October 16, 2021

Acqua NYC

Fit And Go Forward

POINT/COUNTERPOINT: Have Colorado’s COVID policies done more harm or good? (copy) | Columnists

POINT: Samet and Bayham

Pandemics impose both tangible and intangible costs on society. These costs come directly from deaths and from providing medical care, and indirectly from lost wages and business revenue, and the many mental health and well-being consequences of disrupted lives. To control the COVID-19 pandemic from its outset, public health measures — such as stay-at-home orders, physical distancing, and temporary restrictions and closures of some businesses—have been needed to control the threat of the COVID-19 pandemic. Without such public health measures, the numbers of COVID-19 cases could have quickly exceeded health care capacity, leading to the dilemma of triaging ill people to receive potentially life-saving care, or not.

These transmission control measures have proved effective in Colorado, which has not exceeded its overall hospital capacity nor the number of needed intensive care unit beds. Lives have been saved, and the health costs of the pandemic reduced as a result. Yet, the “costs” of public health measures have been questioned by critics who view the broader economic consequences of these interventions as too high. Pitting the economy against public health creates a false dichotomy. With irony, as an epidemiologist and an economist, we note that this dichotomy has been simplified to “epidemiology versus economics.”

To understand the consequences of public health measures, we need to know what would have happened if steps were not taken to control the pandemic. While we never experienced this alternate reality, scientific evidence suggests that the public health toll would have been higher. The Great Influenza of 1918 killed 50 million worldwide and 675,000 in the United States, equivalent to more than 2 million deaths with today’s population. Evidence also suggests that people have voluntarily stopped patronizing businesses for fear of contracting the virus, which reduces revenue and employment. Indeed, recent data indicate that residents of high-income zip codes are less likely to patronize businesses when COVID-19 is prevalent in the area. The reason is that people with higher incomes are more likely to work from home and can afford to avoid potentially risky interactions.

In Colorado, the approach to epidemic control has been measured, titrating the public health measures against the status of the epidemic with the goal of optimizing the balance between epidemic control and maintenance of normal activities—commerce, education, social activities, and more. That strategy has avoided catastrophe while sustaining commerce, education, and other activities to the extent possible. These measures’ adverse economic consequences have played out unevenly with some sectors, e.g., restaurants, experiencing severe hardship. Unfortunately, the needed relief for the hardest-hit sectors has not been sufficient or sustained, in spite of economic sacrifice for public health.

Turning back to those who question the public health measures, we have not seen evidence-based approaches offered as an alternative to what has been done to protect us. While economics offers a framework for weighing the public health and economic costs, the estimates depend on assumptions and figures that are very uncertain. Early estimates of the strictest control policies suggested that they generated net benefits of more than $5 trillion for the entire US, comparing the value of lives saved against the reduction of gross domestic product (GDP) from policy measures. Estimates of this sort will evolve as we learn more about the disease and its consequences.

We think that no one would argue against some level of public health measures to control the COVID-19 pandemic. Finding an acceptable balance between public health and economic hardship is challenging because opinions about the balance point depend on perspectives. People at low risk of severe illness facing lost revenue may perceive public health orders as too strong, whereas those at risk and in a strained healthcare system may perceive the orders as not strong enough. Life-changing interventions and their adverse consequences have proved challenging, and we recognize that some will want different balance points than others for various reasons. That complexity cannot be escaped, and we should not simplify this societal discussion into a false dichotomy that pits the health of all of us against revenue and employment. The bottom line is that the COVID-19 pandemic is costly, but failing to control it would be catastrophic.

COUNTERPOINT: Carrie GeitnerAfter ten months of pandemic lockdown in Colorado and across the nation, a growing number of scientists and public health policy experts are speaking up about the horrific impacts, correctly asserting the lockdown “cure” is worse than the disease.

The Great Barrington Declaration, a document expressing concern over lockdown policies states, “Keeping these measures in place until a vaccine is available will cause irreparable damage, with the underprivileged disproportionately harmed.”

Authors include Dr. Martin Kulldorff, professor of medicine at Harvard University, a biostatistician, and epidemiologist, Dr. Sunetra Gupta, professor at Oxford University, an epidemiologist with expertise in mathematical modeling of infectious diseases, and Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, professor at Stanford University Medical School, a physician, epidemiologist, health economist, and public health policy expert focusing on infectious diseases. They are joined by more than fifty thousand medical practitioners and medical and public health scientists from around the world.

Now that we know approximately ninety percent of COVID-19 deaths occur in individuals over the age of sixty-five and/or with underlying health conditions, those facts should inform decisions about COVID-19 response to reduce fatality and minimize impacts for all citizens.

When businesses close due to government-imposed restrictions, unemployment soars; the consequences are real and lasting.

“Saving just one life is worth lockdown sacrifices!” is a common cry among lockdown apologists. “What are a few business closures compared to human life?” they ask.

Unfortunately, that perspective fails to connect the reality of economic harm to the people it devastates: the middle-age couple who invested every penny to open a restaurant only to see it crushed by mandates and now worries about retirement, the single mother who lost her job when the restaurant closed struggling to make ends meet while also trying to guide her daughter through remote learning at home.

“Better to be unemployed than dead!” apologists say. This fails to acknowledge two undisputed facts: poverty and unemployment are related to shorter life expectancy (MIT researchers found ten to fourteen years less) and those outside of the vulnerable category are exponentially more likely to experience mild, moderate, or no symptoms. In reality, risk is a part of life; the COVID-19 risk to the young and healthy is not a significantly higher risk than other risks encountered daily. On the other hand, unemployment and isolation caused by lockdown policies increase the risk of domestic abuse, depression, suicide, drug and alcohol related deaths and more.

Lockdown apologists insist that while there may be consequences, things could be far worse. Comparing data from across states tells a different story. Florida’s Governor embraced focused protection strategies for the vulnerable as advocated by The Great Barrington Declaration after early lockdowns failed. Florida now has a lower death rate this week than Colorado, California, or New York, states with the most stringent restrictions.

Science is the systemic study of our world through observation and experimentation. Good policy is informed by evidence, including science. It must also take into account a variety of truths about society and human nature to be most effective. It is now obvious the lockdown experiment has failed spectacularly by ignoring all three. It is time for Governor Polis to find the moral conviction to acknowledge his failures, follow the growing number of scientists, health policy experts, and the voice of the people and lift these failed lockdown restrictions.

Jonathan Samet, a pulmonary physician and epidemiologist, is Dean of the Colorado School of Public Health. Jude Bayham is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics at Colorado State University. Carrie Geitner was elected in November to El Paso County Commission District 2, representing the eastern portion of Colorado Springs and unincorporated El Paso County.

Source News