreads more easily than the seasonal flu given that the we have vaccines for the flu. But to reinforce the key point explained above, this means the virus is far less deadly than we feared. In addition, it is seeming more and more likely that virus has been spreading in the U.S. not since March as first thought, but since as early as November or December. It also means we are far closer to herd immunity than we thought (especially in densely populated, and hard-hit New York City).
I’ll speculate on what would be one more piece of good news. We know that receiving a high viral loads makes one much more likely to have serious complications from Covid. In fact even more so than old age, viral load may be the single highest risk factor, which would explain the stories of otherwise healthy and young healthcare workers becoming very sick and in some cases dying. It is further reasonable to assume that asymptomatic carriers have low viral loads and if and when they do spread the virus, they will spread small amounts and recipients will also likely be asymptomatic. In other words, provided society can protect the high-risk population, getting to herd immunity may be far less deadly than scientists believe.
Clearly we need a lot more data. Even more clearly, we need a lot less panic.
The undeniable truth is that the scientific news over the past month has been overwhelmingly positive. Mortality projections are significantly lower. Hard-hit areas like Italy, Spain and New York are all showing vastly improving figures, indicating the worst is both over, and much less worse than feared. Yet, the data is not consistent with perception.
Moreover, the stated goal of government ordered lockdown was to “flatten the curve” so that healthcare system would not be overwhelmed. Even in New York, the so-called “epicenter,” there are unused beds and an overcapacity of ventilators (which may in fact have done more harm than good). In most of the country, hospitals are essentially empty with few Covid cases and even fewer non-Covid cases as patients with other diseases have been scared or turned away. Hospitals around the country have resorted to layoffs and furloughs.
Instead of backing off off extreme lockdowns, politicians have instead “moved the goalposts,” insisting now that we cannot return to any semblance of normal life until we test more or until the “second wave” passes. Essentially, governments are saying we can’t resume life until there is zero risk. This is absurd.
Where I live, in New York City, the lockdown has grown more severe, restrictions on activities have increased nearly daily and the path to opening up seems less clear and more distant. Every day, people appear to be more hysterical over Covid-19 and overwhelmingly willing to imprison themselves, throw tens of millions out of work and risk something far worse than the Great Depression. Why? Let me suggest a few reasons.
Reason #1: the contented
For one, the upper-middle and upper classes are enjoying their staycations. The privileged (not to mention virtually all government employees) are getting paid by their employers to sit at home in their pajama bottoms and do little more than participate (or not) on a couple of daily Zoom calls. In short, without money worries, they have been given an unlimited hall pass from “adulting,” having become perpetual (stay-at-home) Ferris Buellers. Endless, guiltless, state-sponsored sloth. Naturally, they support the government lockdowns and will resist loosening them so they don’t have to go back to real life.
Even more important, those under lockdown are being made to feel like they are contributing to the efforts. They are helping! They are sacrificing! Let’s shame the people going outside and contributing to the little economy that still exists as horrible virus-spreaders not doing their fair share. Let’s laud those binge-watching Netflix as sacrificing and righteous!
On the other hand, the lower and middle classes that live paycheck-to-paycheck not to mention small business owners clearly have a different calculus. They, of course, have far less political power.
Reason #2: the politicians
A second reason is clearly political. Most obviously, there is the typical political mentalities of short-termism, cover-your-ass and hunger for absolute power. Much better politically to have saved a single life for which you can take credit even if it means having destroyed an economy which can be blamed on “nature.” We are at war, they say. And war requires extreme sacrifices and extreme measures. We can’t worry about costs and benefits and about collateral damage when we are at war. As a politician, it is always better to do something rather than nothing, even if that something is wrong. And it is always better to err on the side of what your constituents will view as their short-term public safety. It also seems apparent that many politicians, governors especially are enjoying the massive power they have seized during this pandemic to control the lives of their constituents.
Even more importantly, governors and mayors and county executives, especially those from blue states, are competing to contrast their efforts with the appalling federal response. The governor that can lockdown the hardest and exclaim their apathy for the economy the strongest becomes the most popular, highest revered anti-Trump. Cuomo in New York. Murphy in New Jersey. Newsom in California. Whitmer in Michigan. Who can be the great general that leads us into battle against the mighty adversary of the virus? Plus, being typical arrogant politicians, they will never be able to admit they were wrong.
