The Price of Fear

The country is now beginning to open up economically, and all hope that things go well for the sake of the American people. What will that future look like?

Before trying to answer that question, let’s focus on the present for a moment. The mainstream media is all in to keep fear in the forefront of our thinking. In the beginning, it was fear of a disease we didn’t know anything about that would kill millions. Headlines quoted a worst-case scenario put together by epidemiologists, and the media joyfully ran with it. When that fear mongering had run its course, the media’s moved on to the lack of equipment and hospital space. Based on projections for the disease, those fears seemed to have merit, because world could not have been prepared for this pandemic.

In a historic show of unity, however, the American people came together and implemented the prescriptions given by the federal government. The people’s contribution to “flattening the curve” appears to have saved lives and our healthcare system, which would have been strained beyond its limits. Ultimately, the question will have to be answered, “what would have happened without stay at home? And what economic and personal price did America pay for taking on the Coronavirus in the way it did?”

Stage three of the media onslaught was creating fear about the opening. Headlines warning that “we’re not ready” have been seen everywhere, as soon as opening plans were announced. Now with states opening, the media has moved on to “there isn’t enough testing available.” Always something to fear.

I attribute most of the media behavior to the dislike of Trump intersecting with the election year. The Left will never get over the Trump election and its upset of the hoped for multi-generational Obama legacy. Trump Derangement Syndrome is now at its maximum level. The Left have spent four years attacking the president: Russian collusion (exposed as fake), Mueller investigation (inconclusive), impeachment (without merit), and now blame for the Coronavirus response. It’s the left who has the fear – fear of their weak candidate and an economic recovery before fall.

Let’s forget the media, for a moment, and concentrate on what we can conclude from our own observations about the pandemic.

It is a curse, but also blessing the pandemic is world-wide. Blessing because we have 210 laboratories (countries) doing the same experiment we’re doing. In the United States, there are 50 states acting as independent laboratories, each tackling a unique set of circumstances. The advantage of this large number is they are all developing different approaches, which will make plain for us what strategies work.

There is no logic too staying closed, given that you can open up carefully by geography and demographics. In fact, our states can’t open at the same time, anyway, because some have been hit harder by the disease and/or started late in an effort to control it. Moving forward, we will observe how these openings progress and adjust along the way. I’m betting on this being successful because I see the American people continuing their recent good behavior into the open because they understand the cost of failure.

This is the classic scientific method; performing experiments to discover the right path forward. Experimentation is the tool that has brought mankind to this point in history. All of the products and technologies we enjoy were developed through scientific experimentation. How many plane crashes occurred before the first successful flight?

As we accumulate information about the disease, there are facts emerging that improve our understanding of the disease. Antibody testing has shown there are a significant number of people who have had the disease previously and were cured on their own (in New York City 15%). This lowers the death rate (same death count/more cases), which make the disease appear less dangerous than first thought. We can’t protect everyone from infection because the disease will eventually reach everyone, but we have to keep the most vulnerable safe until a vaccine can be developed.

Its interesting to observe what is happening in Sweden. Their curve is flattening without stay at home orders. The entire Swedish economy is open albeit with social distancing in place. Shouldn’t we see their experience as a confidence builder for our own? Sweden is using the “herd” model to deal with the virus; let it spread through the population normally until everyone has been exposed.

Our future looks good. The impact on the economy will last awhile, but unlike 2008, there is no underlying cause for alarm. Remove the disease and the economy bounces back.

To be honest, we can’t say that the media alone caused our reaction to the disease. Our media doesn’t exist in the other 209 countries fighting it. There must be something about this time in history that has made us susceptible to the fear we have been experiencing. The media has, for its part, made matters worse in their zeal to define the truth, as opposed to just telling it.

The Electoral College

The debate over the Electoral College has been renewed again recently. The Left wants to eliminate it and the Right wants to leave it alone. What is the issue?

Like anything, this is about power. Because the Left lost two recent elections on electoral votes when they won the popular vote, they cry foul. They see the “antiquated” electoral college concept as preventing the will of the people from being realized. In other words, the will of the Left is not being realized.

How did we get here?

