In an article yesterday, “A Dangerous Libertarian Strategy for Herd Immunity,” Bloomberg, October 15, George Mason University economist Tyler Cowen criticizes the now-famous Great Barrington Declaration.
This response is in two parts. Part 2 will follow tomorrow.
I’ll consider Cowen’s arguments one by one. The highlighted sections are his and the non-highlighted sections are mine.
But first I’ll point out two things.
First, Cowen starts with a category error. He seems to think that when three non-libertarian medical professionals write a statement at a facility staffed largely by libertarians, the result must be libertarian. It isn’t. Many libertarians will like it; some will not. But it’s not libertarian. In our book, Making Great Decisions in Business and Life, Charley Hooper and I point that in any project, the biggest mistakes are made the first day. That’s because everything follows from decisions made that day. Similarly, by misidentifying the strategy as libertarian, he goes down a rabbit hole from which he doesn’t emerge. (Note: I know that editors often assign titles and Cowen might not have chosen this one. If he disagrees with the title, then ignore this criticism.)
Second, Cowen’s big-picture criticism of freedom is less like Strauss (one of his favorite words) and more like Schrodinger’s Cat. He claims, in the last few paragraphs of his article, that the declaration “tries to procure maximum liberty for commerce and daily life” and that its conception of human nature “raises the question of whether it even qualifies as a defense of natural liberty.”
Which is it? Is it trying to procure maximum liberty, which, in this context, certainly seems like defending it, or is not a defense? I’m not asking whether it’s a good defense. I’m simply pointing out that Cowen seems to want to have it both ways.
Now to the other specifics.
Debate over the declaration has centered on the concept of “herd immunity,” but that discussion has become so emotional that it is better to focus first on the concrete. The declaration stresses the notion of protecting the vulnerable, such as the elderly, and giving everyone else maximum possible freedom. That sounds good, but the declaration fails to deliver on the details.
True. It doesn’t deliver on details. I don’t think that was the intent. It’s 514 words long, only slightly longer than those short USA Today op/eds. Cowen’s piece, by contrast, is 1,399 words long, almost 3 times as long. And yet in some places, the Great Barrington Declaration gives more details than his.
First and foremost, the declaration does not present the most important point right now, which is to say October 2020: By the middle of next year, and quite possibly sooner, the world will be in a much better position to combat Covid-19.
Probably right, but it’s a guess. Moreover the middle of next year is 8 to 9 months from now.
The arrival of some mix of vaccines and therapeutics will improve the situation, so it makes sense to shift cases and infection risks into the future while being somewhat protective now.
The first clause is probably right, but the conclusion doesn’t follow. What is the cost of shifting cases into the future? Cowen doesn’t say.
To allow large numbers of people today to die of Covid, in wealthy countries, is akin to charging the hill and taking casualties two days before the end of World War I.
What does he mean by “allow?” Is he saying that people shouldn’t be allowed to take those risks? I don’t know.
Notice also how he biases the discussion with “two days.” I would bet that the authors wouldn’t have bothered with the statement if they thought we would have a vaccine in 2 days, 4 days, or even 14 days.
Not only does the declaration fail to make that point, but if anything the rhetoric conveys a sense of “letting things take their course” — after the most vulnerable are segregated from society, of course. It strikes exactly the wrong tone and stresses exactly the wrong points.
Either he thinks this is self-evident or this is a lead-in to the next few paragraphs. If the former, he’s wrong; if the latter, let’s look at the next few paragraphs.
The declaration also sets up a false dichotomy by comparing its policy proposals to lockdowns. The claim is this: “Current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health.” The health problems are very real, but in most of the U.S., the lockdowns are not severe. In my home state of Virginia, there are relatively few commercial activities I cannot partake in, were I so inclined. I even can go see a live bluegrass concert in a nightclub (I won’t, not yet).
It’s not a false dichotomy. There are real lockdowns in place. And notice that he uses the word “commercial.” K-12 schools, even ones that charge tuition, are typically not lumped under “commercial.” This doesn’t affect Cowen. It does affect a number of my neighbors’ and friends’ kids, devastatingly so. And while Cowen can go to a bluegrass concert, I bet he can’t go to a gym. In most of California, we can’t yet go to gyms. My wife’s and my Pilates instructor is facing economic devastation.
The problem is that most people don’t want to go out to such concerts, and indeed probably should not. It is this self-enforced isolation, not a government order, which screws us up, sometimes creating mental and other health problems.
