Our governor yesterday issued a “stay at home” advisory, which apparently is just short of a “shelter-in-place” order … or not. On Sunday he made a vague comment on the possible side-effects of such an edict, perhaps referring to the economic impact, and gave the both-sides lament that he’ll be criticized for doing too much (to save lives) or too little (again, to save lives).
To be clear: We are trading our economy for human lives. He is right to note the trade-off; but you would think that he’d have a stronger opinion on what’s more important. There’s no economy if you’re dead. And yes, we will need radical government intervention — even to the point of societal restructuring, to avoid immense suffering and deprivation: Essentially a Universal Basic Income; the freezing of rent and mortgage payments; significant help for gig workers and waitstaff; and so forth.
A pandemic grows exponentially — therefore the slightest difference in the exponent is the difference between thousands of deaths, and millions. I’m truly not sure that Governor Baker grasps this.
In the meantime … people are very unaccustomed to complying with these very radical curtailments of human interaction. When the weather was nice the last few days, and parks and paths in Arlington were not barren, not empty. People were not keeping six, or even three feet of distance — not because they are stubborn or defiant or ignorant (I hope), but rather because it goes against every habit and instinct we’ve ever had about how to relate to each other.
But the choices we made a few weeks ago are bearing fruit — for good or ill — now. And the choices we make right now, today, will determine the crisis in coming weeks.
Stay inside, and be of good courage.
Christopher says
There’s still a three-page long list of essential exceptions. I really hope that after this is over we figure out how to not let this happen again. We did not have to for SARS and Ebola, but there will most certainly be another new virus every few years. We ARE accustomed to liberty and prosperity and those values should not be taken lightly. I’m upset that executives are allowed to issue immediate orders, but it takes plodding legislative action to ameliorate the effects. I’m upset that there has not been at least a little bit of constitutional controversy discussed. At some level we collectively gamble with our lives all the time. If we always cared this much about avoiding preventable death we would have banned smoking and gotten serious about the availability of firearms. Technically we could guarantee no motor vehicle deaths if we banned driving altogether, but I’m not advocating that.
SomervilleTom says
When you gamble with your life by smoking, we have already determined that you may not gamble with MY life by blowing your smoke in my face.
There is a reasonably firm tradition that says that your right to freedom of expression ends just before your fist hits my nose.
Christopher says
Second-hand smoking is a thing, even if I don’t deliberately blow it in your face.
SomervilleTom says
Absolutely, and that’s why we restrict people’s freedom to smoke. Even if the smoker doesn’t deliberately blow it in my face, the smoker endangers me by filling the air I breath with hazardous chemicals.
A murkier area is the reality that people who smoke consume a disproportionate share of health and medical resources. ICU beds have been at a premium for decades. If an ICU bed is occupied by a smoker in the final stages of dying from smoking-related diseases, then that bed is not available for a child who has just been in a serious auto accident and will fully recover if suitable treatment is provided within minutes.
Many will argue that it is unacceptable for the smoker to continue to occupy the ICU bed so that the child may heal. Others argue that the smoker had and has a nearly absolute right to do as they wish.
This question becomes even murkier when we assert that every person is entitled to health care (in the same way that every American is entitled to a public education). If health care truly IS a human right, then the care provider may have a liability exposure for not building sufficient ICU beds to treat the incoming child.
Christopher says
Also possibly not available who has come down with a severe case of COVID-19 – jus’ sayin:(
SomervilleTom says
Understood, and that’s sort of the point.
If we relax too soon, we risk overfilling our hospitals to the point where there is not room for even the most critical new arrivals. It isn’t just COVID-19 victims at risk, it’s every emergency appendectomy, car crash victim, or heart attack sufferer.
I’m willing to allow those who wish to gamble to do so by signing up for inoculation programs like I’ve described elsewhere here (I think such programs are being contemplated in Europe at the moment). Those programs by and large do not put the general public at risk.
I think we face a real dilemma here, where there may not be an outcome that doesn’t violate at least some of the values and priorities that we hold dear.
It seems to me that staying home is one of the least onerous ways that we can stave off those more difficult choices.
Remember — each and every day that we delay our own infection helps hundreds of people a few weeks from now.
jconway says
Hobbes beats Locke right now. The safety of my wife, my parents, and other public health workers and vulnerable people outweighs your right to go to bars and restaurants. Order in. There’s a plethora of Netflix, Prime, and other options to stay occupied. I’ve read three books already and have a few more on the back burner. I’ve listened to several symphonies. You’re welcome to join my classroom or have virtual cocktails with me at anytime.
Christopher says
For me its the isolation of living alone in a tiny studio with half a kitchen when my normal life (Yes, that is what I call it. I hate the phrase “the new normal” which makes it sounds as though we are resigned to it.) consists of plenty political and church meetings and events (which until this week I thought were first amendment guarantees). I am trying to catch up on reading and have been trying to recall what else I told myself I would get around to if only I found myself with lots of time on my hands, but some of your other suggestions cost money (Of course I don’t see my public school district coughing up a paycheck for the days I could have subbed. Part of my frustration over how this has been handled is that the Governor could not say in the very same press conference he announced closures that everyone’s UBI check had already been dropped in the mail that morning). Bars and restaurants aren’t what’s important and I am not claiming a right to go to those. At very least I’ll get out for a walk on the nice days which doesn’t require any contact, but I need to get the blood flowing and a change of scenery. Between that and eating less by default with any luck maybe evidence of that will show up on my bathroom scale in a couple of weeks.