The Electoral College was invented by the framers as a way to elect the president of the United States. Similar to their experience debating the design of the legislative branch, the method for electing presidents resulted from a compromise made after looking at multiple options. One faction supported letting the states choose the president, a second faction supported the idea of Congress selecting the president, and a third faction supported the idea of a direct popular vote. The Congressional selection option was the early favorite, but Madison spoke out strongly against it because he feared it would make the executive a servant of the Congress rather than an independent branch. He asserted that the new government must adhere to a separation of powers philosophy.

Having the executive elected directly by the people did not get any traction. The founders feared that bad actors could influence the people’s vote toward unworthy candidates.

Governeur Morris, one of the most prominent of the founders, gave a passionate speech about the role and power of the president.

It has been a maxim of political science that a republican government is not adapted to a large extent of a country, because the energy of the executive Magistracy cannot reach the extreme parts of it. Our country is an extensive one. We must either then renounce the blessings of the union, or provide an executive with sufficient vigor to pervade every part of it. One great object of the executive is to control the legislature. The legislature will continually seek to aggrandize and perpetuate themselves; and will seize those critical moments produced by war, invasion, or convulsion for that purpose. It is necessary, then, that the executive magistrate be the guardian of the people, even the lower classes, against legislative tyranny against the great and wealthy who in the course of things will necessarily compose the legislative body.

Madison, in supporting the elector concept, asserted that since the Congress is a check on the misbehavior of the states, the states electing the chief executive would act as a check on the Congress. Madison felt that the electoral system would bind the states to the federal government through their participation, connecting the two so the states would not drift away on their own.

There was extensive debate at the convention about the number of electors. Various options were proposed including 1 per state. The founders could not agree so they referred the discussion to the committee on detail to come up with a solution. The committee decided the electors from each state should include the number of the representatives for that state plus the two senators.

The original arguments for using the elector system were valid and made sense. Are they still valid today? To change the system, one should have to provide convincing arguments that a new system would be better, or there is no reason to change it.

Let’s look at the arguments for change and see if they motivate us for change.

One of the most popular reasons for eliminating the Electoral College is the one man one vote concept. The idea is that a person’s vote should determine who is elected as president directly rather than using it to elect electors. This concept was debated in the 1960s, when lawsuits were filed to make Congressional districts the same size. Historically, districts were different sizes, meaning that one person’s vote was not equal to another person’s vote in a different district. The Supreme Court ruled that districts would have to be changed to make them equal in number of voters so everyone’s vote had the same value.

The problem with singling out the presidential election method as antiquated or unfair ignores the fact that the Senate is not one man one vote body either. Senators are elected by their states, instead of all the American people so their election does not result from one man, one vote. The only way to fix that would be to have all the American people vote for 200 Senatorial candidates.

The second common argument is that the presidential voting method is undemocratic. Our government is defined as a republic, not a democracy, so it’s reasonable and appropriate for some functions to be undemocratic. Republics allow participation in government by the people, but they use specialists (politicians) to represent the wishes of the electorate. Our government was designed to be balanced between the participation of the people and the power granted to representatives who will act for the people. Too much power to the people creates anarchy.

The third common argument against the Electoral College is that it removes states from participation. Candidates spend all their time visiting swing states because those states determine who wins the election. The rest of the states are ignored. That problem does not go away with a direct vote for president, however. In that case, the candidates would spend all their time in the largest states and ignore all of the smaller ones.

One might think we can turn to scholars to help us out with this issue. What would they say? Unfortunately, there are no unbiased scholars left. Left scholars say the Electoral College is obsolete. Right scholars say that it should be retained.

Those on the Left cite polls where more than 50% of the public would like direct vote for president. Changing the Constitution was designed to take time so adequate thought could be given to the issue before a change is made. In other words, a process designed to avoid the fickleness of the public, which is never constant and always changing. Our government works because our representatives apply public opinion to law and tradition, rather than doing what the people want at any given time.

The difference in the popular vote in 2016, was completely attributable to the vote in California.

Hillary won the national popular vote by 2.8 million. She won California by 4.2 million. If she would have campaigned in the Midwest, where the swing votes were, she would have won the popular vote and the electoral vote.

Too Much Democracy?

A democracy is a political system that engages citizens to vote and elect others to represent them. Commonly, this involves majority rule, so the candidate that receives the most votes is elected.

Democracies were invented by the Greeks who employed this form successfully for over one hundred years during the Golden Age of Athens. The Greek democracy included a citizen’s assembly which held the responsibility for passing laws and electing government officials. The assembly was made up of all Athenian citizens who were present at the assembly meetings. Issues were decided by the vote of the majority of those in attendance.

