I honestly don’t know what to make of this Washington Post editorial:
From a public health standpoint, the disruption caused by social distancing is worth it; the sacrifices are temporary and far less painful than thousands of deaths, overrun hospitals and a runaway virus.
But this is every bit as much about human behavior as about public health. It is absolutely essential in the months ahead that political leaders retain people’s trust — not an easy task even in normal times. If the restrictions are draconian, they could boomerang. People may panic or be tempted to disobey. That would in turn threaten further spread of the virus. Political leaders must allow a society to breathe, not only fresh air in parks and playgrounds, but also to go about life as normally as possible, to have access to groceries, banks, pharmacies and other essential services. It is important that leaders retain credibility so that the next time they ask for emergency action, they are heeded.
The word “lockdown†suggests jail. The concept is hardly what the United States needs at this juncture. We need careful, clear public health decisions to guide us back to normal as soon as possible.
Are they really quibbling about the terminology that is being used? Shouldn’t our first concern be ends and means? They seem to agree with the objective and the means of accomplishing it but don’t like the wording.
Let’s do a little thought experiment. Who is more likely to be held accountable as the number of cases in his state rises, the governor who declares a state of emergency and issues a “shelter in place” directive, calling it a “lockdown” or a governor who urges people exercise “social distancing” but stops there? IMO politics is front and center in all of these decisions.
“IMO politics is front and center in all of these decisions.”
!!
And not for the better…….
Politics was front and center and often in really stupid ways. Keeping the people on the boat just to make numbers look good was just stupid beyond belief.
Steve
Agree, politics as usual; every word, pronouncement or act based around ‘will this help or hurt my reelection campaign’.
Steve: I assume by the ‘boat’ you mean the Diamond Princess. I’m not convinced that the passengers and crew were left on the ship for political reasons, but on a macabre note their suffering did provide a useful early data point for the possible progress of the disease and treatment of it. The fact that over 80% of the passengers apparently never got the disease, almost half of those who tested positive never showed any symptoms, that there seemed to be no particular age cohort who got significantly more ill than any of the others, and that only seven died (that may have changed since the statistical analysis I am using) is interesting. Of course the more elderly aboard were an especially skewed sample of older people, since they were all ambulatory enough to go on an ocean cruise, but I think it is useful data provided one does not treat it as gospel.