In an interview, Paul Romer says,
The key to solving the economic crisis is to reduce the fear that someone will get sick if they go to work or go shop. So it’s really about building confidence. The thing about testing is that it’s easy to explain and it doesn’t frighten people the way digital contact tracing does. It’s not subject to technological and social, political uncertainty the way digital contact tracing is. It doesn’t require the organizational capacity that doing human contact tracing does. It’s really just a very simple, easy-to-explain idea—that to control the pandemic, we need to get a reasonable majority of the people who are infectious into a quarantine, and then we’re good.
I agree with his first sentence. But is mass testing the solution for fear? Clearly, it would work for Paul, and for other people who are fond of abstract theory that has some math to it. But I don’t think my own fear would be any less if there were mass testing. And I can imagine that such a regime would actually stoke fear in a lot of people.
Some other thoughts:
1. Politicians and public officials try to convert fear into Fear Of Others’ Liberty. Their success at this is what expands government and reduces freedom.
2. We are now in a position where anything other than a lockdown causes fear. It takes someone with a lot of pro-Trump mood affiliation or a very disagreeable person like myself to not fear lifting restrictions.
3. Based on what I can infer from my reading, one should really fear being elderly and in a nursing home. One also should fear being elderly and having obesity, heart problems, or hypertension. You should have some fear of being in an enclosed area in which someone else is singing, talking loudly, coughing, or sneezing.
When I need to be in an indoor setting with people other than my wife, I have less fear if everyone, including me, is wearing a face covering. I would not fear being outdoors or touching surfaces touched by others.
But as you know, I wish that public health officials were doing more to verify what to fear and what not to fear, and stop giving us their Bubba Meises and their model forecasts as if they were Science.
We had a lockdown to defeat confidence; now we need to defeat fear. Ok, Mr. Romer, we’ll get right on that.
I am not sure which country Paul Romer is living in, based on these remarks.
Will the tests be mandatory? Will the tests be free? Will the government take over hotels so that quarantining is free? Will the quarantined person get their normal wages?
If millions of Americans resent being told to stay off the beach, how amenable will they be to getting in long lines once a week to undergo a test that is painful (if nasal swabs are used)?
I am reminded of what Sam Rayburn said to LBJ many years ago. LBJ was telling him how smart the Kennedy appointees were, and Rayburn said, “I’d be a lot more comfortable if one of them had at least run for sheriff.”
It seems like anti fragile Arnold would want an economy that isn’t destroyed by fear of sick people. There’s no law that says a good economy is necessarily one with lots of human contact. Yes that was our previous economy and moving from that old economy to a new economy that doesn’t rely so heavily on human contact is painful. But shouldn’t we be doing that?
Our old economy left us with too many stores and restaurants that we visit and not enough who deliver. Our old economy left us with too many movie theaters and sports stadiums with actors and athletes paid to match, and not enough paid to only be seen on TV. Too many office buildings for white collar workers who can work from home and not enough manufacturing space so blue collar workers can spread out while they work. Planes with too many seats too close together, with tickets priced to match. Etc.
We shouldn’t be trying to conquer fear so we can go back to the old economy. We should be building the new economy that has an order of magnitude fewer casual human interactions.
“Our old economy left us with too many stores and restaurants that we visit and not enough who deliver. Our old economy left us with too many movie theaters and sports stadiums with actors and athletes paid to match, and not enough paid to only be seen on TV.”
This struck me as odd. Can you elaborate further? Many people are inherently pro-social and want to be out and about whilst consuming goods and services. E.g. dining in for many is much more enjoyable than take out. Watching a live sporting event is superior to the tv version.
“We are now in a position where anything other than a lockdown causes fear. It takes someone with a lot of pro-Trump mood affiliation or a very disagreeable person like myself to not fear lifting restrictions.”
Nice one! So, if I’m against strict lockdowns, I’m either 1) disagreeable or 2) a Trump lackey. I guess I prefer the disagreeable moniker for myself …I can live with that 🙂
(And, yes, I know you are being poetic here.)