The obvious limitation of direct voter participation made the Greek model an exception in the ancient world. Greek cities were small and it was not difficult for the people to travel to their town for voting.

Rome invented a different form of government, the Republic, after it exiled its last king. The word republic comes from the Latin res publica – thing of the people. The “thing of the people” was a government where the people had rights and participated in passing new laws and electing officials. The Senate was a holdover from the time of the kings, but the people had no real power at that time. The republic created an assembly; a government body of citizens who could vote on laws and elect magistrates.

Like the Greek democracy, the Roman Republic was an exception in antiquity. Monarchies were the predominant form of government in the world from 2300 BC until the Enlightenment Period, which began in 1650 AD.

When America’s founders were planning our political system, they were influenced by the British Constitution, the political systems of the ancient world, and their own colonial experience. The Articles of Confederation were a failure because they did not include an executive, so the work of the confederation was always hampered by fights between the states that could not be resolved. This experience convinced the framers that a chief magistrate was vital to the success of a new government. They had no use for a king, so they created a system where the chief magistrate was elected.

As the founders thought about what their new government should look like, the realized there was no obvious answer because no one had created a new government in the West for a thousand years. Moreover, the European concept of government had been altered by the Enlightenment, which granted new freedoms for the individual.

In 1786, Madison and others tried to schedule a constitutional convention but there was little enthusiasm for a new government among the states. That all changed after an incident that occurred late that summer, which shook up the colonial governments, and drove them into action. An insurrection, called Shay’s Rebellion, took place in Massachusetts, in August, and lasted until February 1787. A group of farmers, led by Daniel Shays, unhappy with their taxes being raised, put together a small army, blockaded some of the courthouses in Massachusetts, and kept them from operating. With no means of stopping the rebels, the government was paralyzed. James Warren, an official with the state legislature, wrote a letter to John Adams, stating that Massachusetts was in a state of anarchy bordering on civil war. The federal government could not help because it had no army, so Massachusetts organized its militia, augmented it with some mercenaries, and set out to break up the rebellion.

After several skirmishes, where a few were killed, the insurrection finally ended on February 27, 1787, when the remaining rebel force was broken up. Four thousand of the rebels signed confessions that they participated in the rebellion, a few hundred were put on trial, and two were hanged.

Shay’s Rebellion shook the founders to their core. What would prevent revolts like this from happening throughout the colonies? Would the American confederation always be one step away from anarchy?

The states now realized that a Constitutional Conversation was a critical step in building a political system that would prevent anarchy. The idea of continuing on with a distributed system, with power held by the states, had suddenly vanished. It was now clear that a strong federal government was needed to balance uncivil behavior by the people. The question was, “How could that balance be created and maintained?”

The founders could read and write in Greek and Latin, and learned about the ancient political systems as a part of their classical education. In applying that knowledge, they quickly rejected the Greek Democracy as an unworkable model. Because of the vast expanse of the American territory, it was impractical to have the people come to the capitol to vote. They settled on the Roman Republic as the best model for the new American government. It would have three branches: A Senate of the most experienced statesmen, an assembly (House of Representatives) representing the people, and a chief magistrate, serving as the executive. In the Roman Republic, there were two chief magistrates, called consuls. They had veto power over each other and acted together to administer the state.

The Constitutional Congress began with a debate about the structure of the legislative branch; who would elect the Senators and Congressmen and how they would be elected. Some wanted the Senators and Congressmen elected by the people, but that was vetoed. Some wanted an equal number of Senators and representatives from each state, but that idea was also vetoed. The final design set up a Senate with two elected from each state, and a Congress with proportional representation by population, elected by the people. Only citizens who owned land could vote.

The debate about the executive branch was about term of office and method of election. Many of the delegates wanted a single seven-year term for the president. Agreement was eventually reached on a four-year term with no term limit. The method of choosing the president would be an Electoral College, consisting of officials from each state, who were elected by the voters of each state.

This new government came into being as a republic of republics, as Madison called it. Each state was a republic, and the federal government was a republic designed to deal with issues that went beyond the capability of the states, such as treaties with foreign nations.

