What Gov. Ducey’s critics overlook about virus restrictions
On managing COVID-19, Gov. Doug Ducey continues to get the balance between open and shut generally right.
The action he took last week was actually quite modest. He merely lifted the capacity restrictions on the limited categories of businesses for which they had been imposed, such as restaurants and gyms.
His critics were, as usual, furious. But they are materially mispresenting his position and the status of COVID-19 community risk in the state.
A useful place to begin this discussion is to roll the clock back to last Nov. 27. On that date, a group of academics at the University of Arizona sent a hair-onfire memo to the Arizona Department of Health Services.
According to their computer model, the then building second wave of infections would overwhelm hospital capacity in the state by the end of December. The result would be apocalyptic. “(I)f ac
tion is not immediately taken, then it risks a catastrophe on a scale of the worst natural disaster the state has ever experienced. It would be akin to facing a major forest fire without evacuation orders.”
To prevent hospitals from being overrun, the academics recommended immediate implementation of a threeweek, shelter-in-place order and a statewide mask mandate. Indoor dining would be completely banned.
In the event, Ducey did not issue a shelter-in-place order just before Christmas. He didn’t impose a statewide mask mandate. And he didn’t completely ban indoor dining.
During the second wave, hospital capacity was extremely stressed, but it was never exceeded or overrun. On the day Ducey lifted the remaining capacity restrictions, there was ample unused hospital space in the state. COVID-19 cases occupied just 7% of non-ICU beds and just 10% of ICU beds.
Unlike his critics, Ducey has properly seen dealing with COVID-19 as a risk management exercise.
Being open risks more serious illnesses and deaths. Being closed risks unemployment, business failures, social isolation and a raft of other psychological stresses and adverse consequences.
A balance of risks was in order, and for the most part Ducey has struck as good of one as could have been expected.
The Arizona economy is in much better shape than that of most states. The statistics that purport to show that Arizona had a worse COVID-19 experience don’t involve uniform data collection procedures that would be necessary to make such comparisons.
In reality, virtually all states have had a first and second wave of COVID-19 cases. The degree of relative lockdown doesn’t seem related to the severity of their magnitudes.
In making the case that Ducey’s latest opening move was premature, critics focused on the fact that, at the time, just 15% or so of adults in the state had been fully vaccinated, meaning have received both doses of the twodose regimens. The singular focus on this data point badly misrepresents the current status of community risk.
Those over 65 are significantly more at risk of serious illness or death from COVID-19. They were among the first in line for jabs. A much higher percentage of the at-risk population has been fully vaccinated.
Moreover, a single jab of the twodose regimens offers protection comparable to, or exceeding, that of most vaccines. People awaiting their second dose are at considerably less risk.
And then there are those who have already been infected and have natural immunity. One failure in COVID-19 management has been not doing random testing to track this. Confirmed cases are just some fraction of the whole.
In sum, the percentage of Arizonans not currently at great risk of serious illness or death from COVID-19 is orders of magnitude larger than 15%.
Ducey critics almost uniformly complain that it is premature to declare victory over COVID-19. But Ducey didn’t claim victory. He just lifted arbitrary capacity restrictions on the limited categories of businesses on which they had been imposed.
He and his Department of Health Services continue to urge people to use masks, practice social distancing and get vaccinated. There was never any real science behind the specifics of the capacity limitations. Business owners and patrons can figure out a new comfort zone, making their own risk management decisions.
COVID-19 isn’t going away. But we can get on with life while coping with it.
We can make our own decisions about what risks we are subject to or want to take. Government shouldn’t require us to live like hermits until hubristic academic computer models tell us that there is zero risk in venturing out.