Ducey should not be under fire for his calm response to COVID-19
“There are no solutions, only tradeoffs.” Thomas Sowell’s repeated warning applies not only to his field of economics but also to public health crises.
Those pretending to have the “correct” solution to the coronavirus pandemic should heed his advice.
Leaders around the world are trading jobs, retirement plans and the economy itself for the physical health of their citizens. Getting that balance right is literally a matter of life and death.
In just four months, COVID-19 spread from one city in central China to nearly every nation on earth. Tens of thousands of deaths and fears of many, many more have rocked every industry and each of our daily lives.
Even if the virus vanished tomorrow, we would struggle with the fallout for years.
Policymakers are facing a problem not seen since the Spanish flu pandemic
a century ago. It’s no surprise they have different views on the best course forward, especially when leading epidemiologists and economists offer wildly divergent advice.
When dealing with the unknown, we turn to projections.
In the worst-case scenario, Imperial College London predicted between 1.1 million and 2.2 million deaths in the United States alone.
In the best case, deaths are in the thousands if:
❚ the virus mutates into a less lethal form (a common path for viruses);
❚ social distancing, improved hygiene and warmer weather reduce the infection rate;
❚ and drugs are found effective in treating cases until a vaccine is developed.
The eventual toll will fall between these two extremes, but any politician claiming certainty at this point is a fool. TV commentators and internet pundits are working with even less information. All of us should use fewer exclamation points and more question marks.
The difference between millions or thousands of fatalities is vast, as is the best policy to address each.
With one, it might be best to quarantine everyone for months; with the other, returning to normal a week from now. Since the scientists disagree so starkly, it’s obvious that politicians and business leaders will as well.
Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey has spent the past two months meeting with experts across the spectrum to get buy-in from all the stakeholders as he methodically recommended increasing limits on schools, businesses and other institutions.
In response to his bipartisan leadership, U.S. Sen. Kyrsten Sinema blasted him for not doing enough.
In Sinema’s view, the entire state and nation should follow a one-size-fits-all plan. The strictest guidelines for Manhattan must also be forced upon Ajo, Ariz.
Sinema insists she’s “sticking to the science,” but which science: millions of fatalities or thousands? No scientist compelled her to delay the Senate’s bipartisan coronavirus relief bill by several days, that’s for sure.
Hindsight is 20-20 and we won’t know which proved to be the best course of action until this crisis is over.
But neither is a silver-bullet solution.
Any increased restrictions come with a serious tradeoff for Arizona’s workers, small-business owners and families.
I have one of those rare jobs that I can do from home. The two espresso shop owners I chatted with today aren’t so lucky. Nor are the restaurateurs, hotel workers or airline employees. The virus is threatening not only their lives, but their livelihoods.
Calmly seeking buy-in from leaders in science, health care and business helps ensure Arizonans actually follow the temporary lockdown orders and assures them that state leaders of both parties hear their concerns.
Ducey has done just that.