The first great political battles in our country were fought between the Federalists and the Democratic-Republican Party of Thomas Jefferson. The Federalists, who were led by Alexander Hamilton, believed in a strong centralized government as necessary to keep order. Jefferson’s group, envisaged a de-centralized federal government were power concentrated in the hands of the states, and the wealthy landholders within them. The election of Jefferson in 1800, marked the end of Federalist philosophy and eventual extinction of that party.

During the Jefferson period and after there was increasing pressure to make America more democratic. The requirement for land ownership was gradually relaxed until 1856, when all white men were permitted to vote. Interestingly, women could vote in some states in the early years, if they owned property, but that ended in 1807.

The final voting roadblocks were torn down when African-Americans received the right to vote in 1870, and women were granted suffrage in 1920.

The other important step toward more democracy occurred with the passage of the 17^th amendment in 1913, which made senators electable by the people rather than being chosen by the state legislatures.

The argument that generated the title for this article, Too Much Democracy, has existed since the writing of the Constitution. The Enlightenment view of government, albeit biased, was that educated people should serve in government because they are the best trained to solve the problems of society. In addition, voting should be limited to persons with a stake in what the government does; that is property holders. Property owners care about what happens to their taxes, so they will pay attention to the platform of those who are running. It’s a simple idea, but it goes back to the Roman Republic.

Hamilton, Madison, and many other founders believed in this argument. The risk of having everyone vote is the case of voters who are influenced by others and not objective. Shays Rebellion made Madison see the influence of bad actors. If someone bribes voters to vote a certain way, you have mob rule, and not best candidate selection. Mob-based elections, eventually lead to tyranny, because those who have the most power and money can win. That is not to say all the votes in the early days in the country were good ones, but the theory suggests that having stakeholders increases the odds of selecting a good candidate.

How has the modern world, changed this theory? Perhaps the property ownership argument is no longer relevant with the creation of income taxes, which affect everyone who works. That should help keep them interested in the direction of the government.

Today we have a convergence of expanding voting rights and increased risk of bad voting. This is not a racial, gender, or party issue. If someone gets a ride to a polling place, receives $ 10, and is told how to vote, what value does that vote have? It contributes nothing to the selection of the best candidate. There is a tradition of union voters being given ballots marking the candidates to vote for. Great for electing pro-union candidates; bad for electing the best candidate for all.

It takes time to read about the candidates and issues, in order to form an opinion of what/who to vote for. Most Americans don’t take the time. Proof of that is the impact of attack ads on voters. If you spend enough money on ads, bending the truth, you can win. Look at the case of Mike Bloomberg, who got himself up to 15% popularity in the Democratic Primary without appearing in public. His ads created his persona.

The Democrats are always fighting to expand voting to excluded groups, like convicted felons. Obviously, they believe expanded voting rights will help them. Republicans tend to resist these changes because they don’t want to see new Democrat voters.

The lack of voter knowledge and its impact on elections is questionable now, because both parties seek election by the mob. There’s no other way to win. The notion of a governing class of educated, moral individuals dedicated to what is best for the country is dead. It’s now a popularity contest, driven by marketing and backed by billionaires. The mob is at the top.

Starting up the Economy

I read an article yesterday that got me thinking about how we are getting information during the pandemic. The title was We Can’t Shelter in place Forever, and it was published in the Los Angeles Times. The following comments were made in the article by public health officials:

They caution that coronavirus cases are likely to rise when stay-at-home orders are relaxed.

Public health officials will want to see a drastic reduction in the number of new coronavirus infections confirmed each day before they begin to relax current restrictions, scientists said.

However, before they can feel confident that a drop has truly occurred, testing capacity must increase dramatically.

In California, which has a population of nearly 40 million people, stay-at-home restrictions are not likely to be relaxed until the number of new cases statewide drops below 10 per day (currently 375).

After restrictions ease, will we be asked to shelter in place again? That largely depends on when restrictions are lifted.

“If we resume normal life too soon, the chances of seeing a second wave are higher,”

These statements reflect the opinions of the health care professionals interviewed. Unfortunately, the article presents a very narrow view of the subject because only one stakeholder was participating and, absent other stakeholder opinions, there is no proper context. The health care professionals do not run the country and that’s a good thing.

There are two additional stakeholders in this pandemic; businesses and workers. With every day that passes, the pressure from those two groups will become stronger in opposition to the scientists. It some point, the health care professional’s views will become secondary.