Politically speaking, locking down is the easy part. Even more easy when you’ve brainwashed the populace into hysteria and your approval ratings are high. On the other hand, picking up the pieces of what is left of the economy will be much, much harder. With vastly diminished tax revenue and skyrocketing unemployment, budgets will have to be cut along with vital services. Crime and poverty and despair will dramatically rise. Those popularity ratings we mentioned won’t look so good then. I do think politicians in blue states are smart enough to know this and are scared to death of what awaits them, and us, once the lockdowns end. Which is why they will delay lifting lockdowns as long as possible, devastating cities like New York for what could be a generation.
As a side note, one must wonder if extended lockdowns in the rust belt (witness Michigan in particular) could end up costing Biden the presidential election. Democrats risk digging their own grave here as politically astute (and non-astute in every other way) Trump might wind up successful in placing the blame on Democratic leaders for what will almost certainly be a horrific economy come November.
Reason #3: the media
The third reason why lockdowns are continuing despite mounting evidence of abating danger is the media. We are witnessing the ultimate national version of “if it bleeds, it leads.” With nothing else for the sheltered-at-home to do than entertain themselves with television or the internet, the media has a captive audience. The more the scaremongering, the greater the ratings and the higher the readership. I’m not the first to call this “pandemic-porn” or “panic-porn”. People aren’t attracted to good news and dry statistics, they are attracted by videos of overrun emergency rooms, by images of grieving families, and by stories of otherwise healthy and fit moms and dads, suddenly stricken. Lastly, that the media is, like the virus, epi-centered in New York City means the rest of the country exaggerates their fears.
And yet it isn’t only the profit-oriented media at work in fomenting hysteria. The government is doing this too. Unrelenting reminders from our politicians on how dangerous our situation is. Roadsigns and street placards reminding us to social distance and “flatten the curve.” Signs on every storefront requiring masks to enter. Even trying to distract oneself and relax by listening to local radio requires enduring constant public service announcements (the only form of advertising that remains) reminding one to shelter, and if you can’t shelter then to distance, and if you can’t distance then to cover up.
Reason #4: the education, or lack thereof
The final reason I will give for why lockdowns are popular and thus persisting is because of the awful state of education in this country. I’m not talking about education for poor people or minorities or in urban areas. I’m talking about education for the privileged and the smart. Bluntly speaking, it sucks. We barely learn history and most of us learn no statistics at all.
Lacking a proper understanding of history means few know of or appreciate what history teaches: societies survive pandemics time and time again, even with horrific loss of life. Societies do not tend to survive economic collapse.
Not understanding statistics (something for which doctors and journalists and politicians are notorious) means most of us have no ability to understand, interpret or form any proper judgment on the kind of scientific studies about which we are now reading. We blindly trust the “experts” even though those experts have been hugely wrong with their models from the beginning of the pandemic. And we vastly overrate our own risk of dying just because we know somebody who knows somebody who died.
How to end the lockdowns
By far, the most important aspect of ending the lockdowns is to reduce the level of hysteria amongst the general population. We need to talk people off the ledge by making them understand the true mortality rates. Politicians and the media have scared the population into believing that Covid-19 is a death sentence. We need to now change the message to one that is far less dire and far more factually correct. For the vast majority of the population, Covid is no more likely to cause death than the flu. For the young, it may even be less likely. Moreover, Covid exposure for the majority of people, including the elderly, will prove asymptomatic.
In order to change public perception, politicians are going to have to admit they were wrong and that they overreacted. Politicians can blame the scientists and say that say that they trusted the early models that wound up being overly pessimistic. They can maintain the position that they followed the experts and had the safety of the population as their prime objective. They have to say that they now realize that yes, Covid is serious, but nowhere near deadly enough that it is worth destroying an economy. For most politicians this will be impossible. But perhaps a handful of brave souls will show true leadership. Naturally, it will prove even harder for the scientists to admit that their models were wrong and that they were the cause of such huge damage. Unlike the politicians, the scientists have nobody but themselves to blame.