Why is it a problem if people don’t want to go out to such events? And if that’s the main reason they don’t, why are governments around the country, certainly in large states like California, New York, and Illinois, banning such events?
He does get it right, though, about mental and other health problems. But some of these are due to lockdowns.
Whatever you think of the stricter policies of last spring, they are now behind us, and the emphasis on “lockdowns” is not helpful. The more useful question is whether the list of prohibited activities should be expanded or contracted. In some cases, surely, it should be expanded. Indoor restaurant dining and drinking, for example, is probably not a good idea in most parts of the U.S. right now.
Yes, many of the Covid cases spread by such activity would be among the lower-risk young, rather than the higher-risk elderly. Still, practically speaking, given America’s current response capabilities, those cases will further paralyze schools and workplaces and entertainment venues. It just doesn’t seem worth it.
The first sentence of the second paragraph is key. Finally, he’s getting to details. He doesn’t make a case, though, that those cases will further paralyze schools and workplaces. What’s his evidence? Emily Oster at Brown University differs with Cowen on this. And unlike Cowen, she actually has evidence. Moreover, to whom does it not seem worth it? Not to the people who want to do it. Cowen seems to be substituting his own values for those of others.
Even if you disagree with that judgment, the critics who emphasize lockdowns are setting up a straw man. What they’re trying to do is talk us into something more dangerous than what we ought to accept. The truth is that lockdowns are extremely unpopular, and while they may have to be reimposed in extreme circumstances, they are not the main alternative on the table in the U.S. right now.
Wait a minute. We have lockdowns. Some of them are severe. Cowen has just told us that he wants to make them more severe. But arguing against lockdowns is arguing against a straw man? Huh?
The declaration also notes the value of reopening schools. It is an inarguable point, and Sweden seems to have made it work. But schools cannot and should not be reopened unconditionally. Amid high levels of Covid-19, a successful reopening very often will require social distancing, masks and a good system for testing and tracing. It would be better to focus on what needs to be done to make school reopenings work. Reopened schools in Israel, for instance, seem to have contributed to a significant second wave of Covid-19.
Actually, I think every point is arguable. What he really means is that he comes down on the side of reopening schools. Good. On that we agree. But for someone who thinks we should look at data, Cowen really should look at Oster’s data. And notice how close Cowen comes to the Great Barrington view on this. I don’t know what the three authors would say about what needs to be done to make school reopenings work. Neither does Cowen.
A broader worry about the declaration is that, for all the talk of science, it fails to emphasize data. The declaration is a series of static recommendations, yet the situation on the ground is evolving all the time. The best policies today are not the same as the best policies two months ago, and won’t necessarily be the best policies two months from now. This reader is also struck by the document’s frequent use of the passive voice — as if there is no choice but to let a series of inevitable events slowly unfold, albeit in a minimally painless way, and to allow the pandemic to finish its work.
Cowen accuses the authors of failing to emphasize data? That’s rich. He has hardly any data. Here’s a statement from the Declaration:
We know that vulnerability to death from COVID-19 is more than a thousand-fold higher in the old and infirm than the young.
That’s data, and pretty relevant data.
Cowen points out correctly that the best policies of today are [probably] not the best policies two months from now. But the big advantage of the focus the Declaration proposes is that it allows for that.
What about the passive voice? I think Cowen needs to consult a grammar textbook. There’s not a whole lot of passive voice in the Declaration. It’s mainly active. And letting people do things has nothing to do with the passive voice.
Part 2 will be tomorrow. Stay tuned.
READER COMMENTS
Alan Goldhammer
Oct 16 2020 at 5:54pm
David – I read Oster’s article when it came out. I can tell you as one who has been reading all the primary literature since mid-March that this is not as clear cut as she and you by reference imply. There have been a number of papers from various countries that note transmission from school age children back to their homes. This was one of the reasons why Israel imposed a lock down recently. Schools can reopen and there are good guidelines from the National Academy of Science and the American Academy of Pediatrics. There is a cost associated with this in terms of addressing ventilation systems and crowding of classes and hallways. It not as simple as just opening the doors and welcoming kids back (there have been a number of cases of rapid spreading of SARS-CoV-2 through out schools.