Every day that people are unemployed, their lives are affected and the economy is affected. Every day a business is shut down, its operation is threatened. The net effect on individuals is worry over whether financial aid from the government will be adequate and reach them before their cash flow becomes critical. In the case of small business, where cash flow is tighter than big business, survival of the business is at stake. If financial help does not arrive in time, small businesses will die. In the case of big business, there are more options – extended credit lines etc. But there, whole industries are dead – travel, dining, and hotels. These industries will have to be propped up, before they can return to normal.

How do we reconcile the need for controlling the pandemic with the collapse of our economy?

We can answer that question by looking at the problem in an analytical way.

Here is a chart I designed to show stakeholder behavior (click on to enlarge). The y axis is an index showing the continuing interest in isolation. The x axis is months. There are four lines designating four stakeholders: the scientists, business leaders, the public, and the politicians. The slopes of the graphs are an estimate of what will really happen.

I have mentioned the first three stakeholders, but politicians are a fourth, because they run the government and will ultimately decide the exit strategy for containment. Politicians have no opinions of their own that they act on. Their goal in life is to be reelected, so they act to ensure that outcome by taking the pulse of their constituents. They are the ones who must decide when the cure is worse that the disease. The fact that this is election year makes things more complicated because the Left has a stake in making Trump look bad.

The chart starts at an arbitrary point (this month) reflecting agreement on the necessity of isolation. In another month the lines will begin to diverge. Why? Because stakeholder interests will diverge. The scientists will stay cautious and remain focused on controlling the disease. Businesses and the public will lose interest in the science as the effects on them increase. The political line was created as an average of the positions of the three stakeholders. That shows the politicians will have to balance the other three to chart a course for the country.

Its possible that the politician’s line will be lower than I have drawn it, depending on the anxiety level among the people. In addition, country-wide aid has to stop at some point or we blow up the national debt.

Epidemiological models do not become accurate until sufficient data is collected, but the models used for this pandemic have been consistently wrong by exaggerating the caseload and death toll. One suspects that the numbers will continue to go down – not up – so the justification for starting up the economy will become stronger over time.

We can keep a tight hold on efforts to protect the vulnerable members of the population, while the economy gets moving again. Using temperature taking, social distancing, and masks in nursing homes and hospitals will be an important parallel step.

The Coronavirus Pandemic – Political Attitudes

I read an interesting article the other day that characterized American's feelings about the pandemic and their response to it (Associated Press, April 6). The article mentions we are being highly compliant with government guidelines, and 94% are following social distancing rules. It also discusses people’s concerns over job loss affecting their income and the impact of closed day care centers on trying to manage their children.

Most interesting, though, were the responses to the question about whether people are worried they’ll contract the disease. Among Democrats, 65% say they are strongly worried about getting infected whereas only 31% of Republicans say they are strongly worried.

Why is the such a great discrepancy between the two groups?

My books are focused on the biological, psychological, and moral differences between the political Right and the Political Left. Those differences are important for many reasons. They explain political behavior; why the Left wants more changed than the Right does, for example. Most importantly, differences between them demand that the two sides understand each other, in order to make progress. There is no wrong; there are only differences in beliefs. Since our political spectrum includes both groups, they have to figure out how to get along with each other. Each group has needed the other throughout the history of man. The Right needs the Left to push it toward change and the Left needs the Right to make sure the change is not too radical. Coexistence and compromise lead to the best outcomes.

If we look deeper into the makeup of the American political spectrum, we can see seven different groups. On the Left are Progressives, Traditional Liberals, and Passive Liberals. Passive Liberals are not involved in politics. On the Right are Traditional Conservatives and Devoted Conservatives. Devoted Conservatives are ideologically rigid. In the middle are two groups: the disengaged and the moderates. The disengaged do not participate in politics and generally don’t listen to the news. Moderates are the independent voters who are always in the news.

The three groups on the Left account for 86 million people. The two groups on the Right account for 63 million people. There are 253 million adults in the United States.

Why are only half as many Republicans worried about being infected? Research shows that people on the Right are more careful and don’t like change as much as people on the Left. People on the Left love change. Morally, people on the Right respect loyalty, authority, and sanctity (reverence for important traditions). People on the Left are tuned in to caring and fairness. Their number one concern is the hurt experienced by others. That is why the Left worries about poverty and inequality.

The Left values traditional religion less than the Right but embraces secular religions, like the environment.