Unfortunately, as you may have perceived, we have a bit of a chicken and egg situation. Hysteria won’t fall until politicians change their message and the fear of leaving one’s house subsides. But politicians won’t change their message until support for the lockdowns falls. Support for the lockdowns won’t fall until the fear level is reduced. Ultimately, economic distress and social unrest will force a change of both positions. But clearly, we would all be better off if the change happened sooner.
In addition to reducing hysteria, the federal and state governments need to pass legislation to indemnify businsess, schools and other organizations from the inevitable lawsuits that will brought if someone catches the virus at that establishment. We cannot have businesses and other entities fearful of lawsuits and scared to open. To be evenhanded, legislation should also ban lawsuits against the governments that forced these lockdowns in the first place, even if they were misguided. In the spirit of moving forward, let’s all agree we are much better off leaving the lawyers out of it.
Now let’s talk about what should open when lockdowns are ended. I firmly believe that the correct answer is everything. Yes, everything. But I recognize that given the widespread and pervasive level of fear, that’s not going to happen. We’re going to have to do this in stages, as other countries and some southern states have started to do in order to prove to politicians and the general public that it is safe to do so. Start with schools. Schools should reopen immediately. Children are at very low risk from coronavirus and are suffering greatly without education, without human contact and in many cases, with unlimited screentime. All outdoors spaces should also be opened immediately, including parks and playgrounds, beaches, golf courses and outdoor sports facilities. The odds of catching the virus outside, or at least inhaling enough of a virus load to become seriously sick is minuscule. The benefits of exercise, fresh air and sunlight are immeasurable.
All doctors, dentists and other healthcare providers should resume normal operations. Hospitals should also reopen and operate normally for all patients. I don’t believe there is a single hospital, even in New York City, that is, at this date, overburdened with Covid patients. Cancer treatments should resume. Elective surgeries should be re-instated. Children should be receiving vaccines. Adults should be getting their in-person (not tele-medicine) annual physicals.
All non-retail businesses should be allowed to open without restriction. Retail and restaurant establishments should be able to open, albeit with some restrictions on capacity to be phased out over a short period of time. Large gatherings will have to be phased in over time, again with increasing occupancy. To reiterate, the gradual phase-in for the reduction of the lockdowns are not for health reasons necessarily, but to de-sensitize the hysterical masses and show them that life is indeed safe, and can continue.
Locations with a large number of elderly and high-risk people, most notably nursing homes, should remain severly restricted until the threat has passed. Far more government resources should go to to protect nursing homes and the elderly. This has been an appaling governmental failure to date.
Anyone with coronavirus symptoms should obviously stay home and be self-quarantined. To the extent they have to go outside for healthcare services or essentials, they should be mandated to wear face covering. As for those asymptomatic, there is very little evidence that masks are effective in slowing the spread of virus. Anybody that comes into close contact with people should be allowed, though not mandated, to wear a mask. For the rest of the population, masks and other facial covering should be optional. Even if there is a slight benefit to wearing masks in an indoor setting (and there is unlikely any benefit in an outdoor setting), I would argue that the constant reminder of fear seeing everyone in masks, and the anti-community sentiment that comes with pervasive masks outweigh any potentially small benefit. Plus, there are public places where masks cannot be worn, such as restaurants and hair salons.
Let’s now discuss testing and data. Politicians, having moved the goal post away from “flattening the curve” are now insisting that we cannot lift lockdowns until testing is widespread. This is absurd for two reasons. For one, testing at this point is essentially useless. Second, we are many, many months away (if not more) from being able to test everyone with symptoms in a timely manner. We can’t (and shouldn’t) keep society locked down long enough to wait for widespread testing. Anybody with symptoms should assume they are positive and self-quarantine. Now, with the virus widespread, a positive test has virtually no value.
What government should be focusing on, with regards to data and testing, is twofold. First, antibodies. Let’s understand the true number of people exposed already to the virus so we can calculate the true mortality rates. Let’s also see how close we might be to herd immunity. Note also that we do not need widespread testing to accomplish this. Relatively small samples in a given area can be statistically significant. Second, the government should be coordinating hospitals and scientists to understand who is really at high risk and who is not. Why are a very small number of otherwise healthy people getting seriously sick and in some cases dying. Is it the high viral load, for example, of healthcare workers? Or some other hidden underlying factor? And if it is viral load, does it only happen in a healthcare (hospital) setting or because of some super-spreading event? We need this information to know where social distancing is helpful and where is it useless and unnecessary.