Some parts of the economy are open and some are not. I’ve already seen reports of viral spread in open gyms because someone came in who had COVID-19 and spread it to others. This is what viruses do and they don’t have any intelligence to do anything else. There are some activities that present a risk (primarily because people won’t follow public health precautions). In our area restaurants are all open but I’ve yet to see more than 4-5 people dining when I go in to pick up dinner. We are not prepared to dine inside right now. Probably 1/3 of the people in the country are not going to take that risk. Look at office buildings right now. They are open but most offices are still working remotely. This is causing all the ancillary businesses that serve those employees and buildings to suffer. This isn’t going to change anytime soon.
My yoga studio is closed and only doing Zoom lessons. I don’t know when they will reopen and I’m not going back when they do until I have a better idea of the risk. Other than the grocery stores in our area there is very little traffic in other stores. Perhaps our suburban DC county of 1.1 million is overly cautious (I suspect this is the case).
There are no good answers to this. As you know I thought The Great Barrington statement was stupid and I am more aligned with the John Snow Memorandum (I would be most interested in your critique of that position). There are still too many unknowns and most of us do not have the healthcare options that President Trump had when he contracted COVID-19.
As I noted in an early blog post of yours, we could be looking at mortality number approach 500K under herd immunity free fall approach. This is a position held by the majority of epidemiologists. Fortunately, we can pick which set of experts that we want to follow and given the time and effort I’ve put in to following the scientific developments the choice is clear. I don’t begrudge others for having a different view but do vehemently object when they don’t mask up and take care not to go into crowded situations. The rules are pretty simple and had they been followed things would have turned out much better. As Walt Kelley’s Pogo so famously said, “we have met the enemy and the enemy is us.” True then and true today.
robc
Oct 16 2020 at 7:22pm
Read thru your John Snow link… shouldn’t Sweden be on the list of countries who have returned to near normal?
And I still don’t understand why this pandemic is being treated differently than the the Hong Kong Flu of 68-69. This may be slightly worse, but same order of magnitude. Did anyone even consider canceling Woodstock?
Alan Goldhammer
Oct 16 2020 at 8:13pm
Woodstock took place in the summer. Seasonal influenzas usually run from late October to early March and would not have impacted Woodstock. Most influenzas are not novel pathogens but mutations of those already in circulation. SARS-CoV-2 is novel and the population is unexposed to it. It also has multiple points of attack and causes a multiple of other symptoms than the common influenzas do.
robc
Oct 17 2020 at 6:09pm
Feel free to replace Woodstock with NCAA tournament or NFL.
Squirrelloid
Oct 18 2020 at 4:05pm
the 68-69 flu was not seasonal flu, but pandemic flu (hong kong flu), and it spiked in the summer iirc.
Michael Pettengill
Oct 21 2020 at 5:17am
There was no flu to speak of in spring, summer, and fall of 1969, and none at Woodstock. From personal experience. 1969 was a good year, if not in a war zone.
Squirrelloid
Oct 18 2020 at 4:42pm
Hong Kong flu was a pandemic flu, not seasonal flu. Pandemic flus are novel pathogens as far as our immune systems are concerned, by definition. That’s why they become pandemics. And pandemic flus also tend to peak in spring or summer, not winter like seasonal flu.
Dylan
Oct 16 2020 at 9:11pm
My guess is that it has to do with the fact that the world is much richer than it was 50 years ago and safety is a normal good that we demand more of with increasing wealth?
Student of Liberty
Oct 18 2020 at 5:55am
I am not convinced. The political hysteria has occurred all over the place. I doubt that Indonesia or India today are richer than the US in 1968. So here comes the question: who is “we”? Certainly not me…
Mactoul
Oct 21 2020 at 2:41am
Indian elite takes cues from the Western–they don’t like to be thought backward.
And thanks to information infrastructure and other developments in state capacity, they could actually implement lockdowns without risking catastrophic consequences in 2020. It would not have been possible 50 years ago.
Squirrelloid
Oct 18 2020 at 4:45pm
Based on the Ioannidis paper that WHO just published recently, the IFR for Covid-19 is actually lower than the Hong Kong flu. Of course, there’s also a lot more people in the world, so absolute deaths are higher.
suddyan
Oct 18 2020 at 7:48am
[There have been a number of papers from various countries that note transmission from school age children back to their homes. ]
Kindly show them. And kindly show that you have weighed them against any and all counter-arguments and / or research.
Until then – kindly open up everything for us who want it. And if you yourself don’t want to, you are welcome to go and hide in your bunker.
Dylan
Oct 16 2020 at 6:13pm
Agree with some of your criticisms of Tyler’s piece, I share those and others that you have not (yet) raised. However, I’ve got some issues with some of your points and some places where I suspect you’re misunderstanding the point that is trying to be made.
