I’m guessing that most readers will either find John Tamny’s review at RealClearMarkets of Jeffrey Tucker’s book, Liberty or Lockdown, enraging or exhilarating depending on the reader’s political and policy views. Here’s a snippet:
So what did the great Tucker know? He knew when the virus had become a problem for the U.S., and by extension the world. Crucial here is that Tucker was far too wise to presume that a virus could fell a nation populated by individuals long on common sense. To Tucker, the second “coronavirus,†or the “second wave†to paraphrase the alarmists of the moment, was the political reaction to a virus that had been traveling around the world for months. The politicians easily gulled by the experts would take over. In the 20th century this was called central planning. Tucker correctly referred to it as central planning in the 21st century.
I think that Mr. Tamny is both right and wrong. Where he’s wrong is that he fails to stipulate (as I have) that if we had locked everybody into their rooms we could have stamped out the virus in weeks. That’s an impractical but true statement. He also doesn’t acknowledge that
- SARS-CoV-2 is a novel virus about which we knew very little in the 1st quarter of 2020 and
- Political leaders had to do something.
Governments and bureaucracies being what they are and politicians having the incentives they have, political leaders deserve to be cut a little slack for things they did early on. They had to do something and what they did had to be equitable and easy to administer.
However, deciding that the majority of workers are essential is absurd on its face. To the best of my knowledge not a single Chicago city workers was either furloughed or laid off as a consequence of the pandemic. That includes things that are emphatically not essential—non-emergent tree-trimming, for example. Are liquor stores and pot shops really essential? If clothing shops aren’t essential, why are warehouse workers packing and shipping clothing and delivery drivers delivering clothing essential? The list goes on and is enormous but there are easy explanations. The rules that were laid down were easy to administer and politicians knew they wouldn’t get much pushback on them. Not as much pushback as if they had furloughed hundreds of thousands of government workers without pay, anyway.
But it’s mot early on anymore and clinging bitterly to the decisions they made ten months ago is irrational and counterproductive. A little more humility might be nice, too. And conforming to the actual law rather than pleading exigent circumstances.
Lost me at “the great”. That is Ok if it is attached to some historical figure. Some writer? Meh. Just another guy with an opinion.
Steve
It sounds like CDC is considering prioritizing all essential workers, which constitute 70% of the work force, over those age 65 and older because old people are too white. Since black senior citizens are one of the most vulnerable groups dying from COVID, this is one of the most racist policies I have ever heard of. Its a racist policy against both whites and blacks at the same time.
https://twitter.com/surplustakes/status/1339574645180289026
On another note.
My state’s governor decided to change the metrics for in-person school reopenings. The new rule is, no matter how bad, the state will recommend schools open for K-3; higher grades will open at 4 times the previous limit in cases per capita.
In effect, the Governor ordered schools to reopen coming in Jan/Feb when the pandemic is currently most dire (by cases, hospitalizations, deaths), more dire then the spring or Sept.
I support opening the schools; but the cynic me says why change the metrics for reopening now (when it is relatively dangerous), instead of Sept (when it was relatively safe). Is it because the Governor’s preferred Presidential candidate has won and he figures there’s no further upside to keeping schools closed?
Isn’t “essential workers “ a euphemism for public sector unions? And a nod to their political power. Teachers unions will see to it they’re at the head of the line.
I am not reading it as older people being too white. The differences in effects are small (probably not statistically significant) among the three choices. Race is just one of the factors at which they looked.
To amplify, the numbers are guesses. Somewhat educated guesses but these are not hard and fast, proven numbers. As someone who reads medical studies pretty often I would think of the numbers as being essentially equal.
https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2020/12/no-the-cdc-is-not-deprioritizing-vaccines-for-the-elderly-because-they-are-too-white/
“but the cynic me says why change the metrics for reopening now ”
I would hope because the data is good enough now to support doing so. Some other major systems have done the same thing I believe. I think NYC did?
Steve
@steve, here is the defense given in the NY Times this morning:
“Harald Schmidt, an expert in ethics and health policy at the University of Pennsylvania, said that it is reasonable to put essential workers ahead of older adults, given their risks, and that they are disproportionately minorities. “Older populations are whiter, †Dr. Schmidt said. “Society is structured in a way that enables them to live longer. Instead of giving additional health benefits to those who already had more of them, we can start to level the playing field a bit.—
A large part of the issue is that the CDC has not recognized a vaccine as an “infection-blocking vaccine.” Drum doesn’t seem to appreciate this. I doubt it is “blocking” as opposed to suppressing, but unless the CDC wants to announce the vaccines block infection, the chart Drum focusses on is meaningless for the foreseeable future.
I dont think, AFAICT, that Schmidt was the one making the decision, just someone saying why he would do it. You should also remember that the data supporting its use in the elderly is pretty weak. Just based upon the study we have no idea of its efficacy in those over 75, while we have enough numbers to believe it is very effective in those under 65. Still iffy between 65-75.