Anyone that says that the miracle answer is “testing” is either foolish or lying. In order for testing to be effective in containing the virus, we would have to test asymptomatic people each and everyday. We obviously do not have the resources to do this, nor would the vast majority of the populace allow this to happen.
Lastly, let’s talk about what else we should absolutely not do. We cannot lockdown the world until we have a vaccine, which is likely 12-18 months away (and possibly longer). One way or another we have to learn to live with the virus.
We should not mandate temperature checking in order to go to school, enter a store, dine at a restaurant or board a plane. Nor should we allow either biometric or cellphone contact tracing. The benefits are at miniscule at best, and the costs to freedom and privacy are enormous. We must not let happen what occurred after 9/11, which is to give up our liberties. Unfortunately, we seemed to be heading directly towards those same mistakes. Then it was hysteria about terrorisim, now it is Covid hysteria. If we make people fearful and stressed out when going about what should be everyday activities like we do going through TSA checkpoints, we are essentially guaranteeing economic depression. We should not give up freedom for the theatre of false security. As Benjamin Franklin famously said (and I am not the first commentator to use this quote). “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
How do we know the lockdowns didn’t work?
We have one last thing to talk about. If you are paying attention you should be wondering the following: first, how do we know it wasn’t the severe lockdowns that stopped the spread of Covid, and second, how do we know the spread of the virus won’t accelerate once the lockdowns are lifted. There are three sets of answers. 1) We’re starting to know, 2) stopping the spread might not have been the optimal health solution anyway, and 3) it doesn’t matter.
1 – Evidence that lockdowns were ineffective
Let’s be honest here. As of yet, we cannot with certainty prove that the lockdowns were ineffective. However, there is a significant and growing amount of circumstantial evidence that indicate this is the case. The most obvious place to start is Sweden, the black sheep of the world.
As you probably know, Sweden was one of the only countries in the world to decide not to that lockdown the country and implement only moderate (and weakly enforced) social distancing. Restaurants, bars, elementary schools, parks and hair salons all remained open. For that, they have endured ridicule from all over the world, in fact, with many openly rooting for a high death count. So far the evidence shows that Sweden’s death rate, while higher than its neighboring Scandinavian countries is about average for Europe, lower than France, Italy, the U.K. and Spain. While Sweden’s economy has been hurt, as it is significantly export oriented, the damage is much less so than in countries that have locked down. Finally, it is obvious that Sweden is much further along the path to herd immunity than nearly all other countries of the world.
Additional evidence that lockdowns were ineffective and unnecessary is that there seems to be no correlation between states (and between countries) that locked down early, and their death rates. In other words, whether a state or country locked their populations down earlier or later seems to have no impact on fatalities.
We will have much more evidence in the next few weeks as countries in Europe (Switzerland, Austria, Spain and Germany for example) as well as certain, mostly Southern, U.S. states begin to open up their economies and free their inhabitants to resume life. Early evidence from Germany and in the United States from Georgia shows no meaningful increases in new cases since the lockdowns were lifted. We also await the findings of more antibody testing surveys so we can get a better sense for how widespread is the virus is, and its true fatality rate.
In addition to these studies, we can utilize what was, at one time, called “common sense.” As we’ve discussed, many more people were exposed to Covid and the exposure has been going on for much longer. We can draw three conclusions for these facts, the first two of which we have already mentioned. The mortality fate of Covid is much lower than expected and we are closer to herd immunity. The third conclusion is that the government ordered lockdowns were too late to stop the spread of the virus. Perhaps they might have been effective in December or January or even February but they were not effective in March and April.
It is also plausible, as one New York based ER Doctor has concluded, that the decline of Covid infections that we are experiencing (the so-called flattering curve) is due not to lockdowns but to the natural progression of the virus. That is to say, the pandemic would diminish in severity regardless of what governments ordered.