It seems clear from his earlier paragraphs that Tyler is saying a policy of maximum liberty now will lead to a world of increasing hospitalizations and death, and that this will in turn lead to a public demand for ever more strict lockdowns. More liberty now means less liberty later (and maybe less liberty overall).
I haven’t kept up on regional lockdown differences, but even in NYC we’ve been able to go to gyms for awhile now as long as they keep social distance rules and lower capacity. I had thought that was the case in California as well, since I spoke with someone a few weeks ago in L.A. who mentioned being one of the first people back at her gym. There are no live, indoor classes allowed here. Lots of places have been doing outdoor classes, but in NYC with the weather turning that won’t be an option for much longer. Places like yoga studios are supposed to be able to reopen with a public health inspection, but that’s kind of impossible to get, so the reality is they are still lockeddown.
My reading of this is not that he is coming down on the side of opening schools, just that he says that the benefits are inarguable. But, as every economist knows, the benefits are only half the equation. You need to also look at the costs. For Tyler, I think he is trying to look at the inevitable social reaction to all of these policies and sees any world where case loads start to rise beyond the level we’ve gotten used to, is one where we’ll have more lockdowns, less liberty, more deaths, more hospitalizations, more unknown health problems for young and old alike…and the benefits that people are speaking of would by necessity be short lived.
At least that’s my read. I think that if you’re going to make the case for more liberty, you have to at least grapple with the fact that large portions of the population are going to be demanding less.
eric mcfadden
Oct 16 2020 at 11:00pm
I can’t mail a package to my daughter in America from Japan because of the lockdowns. I bought a laptop to go with her drawing tablet and I went to the post office to mail it to her in America. The Japanese Post office said that all airmail of packages has been suspended until some time in the future. I guess after the election. I’d prefer to change leaders by voting, not economic hostage taking.
Mark Z
Oct 17 2020 at 1:25am
The herd immunity argument isn’t convincing, imo, which is an important point. Right now, maybe ~10% of Americans have been infected, after more than 6 months. By the time enough people have been infected to reach herd immunity, most people who’ve already gotten the virus will likely have already lost their immunity, which may only last a year or so on average.
Variant
Oct 17 2020 at 8:54am
That’s not quite how it works, fortunately. The body can remember how to fight off a virus it’s defeated before. Take a look at:
https://www.nicholaslewis.org/t-cell-cross-reactivity-and-the-herd-immunity-threshold/
Mark Z
Oct 18 2020 at 3:42pm
Yes, it can… until the immunity (memory B and T cells) fade. Immunity to influenza tends to last 6 months to a year or so. People who have T-Cells that confer immunity to covid19 have them probably because they were fairly recently infected with similar coronaviruses. Some people have already gotten reinfected with covid19. As with similar viruses, we probably shouldn’t expect immunity last very long (e.g, longer than maybe a year or two on average).
Anonymous
Oct 21 2020 at 9:18am
Reinfections with mutations of the virus are extremely rare, in the 1/millions. We know antibody response lasts a minimum of 5-7 months, and experts expect 2 years in keeping with SARS. Non-antibody protections may last longer. At this point there is no reason to believe immunity will be particularly short-lived.
I also doubt the 10% claim. We already have >2.5% confirmed cases. Undercounting probably isn’t 10x anymore but as an overall average, I’m sure it’s more than 4x.
suddyan
Oct 18 2020 at 7:54am
[Right now, maybe ~10% of Americans have been infected, after more than 6 months.]
I disagree. And until you can refute Mike Yeadon’s analysis, kindly open up everything!
Your support for drastic measures demand extraordinary evidence.
Mark Z
Oct 18 2020 at 3:36pm
I didn’t support any measures at all, merely pointed out that herd immunity is probably wishful thinking.
Mactoul
Oct 21 2020 at 2:48am
I am not sure why do we need herd immunity. Most people are immune to the covid.
They have natural immunity and no herd immunity is required.
Christian Bjørnskov
Oct 17 2020 at 4:19am
To me, the absolutely weakest point in Cowen’s comment is the implicit assumption that lockdowns actually work in the sense of reducing Covid deaths. But looking at actual data tells a different story. Several new studies – including one that I wrote – show quite clearly that stricter lockdowns are not associated with fewer deaths. We are essentially discussing whether you can defend a policy that creates enormous economic and social costs without asking if there are any benefits to the policy. And once you look at that, the benefits seem to entirely absent.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3665588
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lsmTsgaTt7ZOtMqrsxj8OM89L_iEoh9H/view?usp=sharing
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(20)30208-X/fulltext
Lyle Albaugh
Oct 17 2020 at 9:33am
Regarding the discussion of data, context is important. First, the Covid-19 survival rate is extremely high for those younger than 70 and not that low for those over 70.
