Arguably, one of the good things to come out of the coronavirus crisis is that it has forced people that don't often agree with each other to interact and work together. But in some cases the crisis has inflamed disagreement and led to more, or new forms of polarization. The debate about how to reopen and return to normal is one example of an ongoing debate that is highly charged. Two California Doctors (Dan Erickson and Artin Massihi) did a 51 minute press conference on 4/22/2020 and it accelerated the debate about shelter in place, and business shut down orders. The Doctors concluded "emphatically" that the orders should be lifted and they were specifically directing their argument to California Governor Gavin Newsom. Youtube has removed the original press release video (which now states "This video has been removed for violating YouTube's Community Guidelines" but it's unclear to many why and Facebook hasn't removed the video). But before it was removed, it was viewed more than 5 million times (thanks in part to being tagged by many including Elon Musk, who tweeted "Docs make good points", and RealClearPolitics). The video can be viewed in other locations including here on the web site of the Bakersfield ABC affiliate that posted the video, and a follow-up interview with Dr. Erickson debating with Dr. Drew can also be viewed here.

The strength of the Doctors' argument is they have their own data (over five thousand COVID tests at their facilities) and they are raising valid points about the unintended consequences of the government actions, like potential increases in 1. child abuse 2. spousal abuse 3. alcoholism 4. anxiety/depression 5. and suicides along with reduced education, and economic collapse. However, in addition to the valid debatable points, they also have made some assumptions in their arguments that are questionable. Specifically they extrapolate covid positive test rates to entire populations. The problem with that is most covid tests were given to those with symptoms and therefore that pool is probably more likely to test positive. This video from March 17, 2020 demonstrates that their testing was likely primarily conducted on those with symptoms. So part of their argument about mortality is based on probably incorrect assumptions of the positive testing rates relative to untested people. A more balanced discussion of this topic of infection fatality rates (IFR) citing other data with caveats and assumptions was made by Justin Fox via Bloomberg (and local politicians responded here). There may be some argument that this assumption can be defended, but it's not a great argument and the whole discussion could have been presented better. A potential defense is that the covid penetration in the untested population may not be that different from those with symptoms. For instance, in Iceland, about 0.8% of those who volunteered tested positive, as did 0.6% of people randomly selected to participate. But most random samples seem to have lower positive rates than respective COVID testing in the same location.

The Doctors also suggest quarantines on healthy people actually weakens their immune system. I agree with this point and have been saying from the start of this crisis that people should follow a healthy life style. Getting vitamin D naturally and exercising often depends on access to outdoors, which for many has been limited. They also argue that Sweden's approach has not led to statistically worse results than Norway. They acknowledge Norway's results have been less severe, but not enough to warrant the extreme actions taken. Another potentially strong argument they bring up is that medical personnel are being pressured to add COVID in their reporting. This USA Today Factcheck concludes Medicare pays more for COVID cases, which is likely resulting in COVID over-reporting. But others argue there may be substantial undercounting.

Personally, my problem with many of the stricter shelter in place orders is that mitigation was intended to prevent the healthcare system from being overwhelmed. Now that access to care is no longer a major concern, the default should be a return to normal in my opinion, not to maintain the orders until some arbitrary points are reached. The United States is not a communist, or socialist country and most of the country is also much different than the New York metropolitan area, plus rural and urban areas should be evaluated differently in most cases. Many governments probably were justified in locking down in March and there are some other positives from the steps taken, including lower crime and pollution. But others have also suggested there are greater unintended consequences, including the likelihood that cancer or other medical deaths may jump later because early signs are being missed due to avoidance of healthcare visits. The World Health Organization has also warned children across the world will die as the coronavirus pandemic forces some countries to temporarily halt vaccinations for other deadly diseases like polio. Others have suggested that the lockdowns are going to force those most at risk to stay sheltered even longer by dragging out the spread of COVID over a long period of time. Now that the concern for overwhelming the healthcare system has passed, the responsibility for limiting risks should be shifted back to individuals. Those that want to stay in have the right, but those that want to go back to normal life should also have that right, as long as they do so responsibly.

Unfortunately, polarization seems to be here to stay and it is easy to see the different narratives as the cable news channels offer alternative views. For instance see Tucker Carlson's comments at Foxnews versus Chris Hayes' comments at MSNBC regarding the California Doctors video. Similarly, many seem to be looking to justify blaming the administration by highlighting specific events in a timeline, which is countered by others like Dan Crenshaw who dismissed those suggestions, while others note that pundits on both sides underestimated the threat. Henry Miller has suggested the pandemic has exacerbated a more general problem of confirmation bias, or seeking evidence to validate a preconceived notion, and "The cable networks, in particular, troll for pseudo-experts – some credentialed, some not – who express viewpoints that reflect the biases of the network and/or interviewer.”

I have written fairly extensively about the fact that there were individuals that predicted in advance many of the specifics regarding the global financial crisis. George Bush (in 2005) and Bill Gates (in 2015) warned about the risks of a pandemic, but for the most part, I don't know of anyone that predicted the magnitude of the global health and economic impact that COVID is having.

On a more personal note and to offer a sports comparison, I have a sports web site (FightOn.com) used by thousands for many decades. One of the writers that many of my users follow ran a poll last year asking if they would rather win our local rivalry game against UCLA and keep the head coach, or lose and the team get a new coach. The majority wanted to lose, so USC would hire a new coach. USC won the game and Coach Helton is still USC's head coach. I bring up this example because it really disturbs me that I'm seeing a lot of people seemingly more interested in pushing their platform or narrative, rather than being concerned about what is best for everyone in the long term. For instance, it disturbs me when people like Bill Maher (who sometimes makes good arguments) hope the economy will crash so Trump will not get reelected. It disturbs me even more when someone prioritizes their political agenda during a healthcare and economic crisis.

"All children, of all ages, and in all countries, are being affected, in particular by the socio-economic impacts and, in some cases, by mitigation measures that may inadvertently do more harm than good."

UN on COVID impact on children

Gary Karz, CFA
Author of The Peaceful Investor and Publisher of InvestorHome.com
twitter.com/GKarz (email)

Check out Peaceful Investor at Amazon

Last updated 4/30/2020. Copyright © 2020 Investor Home. All rights reserved. Disclaimer