(That said, I believe that you continue to understate the influence of the media on this sentiment. All it took was a few pictures from Italy to morph public opinion to something not entirely rational.)
Fear of dying and a love for life, curtailed mobility & less frolicking around notwithstanding, is not rational?
The public may well opt for Paul Romer’s test and test-negative-as-passport-for-the-life-as-we-had except for one glitch and thus a risk the public has to be aware of too: false negatives; and true negatives as of the sample-collection-moment but infected and turned asymptomatic spreader at sometime before the next test (every fortnight?) which would be anytime between the next 1 min to 14*24*60 mins.
Do the math and then say hey this is like 1 in trillion odds of happening; and let the public make a call.
“Fear of dying and a love for life, curtailed mobility & less frolicking around notwithstanding, is not rational?”
Not in relative terms.
Mass testing is the solution if you basically look at the lockdown as a quarantine.
We are ALL already under quarantine. In theory, a program of mass testing would free everyone who tests negative. People who test positive (or live with them) have to endure another month of lockdown.
That seems reasonable to me in theory. In practice, we seem to be nowhere close to that capability, so I expect that anywhere I go, there will be a higher than acceptable risk of encountering contagious people.
The biggest problem here seems to be asymptomatic people can clearly be contagious. Thus, testing is going to continue to miss them and the disease will continue to spread. This, in turn, invalidates all the tests given up to that point.
“so I expect that anywhere I go, there will be a higher than acceptable risk of encountering contagious people.”
Please define higher than acceptable risk? To whom?
As an example: my family and I enjoyed an exquisite meal in our favorite restaurant last weekend here in North Texas. Was I subjecting them to undue risk?
The nice thing about freedom is everyone gets to decide for themselves.
If you’re not in a high-risk category and you’re not going to have contact with people in a high risk category, then I don’t see much downside to going to a restaurant.
The risk of getting sick in a given situation is something I think people pretty clearly grasp
The risk of becoming contagious seems too subtle for some people. I’m not in a high risk category, but my parents are. So my decision to go out to eat would come with a decision that I’m not going to see them for a while.
Risk of me getting sick is low.
Risk of me becoming contagious is … ??? maybe not low ???
Risk of infecting a high-risk person if I’m contagious is… ??? maybe not low if I interact with high-risk people ???
Two people at my wife’s work got COVID before the shutdown. Luckily she didn’t get it and the shutdown probably saved her from getting it. It’s an open office plan with people on top of each other, and one of the people who got it was the front desk person that they all interact with.
Now those people that got it, they were “low risk”. Maybe they didn’t interact with high risk people in their lives, I don’t know. My wife isn’t high risk.
But I am. Ridiculously high risk (lots of pre-existing conditions). So are my parents that live with us. So that “young healthy low risk person” that gets themselves infected increases the chance of passing it to my wife, who passes it to me, and then my kids grow up without a father.
I’ll add something. The lockdown probably saved my life.
If the lockdown ended today, it might be safe. Her work isn’t going to make anyone with high risk family members come in to work. Telework options have been built out. They are going to have different groups come in on different days. Precautions are being taken for sanitary work. They aren’t going to conferences and avoiding in person meetings when possible.
But none of that would have happened without the lockdown. The lockdown made it “serious” and deserving of “serious” measures.
So I think the lockdown should end, but I think it was appropriate when it was issued (I’m probably alive because of it). However, I also have high confidence in the leadership of her firm. I can see less diligent employers not doing what is necessary.
What you said.
This seems accurate to me as well.
“So I think the lockdown should end, but I think it was appropriate when it was issued (I’m probably alive because of it).”
But, I don’t think the virus is going away. How are you any safer now than you were a few weeks ago?
I don’t see the logic. As Bob observes, you are still at the same risk you were before–your kids could pick up the virus from an asymptomatic carrier, be asymptomatic themselves and pass it on to you.
“So that “young healthy low risk person” that gets themselves infected increases the chance of passing it to my wife, who passes it to me, and then my kids grow up without a father.”