COVID-19 INFECTION SURVIVAL RATES (per CDC)
Ages 0-19: 99.997%
Ages 20-49: 99.98%
Ages 50-69: 99.5%
Ages 70+: 94.6%
Second, in the US, year to date, total excess deaths are a tiny percentage of the total population: 0.068% (224,173 out of 328.2M).
Todd Kreider
Oct 17 2020 at 12:21pm
I think this is unlikely to be a majority view. Can Alan Goldhammer provide a link that shows this?
Steven E Landsburg
Oct 17 2020 at 11:30pm
This is really great, David. Thank you.
David Seltzer
Oct 19 2020 at 5:55pm
David, excellent. If Cowen’s thinking is more like Schrodinger’s cat, We won’t know until we open the box. Or, as the analogy to a quantum system whereby a particle exists in several separate quantum states at the same time, both of Cowen’s propositions can exist simultaneously.
Diana L Weatherby
Oct 19 2020 at 10:58pm
I do believe in freedom but I also don’t believe in imposing costs on others.
Though extra PPE could be produced in a short amount of time the supply of nurses and other medical staff cannot be cranked out by a converted factory in a couple months and there are major shortages in many areas of the country. I do not believe those who push the Great Barrington Declaration have the right to impose extra 12 hour shifts on nursing staff and others or keep others from having modern medical tech treating them when they are in need.
It seems like the most freedom loving policy would be to allow people to choose to live their lives freely but sign a document that could be forwarded to all hospitals that they forego any medical treatment if the hospital is at or nearing capacity (since it is difficult to kick someone out and allow a new patient to take their place.) In this manner if they happen to be part of the 5%? or whatever the percentage turns out to be in the end, they will just die at home without care rather than taking someone else’s place at the nearby medical facility. Nursing staff could continue working normal work weeks rather than exhausting themselves while caring for highly contagious patients which put them at risk of dying.
Dave
Oct 21 2020 at 4:43pm
Diana is proposing to massively upend longstanding principles of Western medical ethics. That’s in the name of a hypothetical case (lack of hospital capacity) that’s perhaps been borderline true a few places in Western Europe and the U.S. (e.g., New York City, parts of northern Italy) but where forecast worst cases have notably failed to materialize in reality.
What other groups should similarly be singled out for “back of the line” medical treatment? Excessive speeders and drunk drivers who get into traffic accidents? Criminals who get shot, either lawfully (by others acting in self-defense) or otherwise (i.e., by other criminals)? Promiscuous people with large numbers of sexual partners who acquire AIDS or other STD’s? People over some very high threshold BMI who suffer heart attacks?
Diana L Weatherby
Oct 27 2020 at 11:59pm
Do you realize many of places barely held on with nurses taking on many extra 12 hour shifts? Many cases were diverted to hospitals further away from hotspots in Arizona and Florida. Currently Utah is looking at rationing care. See link. https://www.sltrib.com/news/2020/10/25/with-coronavirus-cases/
My own state usually hires travelling nurses for regular winter demand but the competition for travelling nurses is high so my state may end up with less staff than previous years. Nice.
Nurses aren’t going to fall from the sky like manna. They take years to train. Remember from basic econ that the elasticity of supply is affected by the geographical scope and the timeframe? Neither are in our favor with Covid. PPE can be manufactured much faster than hospital staff.
It doesn’t matter if people don’t want shortages to occur. With the impossibility of increasing supply in such a short time frame, if there is no way to limit demand, there will be shortages. Funny how free market people get that they can’t just give away school or gas because demand will go up but I guess economics doesn’t apply to the magical health care world. It certainly won’t be limited by your ability to pay! Libertarians appear to have the same economic theories as progressive liberals when it comes to basic supply and demand in our current situation. Their theory is to just ignore it.
I’d rather people were intelligent and caring enough to curtail their own circumstances in a way that makes sense for them without mandates but we then run into a sort of tragedy of the commons issue. Why should I curtail my actions when no one else will? Consequently, getting people to do things that are good for general hospital capacity that they may never use is a pretty difficult thing to do.
Perhaps you know how to curb demand without restrictions. I’m all ears.
Comments are closed.