He gave Louisiana another demonstration of that
this weekend, when he
abruptly retrenched somewhat on reopening the economy and impinged on personal
liberty. He proclaimed
that bars could provide only take-out service, with the exception of worship a
limitation of 50 on crowds in areas without adequate spacing, and mandating face
coverings in public places except for worship and with age, health, and
consumption exceptions, to last from Jul. 13 to at least Jul. 24.
The rationale he gave focused on a recent increase
in the number of cases and hospitalizations with the former disproportionately
among younger people and the latter creeping towards full capacity. Supposedly,
too many young people were going out and transmitting the virus then passing it
along to their elders.
Since the pandemic started, Louisiana has cemented
its status as an outlier epidemiologically. It raced to one of the highest per
capita infection and mortality rate states, in the company of much more urbanized
areas, fell relatively slightly, but has risen again to reclaim top (or bottom,
depending on how you define it) three ranking. In fact, by one
popular measure, since the end of June it has had the worst outbreak. (Edwards
gave a break to three parishes with the order because of their relatively lower
total incidence, but they were part of the epidemic trend parishes by this
measure; only two other parishes in Louisiana this measure didn’t classify in
its worst category of epidemic trend.)
States (or in the case of California, half) farthest
south in the U.S. all have posted the most significant increases in virus
incidence since the beginning of summer, and for good reason: with the warmer
weather, people get out more, yet often congregating in the cooler indoors (or
at night on the street or in parking lots). Plus, school is out and some
tourists still come around.
For most, it’s a kind of a catch-up: they lagged other,
more urbanized states, so the wave hitting them now is similar, if not quite as
severe, as what those other states saw two to three months ago. Those other early-adopting
states have seen indicators level off. Yet discouragingly for Louisiana, almost
uniquely it has
experienced an N-shaped pattern, with its present case numbers approaching those
at the height three months back, with only Kansas, Ohio, and Washington
displaying something similar if less extreme.
However, hospitalizations are another matter.
Here, Louisiana has gotten to only two-thirds of that worst level, in large
part due to the disproportionate case growth of the young (now five times the per
capita number at the height). Bluntly, few of the young suffer much at the
hands of the virus. Consider that as of this weekend two-sevenths of all cases
came among those 29 and younger, but only 0.42 percent of all deaths.
Further, the hospitalization rates show the same pattern
as seen in case acquisition nationwide. With one exception, the regions hit harder
the earliest have shown only small recent increases in hospitalizations per day,
while those three that started slow have seen the larger upticks to record
highs mainly behind the state rate going up. (The one exception, Northwest, also
now has a higher rate than ever.) Keep in mind as well that even as critical
care beds in hospitals and all beds available by region have crept up, sufficient
slack still exists in both at this time, with no region having less than 25
percent clack in the former and 30 percent in the latter (consider also that
not all these beds obviously are occupied by virus patients.)
Two policy-making bullet points stand out here.
First, the disproportionate acquisition among the younger bodes well in that
this puts the state much further along the road to herd immunity, but also raises
the risk to the vulnerable for the moment. The question thus posed is how to respond
to not discourage immunity acquisition, yet protect the vulnerable. Second, as
has typified the pandemic in Louisiana, different regions show very different
patterns. The question thus posed is the degree of nuance the response should have.
Since it all began, Edwards has displayed a day
late/dollar short mentality that results in overreaction. The law of the
instrument postulates that decision-makers rely overly on familiar tools born
of their particular worldview. Specific to Edwards, that means seeking a big
government solution indiscriminately applied that in past
inflection points meant disregarding data and science in favor of politics.
He hardly deviated in this instance. Allowing
three parishes to opt out has been the first instance ever of him taking a
local/regional approach in his mandates, unlike many other governors who incorporated
the criteria. And much of the rest of the decision constituted overreach.
The point is not to keep the virus spreading among
the healthy, but to keep it to getting to vulnerable people. In situations where
the vulnerable population must interact with the healthy potential carriers,
masking is appropriate, such as a requirement that all businesses have all employees
interacting with the population masked (and smart business owners who don’t
wish to have to shut down operations because an infection races through the establishment
and takes out too many employees may want to have every employee wear one).
But otherwise, requiring masks of anyone in public
and that businesses enforce their wearing among customers violates human
dignity. There are next to no situations where somebody must go into an
essential place of business and find themselves among unmasked individuals
within six feet distance for at least 15 minutes; businesses under existing
proclamations are to ensure that in order to operate (either by marking or
capacity limits). In fact, currently many high-volume businesses cater to the
needs of vulnerable people by establishing special service hours for them. And,
if you are a vulnerable person, if nothing else, wear your own face covering and/or
don’t patronize nonessential places.
And bars face some discrimination in the current
context. Existing proclaimed rules would mitigated spread there while
maintaining a good rate of immunity buildup. Probably some places didn’t follow
those rules, but, despite
repeated warnings of enforcement by Edwards, that never happened at the
state level. There is a fundamental unfairness to this ban: a business should
suffer just because its clientele is healthier and more raucous than others?
Of course, transmission could occur from the healthy
to vulnerable at home: the grandkids go out and have a merry time boozing it up
then breathe all over grandma and grandad at home. But that’s a matter of personal
responsibility and beyond the appropriate scope of government. People who are
or around vulnerable folks, as a moral issue, should act much more cautiously
without government infringing on everybody else’s personal freedom. Put another
way, if you’re elderly and living at home with thoughtless young people putting
themselves in risky environments without proper precautions and actions, stay
away from the stupid little twerps and tell them to grow up and until that
changes you won’t be hanging with them. That’s your and their job, not
government’s.
The only sensible part of Edwards order was the
crowd limitation, and perhaps even that should have been adjusted by region. As
for the rest, we cannot forget that government can’t indemnify people against
all risk nor undertake the illegitimate and too severe restrictions of personal
autonomy that would entail. First and foremost it’s people, not government, who
must look out for themselves and the ones they (in some cases as indicated by
their behavior only claim to) love, and not offload costs from them potentially
not doing so onto others. Edwards still just doesn’t seem to understand that.
No comments:
Post a Comment