I don’t want to belittle this sentiment, but this could happen anyway, with many other illnesses. You are privileging the demand to protect you from this particular illness. It’s worse than flu, yes, but no guarantee flu won’t carry you off instead, if it was a particularly bad case. Or maybe the pre-existing conditions would get worse.
And many people who aren’t even at risk are likewise demanding a level of safety from this particular illness just because it’s in the news.
The whole problem is that the demand is screwing over everyone else, when there is nothing particularly unique about this particular risk.
“And many people who aren’t even at risk are likewise demanding a level of safety from this particular illness just because it’s in the news.”
“The whole problem is that the demand is screwing over everyone else, when there is nothing particularly unique about this particular risk.”
+1
“your kids could pick up the virus from an asymptomatic carrier”
My kids get watched by my parents who themselves had no social contact outside my family. They do not go to daycare anymore.
“I don’t want to belittle this sentiment, but this could happen anyway, with many other illnesses.”
Those illnesses are less dangerous.
“You are privileging the demand to protect you from this particular illness.”
Yes. It’s a life or death matter for me.
“It’s worse than flu, yes, but no guarantee flu won’t carry you off instead, if it was a particularly bad case. ”
I’ve had the flu many times and its never come close to killing me. I usually get zonked out more then most, but it doesn’t cause a cytokine storm (autoimmune disorder) or cause me to be unable to breath (likely with my asthma and reduced lung capacity).
“when there is nothing particularly unique about this particular risk.”
The mortality rate is 10x the flu and the hospitalization/permanent lung damage rate is 10x that (100x). It’s also more catagious than the flu, and I can’t get a flu shot to control my risk. It’s hugely different from the flu.
“How are you any safer now than you were a few weeks ago?”
If the infection rate remains relatively low and the current safety measures stay in place, there is a decent chance my family can work and buy essentials without contracting the virus until either better treatments, a vaccine, or herd immunity are achieved. Also, if a get sick getting treatment will be easier in a flat curve scenario.
That seemed a lot less likely pre lockdown, when as a noted I would probably be dead if the lockdown started a week later.
I think its prudent to allow activities with large positive values and low increases in R0, but I think that set of activities is less than lockdown haters and more than lockdown zealots.
“That seemed a lot less likely pre lockdown, when as a noted I would probably be dead if the lockdown started a week later.”
***hyperbole alert***
I hope that at some point you plan on letting your kids out to lead a normal life.
And for all you know, the fact that you survived the flu means you’d also survive this.
Bit too much drama, overall.
***hyperbole alert***
1) Given my conditions, the chance of mortality and grave sickness were very high.
2) It seems likely that with two spreaders in that environment, she would have got it.
No hyperbole.
“I hope that at some point you plan on letting your kids out to lead a normal life.”
Yes, when the risk reward makes sense.
“And for all you know, the fact that you survived the flu means you’d also survive this.”
They are totally different.
“Bit too much drama, overall.”
Growing up without a father is drama. Spending more time with family for a short time at a young age isn’t.
[not fitting with the guidelines for discourse here–ed.]
@edrealist I’m disappointed in you. You write “I don’t want to belittle this sentiment” and then you spend the rest of the thread belittling it, topping it off with a blast of armchair psychology. And you write all that after @asdf stated plainly that he thinks the lockdown should end! Pfui.
I often disagree with asdf but he is making a lot of sense on this topic.
I would add that the controversy about the lockdown is not just about the various trade offs between the rights of older people with co-morbidities and the rights of younger people at less risk.
Also relevant are the rights of health care workers who are making great sacrifices and still working without enough PPE and who are at much higher risk than the general population. And the welfare of every other person who needs to access the healthcare and hospital system for any reason and would benefit from that system not being overrun.
People who think that it is the lockdown rather than the virus itself that is ruining the economy will soon be offering some new theory as the lockdown ends and the economy continues to stagnate. No doubt they will blame some combination of the media and their political opponents.
You can con a low information voter but not a virus.
