SHould I try to get Covid-19?

April 2 | Posted by mrossol | American Thought, Coronavirus

WSJ  4/1/2020

In pursuit of something called Q rating, TV presenters and others with public images prefer to talk about ideal outcomes rather than optimal ones.

This is a problem I have alluded to more than once in the Covid-19 crisis. Then it was all thrown out the window when a noted stock picker on CNBC asked Mike Pence a straightforward question: Are we all expected to get the virus?

The vice president issued a stream of words none of which resembled “yes” or the simple clarity of the CDC’s own epidemic webpage, which says, “In the coming months, most of the U.S. population will be exposed to this virus.”

I have two kinds of friends: those with whom I email about when to get the virus, and those with whom I email only about how to avoid it. Lately intruding into this personal risk assessment are some realities about ventilators. They are not a miracle device. In one study of 22 Wuhan patients who needed mechanical breathing support, 19 died. Under calmer conditions in the U.S., one large study in the 1990s found about half of ventilator patients survived treatment and 30% were alive after a year.

Experts are now planning ways to get Americans back to work with mass testing and mass provision of masks and gloves. Second thoughts about the lockdown aren’t due only to the economic costs. Accumulating evidence seems to show Covid-19 spreading to the most vulnerable through close family contact rather than casual interactions. The experts’ recovery plans, though, tend to be mum on whether the goal is to slow the rate at which we get exposed or to save us from getting infected altogether. The polling data on which President Trump made this week’s decision to extend social-distancing guidance can be read as most Americans believing they should be kept safe from ever getting the coronavirus.

It’s amusing to see some bloggers using the term Straussian (I’ll explain later) to let each other know they are talking about that which they aren’t supposed to talk about. Australia in recent weeks has conducted a comparatively non-Straussian (i.e., candid) discussion. Should the country, with a one- or two-month ferocious lockdown, try to eradicate the virus from its shores, then ban foreign entry until a vaccine arrives in a year or two? Or should it accept a majority becoming infected and use a calibrated economic clampdown to slow the rate at which these cases hit its emergency rooms? “When it comes to lifting restrictions it’s like turning the tap of cases on or off depending on how full hospitals are,” a pithy academic told the government- backed Australian Broadcasting Corp.

If we were being as candid in the U.S., each of us might be asking ourselves the herd immunity question: Do I belong among the 60% who need to get infected or the 40% who should avoid exposure at all cost until the epidemic snuffs itself out? I tend to think of myself as on the bubble. That means weighing the chances of a severe illness against the advantages of putting the disease behind me and no longer being a threat to others.

“Flatten the curve,” of course, does not foreclose the possibility of happy surprises. Christmas could come early. A tentative discovery is that half or more of cases are symptomless. Many more people may have been infected than we realize. If so, herd immunity may be nearer than we think (and less avoidable too), and the death rate may be lower than we fear.

The summer months might also buy us some time if heat and humidity slow transmission. Our first-rate pharmaceutical establishment might yield up a treatment or vaccine sooner than we expect.

The TV news doesn’t do multivariate, though I presume many announcers understand that “flatten the curve” doesn’t mean defeat or banish the virus—it means delaying your infection and mine until the doctor will see us now.

I wonder what will happen if most Americans realize they are not being kept safe from the illness, the timing of their infection is merely being managed. If our lockdown goes on much longer, a divide could emerge between the lucky 29% who can work at home and live comfortably, versus the 71% who just lost their jobs or must face the virus to earn a paycheck. The latter category includes thousands of health-care workers manning the battle stations. Social solidarity can be a perishable flower—one more reason for thinking an endgame that comes sooner rather than later is to be preferred.

By the way, for those wondering about German-American philosopher Leo Strauss, his name is often invoked nowadays to suggest you can promote your conclusions while talking around them. I’m not sure this is one of those cases.

BUSINESS WORLD   By Holman W. Jenkins, Jr.

Share

Leave a Reply

Verified by ExactMetrics