In a similar vein, it is reasonable to assume that the death rate would be highest at the beginning of the pandemic (a time point we have past) and would decrease significantly as it becomes more widespread. We know that in most countries and in most states, more than half of all deaths occurred in people living in nursing homes or long-term care facilities. We also now know that Covid is widespread in nursing homes. As the virus spreads, there are fewer and fewer nursing homes to infect (residents are either dead or almost certainly immune). Any further spreading of the virus including the feared “second wave” will have fewer deaths and hence, it is wrong to project total fatalities based on initial mortality rates. The same logic applies to healthcare workers, most of whom we can assume have already been exposed. Lastly, it is also wrong to extrapolate the death rate in a densely populated city such as New York to the rest of the country.
2 – Stopping the spread might have been the wrong thing to do
Next, let’s move on to the second answer about lockdowns, that stopping the spread might not having been the optimal course of action even if the goal is to minimize fatalities. Clearly lockdowns have reduced the spread of Covid to some extent, especially by virtually eliminating travel. However, the question remains whether that strategy will ultimately save lives. It is not at all clear that lockdowns are the best strategy to prevent deaths over the long-term, given the demographic of what populations are at risk. It is highly plausible that a far better strategy would have been to quarantine and protect the high-risk population, most notably those in nursing homes but let the virus spread freely amongst the majority of the population (especially children and the working population) that are at very low risk.
This strategy of protecting the high-risk and encouraging herd immunity among the majority and low-risk has even more merit if we take into account predictions that we will face a second wave of Covid in the fall at the same time as the seasonal flu, a double whammy for those at risk. Notwithstanding the fact that nearly all Covid predictions of such nature have been overly pessimistic and erroneous, if we take this idea as face value then we must conclude that getting to herd immunity in the spring and summer when the flu is mostly dormant is a superior strategy.
3 – Even if the lockdowns were effective in saving lives, the cure was still worse than the disease
The last answer is the most controversial to many people, but the most important. Even if the lockdowns were shown to be effective in saving lives in the near-term, the byproducts of these lockdowns are worse than the disease itself. This does not mean that those with this viewpoint (as I have) are insensitive to thousands of people dying. It in fact means exactly the opposite. We believe that the attempt to save lives by locking down the population will over the longer-term cost far more lives than it saves. If lockdowns (and hysteria) persist, the damage to health from these effects will greatly exceed Covid deaths. These effects are much harder to quantity than the number of deaths so it is easy for government to ignore them. But the health of the entire population including mental health must be taken into account.
We know already that the impact of the lockdowns on the health of the general population is enormous, yet governments in their destructive policies, have paid virtually no consideration to these factors. We know that people are dying of non-Covid causes because they have been unable or too afraid to seek aid in hospitals. We know that hospitals in rural areas have already closed or are at risk of closing because of lack of patients. We know that cancer patients are skipping their treatments and children are missing their scheduled vaccines. We know that there have been suicides due to joblessness and because of social distancing. We know that there are rising cases of domestic and child abuse. We know that people are drinking more alcohol at home. We know that most people locked down have virtually stopped exercising and getting fresh air. We know that screen addiction is up, especially among children. We know that stress and feelings of helplessness and loneliness are pervasive.
Those are just some of the direct effects of the lockdowns on health. The economic effects of shutting down the world economy will prove to be far, far worse. A recent widely reported study forecasted 130 million people worldwide are at risk of starving to death because of the economic disruption. In the United States, 30 million people, nearly one fifth the working population, have already filed for unemployment. The world is heading towards a depression that will rival or even exceed that of the Great Depression of the 1930s. The health effects of years of economic despair are immense
How about the ramifications of central banks printing trillions of dollars? Or the federal government running record deficits and handing out trillions with little oversight? What about state and local governments with little tax revenue and massive unemployment bills? Will they cut services and see crime dramatically rise? What about pensions? Will we finally see states file bankruptcy? And how long can any oil producing country survive with today’s oil prices? Can China placate their population with their first downturn in more than a generation? This is scary stuff. The kind of scary stuff that history shows causes wars and revolutions.
Who knows what other effects economic depression will bring. Depression in Germany in the 1930s led to Hilter’s rise and World War, with tens of millions of deaths. Could something similar happen again? Not impossible, perhaps not unlikely.