“Many politicians of our time are in the habit of laying it down as a self-evident proposition, that no people ought to be free till they are fit to use their freedom. The maxim is worthy of the fool in the old story, who resolved not to go into the water till he had learned to swim. If men are to wait for liberty till they become wise and good in slavery, they may indeed have to wait forever.“
-Thomas Babington Macaulay
” We are now in a position where anything other than a lockdown causes fear”
Not in most places. I’m nowhere rural at all and I don’t know anyone personally who has gotten COVID. The hospitals are basically empty. I get if you live in NY or NJ that it might be still scary, but outside of there most people are fine with cautiously opening up.
As usual, I think there’s a yawning divide between what most people are fine with and the “national discussion” as it’s taking place.
A key question is whether rural areas will catch up in terms of infections. In most rural counties near me, the infection rate per person is still remarkably low compared to the urban areas of the state. That has not prevented several local businesses from being forced to close permanently.
The national discussion has been about NYC. My area of the country won’t likely become the next NYC regardless of if we open or not.
A little off-topic for this post, but apparently there is a lot of push-back from people who don’t like being told to wear masks. A store security guard in Michigan was shot dead because of trying to enforce a policy that customers have to wear masks. https://reason.com/2020/05/05/masks-can-be-a-symbol-of-privacy-and-personal-responsibility-not-tyranny/
> But I don’t think my own fear would be any less if there were mass testing. And I can imagine that such a regime would actually stoke fear in a lot of people.
It depends on the results of the testing, no? If they’ve only found one positive case in your area despite mass/broad testing, and your risk of becoming infected is incredibly small, you probably feel pretty safe going out, doing normal things. On the other hand, if widespread testing demonstrates a massive outbreak, you’ll probably be a bit more cautious. I’m unclear how it can work any other way?
“Nothing is so galling to a people not broken in from the birth as a paternal, or, in other words, a meddling government, a government which tells them what to read, and say, and eat, and drink and wear.” – Thomas Babington Macaulay
“We shouldn’t be trying to conquer fear so we can go back to the old economy. We should be building the new economy that has an order of magnitude fewer casual human interactions.”
See, this is–forgive me–batshit crazy.
“When I need to be in an indoor setting with people other than my wife, I have less fear if everyone, including me, is wearing a face covering.”
This isn’t batshit crazy, but it’s extremely irrational. There are zillions of things that can kill us. I have less fear if I’m not on an airplane, but I don’t let that stop me from flying.
The thing that is amazing about this situation is that apparently, a number of people in elite positions in the media and academy (not, apparently, in politics) are irrationally phobic and are setting the conversation so that people can say things like “I want to reorient the world to require fewer interactions because I, personally, have lost my mind due to fear of covid19.”
And it’s clear that social conformity is huge. Hence the polls show strong support for maintaining lockdowns, while actual data show people are driving, going to stores, seeing other people, and doing all they can to ignore the orders. All because the media has set the norm that all of this phobia is normal to the human condition, as opposed to one group’s particular fear.
“this is–forgive me–batshit crazy.”
+1
(Yeah, no need to restructure the entire frigging economy. We just need to start to re-open it and then take it one step at a time from there to get back to something that resembles normalcy. )
“This isn’t batshit crazy, but it’s extremely irrational.”
The only countries that have successfully controlled Covid have widespread mask usage. You’re crazy.
“Hence the polls show strong support for maintaining lockdowns, while actual data show people are driving, going to stores, seeing other people, and doing all they can to ignore the orders. ”
Actually tracking data shows all of that is way down, even in non-lockdown countries like Sweden.
No country has successfully controlled covid19, and they are unlikely to until there’s a vaccine. And at some point soon there’s going to be huge pushback from healthy people at the demands of the sick and the elderly to make *huge* concessions for their safety. Wearing a mask all the time is a huge concession.
We should absolutely work to protect those who are at risk of death from covid19, but that protection should involve our direct interactions with those folks, not a massive transformation of normal behavior just to protect the vulnerable. It’s like banning booze just because there are alcoholics, or insisting everyone in the US get a flu shot.