So we know it works well in the younger population and we have no idea if it blocks. If you are risk averse and have a short supply you choose the younger group.
If you did want to selectively help black people with vaccinations it is not really clear to me which would be better. You would be vaccinating about twice as many blacks doing the worker population and the younger people are probably the vectors carrying it to the older people. That is what we tend to see. Strikes me as a tossup. Only way to do it and be sure would be to prioritize black older population. (Can we not call the over 65 elderly?)
Steve
The data on in-person schooling and COVID has been there for months.
At least NYC opened schools in Sept during the summer lull.
@steve, the CDC found that the Pfizer vaccine was effective for the elderly, it has never found that the vaccine was an “infection-blocking vaccine.” I suggested in one of these comment threads recently that perhaps the vaccines should be considered 67% effective on transmission, based upon the initial Moderna results. I’m not aware of anybody arguing that its completely effective on transmission.
Drum highlights the “infection-blocking vaccine” chart, but on a subsequent chart which assumes a “disease blocking vaccine,” far more deaths are averted by first vaccinating those over 65.
It may be some of both, and there is a more nuanced study of this, that finds that assuming healthcare workers are vaccinated first, under most assumptions vaccinating older adults saves the most lives because IFR increases almost exponentially with age. This is even true using a years lost analysis.
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.09.08.20190629v2.full-text
All I would ask is if the CDC believes that the vaccines block transmission that they apply the conclusion wherever it leads, not just in the name of social justice. Otherwise, that’s not science, its politics.
As Aristotle observed politics is the master science. What I think is missing from the argument that “we should follow the science” is that scientists are humans with opinions, preferences, and prejudices. Confirmation bias is the most insidious bias of them all.
Are people saying “follow the science” or are they really saying “follow the scientists”, which allows politicians to seek out scientists who support what they want to do?
PD- I put links to the numbers here before. In the 65-75 group it is somewhere between 53%-100% effective. I think that they set a 50% threshold so it is effective, but potentially not very effective. For those over 75 we have no idea based upon Pfizer data if it works. We know from Pfizer data that for those under 65 it is somewhere between (from memory so probably off a bit) about 92%-99% effective.
So what I see is inadequate data/knowledge to make an absolutely certain decision. So we are left with a best guess which would be dependent upon things like risk aversion, politics, bias, whatever. You either take a leap of faith and give to the old people hoping it works, knowing that their are physiologic reasons why it might not work well in that group or just barely work, or you give it to the group that you know will benefit. I dont know how CDC made their decision.
Steve
Got my vaccine. No fever or real side effects. Talked with the nurses giving the shots and no real problems, though the PA across the room getting her shot while I was having mine was clearly having a vagal response. (Odd, since it was female.) No desire to embrace tax cuts yet!
Still, there were glitches. Our network has about 16,000 employees. We got our 5000 vaccines as expected. Out of my 200 staff they totally missed 4 people and had to work to get them included. This is all IT related. Once you start trying to pull information together from different databases when you have never done that before, or infrequently, is when you find out what system does not communicate well with other systems. Overall, I think a 2% error rate is pretty good. And this is in a system where we like each other, devoted a lot of time to try to make it work and have decent IT support. Getting this out to the rest of the country will not be a trivial endeavor, though it may get much easier with the Moderna version where you wont have the temperature issue as such a big factor.
Steve
@steve, I disagree that “we have no idea” about the efficacy of the vaccine for those over 75. But that is a complete non-sequitur; the CDC has in fact approved the vaccine for adults as against disease. It has not approved or made any formal recognition that any vaccine reduces or blocks infection.
Also, the CDC has found that the greatest risk of severe disease and death are with people over 65. Eighty percent of COVID-19 deaths are in that group. So let’s try to vaccinate those under 65 first?
The irony here is that the only statistical issue raised with Pfizer’s vaccine was with the small size of the 16-17 year old group. And under this proposal my teenage daughter who has almost a zero percent risk of severe COVID disease would get the vaccine before my 82 year old father.
The 95% confidence levels for those over 75 for efficacy is -12%-100%. So with 95% certainty we can say it might make people 12% more likely to catch Covid. We really want to believe it will work in older people. We hope it does. We have some reason to think it does, but we dont know. We do know that vaccines in general dont work as well in older people. So I dont really have any problem if you want to prioritize your 82 y/o father before your teen, but you should realize it is an act of faith and hope.
In nursing homes they have found that essentially all of the outbreaks come from spread by staff. They are vaccinating them first in a lot of areas. They dont know how well it will work for residents but with staff its efficacy is in the 90s. So there are times when it makes more sense to vaccinate the vectors first.
Steve
which is why I suggested inoculating nursing home workers rather than residents. Not only would it protect nursing home residents it would be a more efficient use of the vaccine.
I also note with outrage that members of Congress are being treated as essential workers. Although I think it’s good for them to be examples, I don’t think they should be prioritized. All in this together, indeed. Some of the animals in the Animal Farm are more equal than others.