There is one other economic trend worth mentioning – income inequality. We know that the virus itself takes a harder toll on the poor and on minorities for two reasons. First, because these populations tend to be unhealthier and have higher rates of obesity, diabetes, heart disease and other risk factors. Second, because they have less access to quality healthcare services. In the near-term there is little the government can do to alleviate the Covid-related health outcomes between the more and less fortunate. However, the worst thing government can do is exacerbate the gap between the rich and poor with policy, but that is exactly what lockdowns do. Perhaps the second worst thing they can do is to further empower tech giants such as Amazon and Facebook and Google at the expense of brick-and-mortar retail, mom-and-pop businesses and local journalism.
There is a huge discrepancy between those getting paid throughout the lockdowns (mostly the well-off, white collar workers as well as government employees) and those laid off, furloughed or otherwise not allowed to earn an income. The latter group are mostly the poorer and blue collar workers. Governments are literally creating a great schism within society that is bound to cause social unrest. The unforgivable closing of schools exacerbates these inequalities. Private schools can maintain high quality online learning and wealthy and highly educated parents can supplement their children’s education. The children in public schools and of less privileged families learn little or nothing. This gap in education will never be made up.
Lastly I want to talk briefly about New York City, where I live (though most of what I write here applies to other cities as well). New York City is being decimated, and not by Covid itself, but by the government lockdowns and by the fear that politicians and the media have instilled. Imagine New York City without restaurants, without museums and art galleries, without concerts and the theater, without retail stores and Christmas windows, without tourists. Contemplate a city made for walking where people are so afraid of each other that they won’t walk on the same sidewalk. Think about social distancing requirements that preclude profitable business and make city life unbearable. And now add a reduction in local services due to massive budget cuts, a rise in crime and a mass exodus of population. What I describe is not just New York City under lockdown but the New York City that will exist for years or even decades after lockdowns are lifted. We are witnessing the death of New York City, the city that I love. Governor Cuomo, who has been lauded by many for leadership will go down in history as the man who destroyed New York City.
Conclusion
In absolute numbers, the virus has been, and will continue to be deadly for many thousands of people. This is tragic. Tragic for the dead and tragic for their surviving families. But the tragedy of perpetual lockdown and overblown hysteria will prove to be far greater.
We know now that the virus has been spreading for months longer than scientists first thought. We know now that at minimum between 10 and 50 times the number of people who have tested positive have actually been exposed to the virus, the vast majority of them completely asymptomatic. We know now that the true fatality rate is at worst, only several times that of the seasonal flu. We know now that of the people dying, over half were from nursing homes and approximately 90% had more than one underlying health risk. We know now that the risk to children is almost exactly zero.
Over the past six weeks, over 30 million Americans have filed unemployment. The Federal Reserve has printed trillions of dollars. Government deficits have skyrocketed to unprecedented levels. Oil future prices have plummeted to below zero. Meanwhile, more than a hundred million people are at risk of starving to death across the world due to economic disruption. Domestic violence has increased. Cancer patients are forgoing treatments. Children are missing scheduled vaccines.
The lockdowns were never justified to begin with. They certainly aren’t justified now. But even worse than the damage caused by the lockdowns is the damage caused by creating mass hysteria. By frightening the vast majority of the country’s, indeed the world’s population, into thinking that their lives are severely at risk if they leave their home, we have essentially guaranteed that any recovery will take years even once the lockdowns are ended. We will have caused many times the number of deaths as did Covid.
If we don’t reverse the hysteria soon, we are almost certain to manufacture another Great Depression. We will see wars fought over oil and food. We will see social unrest and crime. We will see revolutions and civil wars. We will enable strongmen and dictators around the world and here in the U.S. We will give up our privacy and our freedoms in near totality. We will see great cities like New York neutered beyond recognition.
Many people have referred to our current situation as the greatest threat to the world since World War II. They are correct. But let’s be very clear about something. The great threat is not from the natural disaster of the pandemic. No, we are living through the beginnings of a man and woman-made disaster. As a society, we’ve taken a serious but manageable pandemic and through childish overreaction, turned it into something far worse. Unfortunately, we will be feeling these effects certainly for years, likely for decades and possibly for generations.