SomervilleTom says
Would that I could somehow pass along coping techniques to make life easier. I grew up as an only child with both parents working from middle school onwards, and I enjoy being alone. I suspect that makes these quiet times easier for me.
Henri Nouwen, in Out of Solitude: Three Meditations on the Christian Life, transformed my spiritual journey by talking about the journey he describes as being “from loneliness into solitude”.
The late John O’Donohue reminds us that when we are alone, the very first person we meet is those parts of us that we most despise. He advises us to “create a warm hearth” for those, so that we can heal the wounds that make us fear the dark.
I join you in being eager to resume enjoying being in social gatherings, conversing with both friends and strangers, I’m already eager to take another Amtrak vacation of several days and nights eating and drinking with new acquaintances while watching the heartland slip past the windows.
All these will come again when their time has come. I think we must resist the urge to pluck the fruit before it is ripe, lest we end up with a sour mouth and unsettled belly.
Christopher says
Maybe when it’s safe to meet together again we can celebrate with a Stammtisch!
SomervilleTom says
That sounds really good to me.
jconway says
The lack of pay for subs is ridiculous. Especially since in my district, subs were all hands on deck when teachers had to self-quarantine. I know my church has done virtual services and my sister in law has put up her choir videos. Not the same by any stretch, but we try to adapt. I’m sure the political meetings can be done that way too.
Christopher says
Yes, my church is doing online and as a Deacon I do actually have the privilege of going down to help staff the services. As for political meetings the state committee had a remote informational meeting with Gus Bickford last night wherein he discussed proposed contingencies for some of our procedures, including remaining state caucuses, reorganization, the national caucuses, and the state convention. We will vote on these plans at the upcoming DSC meeting (also remote) on April 4th. I will post that information on BMG provided I am comfortable in my own understanding of what is going on.
Christopher says
Governor Baker just closed schools through May 4th so now I’m really hoping my other seasonal job is still an option.
SomervilleTom says
I think there are some different and difficult issues brewing here.
There is another graph that is firmly intertwined with the one in the thread-starter — the graphic that shows the number of individuals who become immune because they have survived infection.
We will soon have an exponentially growing number of people who are not contagious and who cannot infect others. We are relatively close to at least one antibody test that will identify those individuals. Men and women who have been tested and given a “green card” (they have immunity and are not contagious) will be significantly more valuable in the workplace than those who have not been tested or who have been tested and have not yet been infected. The tests are inexpensive but still not free. A visit to a care provider will still be required.
Within a few short weeks, we will be heatedly discussing the disparities between those who have these new green cards and those who do not. The poor and homeless will have a MUCH harder time getting these tests. They will be more at risk from the disease and less able to prosper after surviving it.
A disadvantage of the stay-at-home strategy is that it creates a large body of people who are still vulnerable to this disease. It slows the exponential growth of those infected — vital because of the woefully inadequate capacity of our current health care system — and in so doing also slows the emergence of the herd immunity that will, in the long run, be our strongest bulwark against this virus.
For those who are young and healthy, and with no effective vaccine or specific treatment in sight, a program of voluntary inoculation combined with palliative care might be an approach that we should consider. It isn’t clear that the risk is higher than, for example, enlisting in the military during a period of combat.
If encouraging young and healthy men and women to be paid for risking their lives for military service is morally acceptable to society, then why is encouraging those same young men and women to be inoculated with this virus so that nearly all of them will become immune more controversial?
I share Christopher’s unhappiness about the enthusiasm with which we are discarding long-fought-for American rights and freedoms.
I’m particularly uncomfortable about doing that while so much power is concentrated in the hands of those who abuse that power with such flagrant relish.
Why has Melania Trump been tested for CoV-19 even though symptom-free and not in a risk group, while so many probable victims remain unable to be tested even after repeated requests from their doctors?
Like a tempest that lays bare the bones of long-lost ships on sandy beaches, this pandemic is exposing a great many skeletons that our society has been hiding for a very long time.
Christopher says
I certainly hope your first couple of paragraphs come to pass sooner rather than later.
Did you really mean palliative care in your 6th paragraph? I thought that meant making people who are on death’s door comfortable, which I certainly hope does not apply to those who have been inoculated.
SomervilleTom says
“Palliative care” is care that is intended to address the patient’s comfort rather than cure the disorder. It is often an aspect of hospice care (which is what you may be thinking of), but is also used to help a patient feel better.
What I’m picturing is a facility akin to a dorm or hotel where inoculated patients live, eat, and play for the several weeks. Current data suggests that about 80 of 100 will have very mild symptoms or may not be symptomatic at all. About 15-20 of 100 will require additional attention, perhaps in special wards that are part of the facility. At the moment, it appears that 1-2 of those 100 will die from the virus.
I’m under the impression that pretty much all of the care given to Corona victims is palliative. Respirators are used to allow the patient to continue breathing while waiting for the virus-driven pneumonia to clear. Patients receive fluids to keep them hydrated and medications to help manage their symptoms. There are not, as yet, any known drugs or interventions that actually address the viral infection itself.
jconway says
Stay home. Please, for the life of my wife stay home. She can’t. You must.
Christopher says
Thanks to her – hope you both stay healthy!