Sanctity, before it was the veneration of traditions, was expressed as a human need to stay safe from what was dirty or diseased. In the primitive world it was essential to avoid the sick or one could die.

There are logical reasons for the Left’s anxiety at this time. People on the Left occupy the larger urban centers where disease transmission is at its highest, and there are more women who are Democrats than Republicans. Women are more concerned than men with the safety of their children. Additionally, the incumbent president is a Republican, who they dislike, and so they may not trust him to handle the pandemic appropriately.

Surveys show that people on the Right are happier than people on the Left. Maybe this is due to the Left’s impatience with fixing the world’s problems, but control over one’s life is also a factor. People on the Right feel that have the responsibility as individuals to take control of their lives, so they act toward that end. People on the Left are too obsessed with victimhood. They feel they don’t have control and are subject to the whims of others.

The Coronavirus has made the Left more conservative, as they experience anxiety over the threat to their health. Surveys done after 911 showed that 30% of liberals became more conservative (temporarily) as a result of the attack. This is a natural reaction to chaos – a global or national event that has never happened before and disrupts society. Psychological experiments have been performed using a similar approach. If you put liberals in front of a computer screen and have them answer questions designed to indicate their political affiliation, their answers provide a valid baseline. Then, you bring a smelly garbage can into the room and run the questionnaire again. The liberals become more conservative, placing a greater emphasis on the moral principle of purity and avoiding disease.

Is the world’s response to this pandemic partly driven by the angst of the Left? Fear of the infected? That seems logical since the Left controls the media, and the media amplifies what happens in the world. We had HIV, Ebola, and SARS without much fanfare. They were new like COVID-19, although they did not spread as widely or quickly as this disease. I’m not saying this a conspiracy, but maybe a result of the increased sensitivity of the times.

What should we think if the Pandemic runs its course with a death rate below that of the seasonal flu, which is estimated to kill 24,000-63,000 thousand Americans this season? As of April 8^th, the COVID-19 toll stood at 12,988.

The Coronavirus Pandemic

The current global pandemic is an unmatched in human history, with respect to the human reaction and efforts to overcome it with science. There have been pandemics before, as recently as 2009, when the HIN1 virus killed 12,000 Americans between April 2009 and April 2010. This virus is uniquely different and that is part of the reason why the governmental and public reaction has been unprecedented. This time, we have economic turmoil, government action, panic, and politics as a dangerous mixture.

The first case of H1N1 was detected in California on April 15, 2009. CDC reported the outbreak to the WHO (World Health Organization) on April 21st. On June 11th, the WHO declared a global pandemic.

By June 19th, all of the states in America had active cases. Caseload peaked in May and June 2009, before declining in July and August. Cases of the seasonal flu remained higher than normal that summer and the H1N1 flu returned by mid-August. By September 21^st, vaccines for the virus had been approved. The H1N1 reoccurrence peaked in October, and dropped to a low level by January 2010. The CDC took an aggressive approach to identifying this virus, quantifying the disease, and working to develop a vaccine. The HHS director declared a health emergency on April 26, 2009 and President Obama declared a national emergency in October of that year. Government actions were appropriate and timely, and the Obama administration should not be criticized for the way the H1N1 pandemic was handled.

Now fast forward to 2020.

On December 31, 2019, China reported the first case of the new virus to the WHO. January 7^th, China identified the virus as an unknown new type. On January 20th, the US NIH announced they would begin working on a vaccine for this Coronavirus and, on the same day, Washington state reported the first case in the United States. On January 23rd, the Chinese shut down Wuhan province.

On January 31^st, President Trump moved to block the entry of Chinese nationals who had visited China in the last 14 days.

February 3^rd, the Chinese government accused the United States of overreacting to the disease.

February 25^th, The CDC announced that it would start testing Remdesivir in clinical trials to see if it could cure the Coronavirus.

February 26^th, President Trump named Mike Pence to direct the Coronavirus response team.

On March 11^th, the WHO declared a pandemic for the Coronavirus.

___________________

This pandemic has had the greatest impact on the American economy of any health-related problem in the nation’s history. The 1918 flu epidemic, which killed 675,000 Americans, had only a minor effect. Entertainment and travel businesses were severely impacted over the short time and some wages increased due to a shortage of labor. During the entire period of the pandemic, President Wilson never said one word about the disease in public.

This time, we have instant access to information about the economy, the markets, and the American people.

The first significant driver during this pandemic was the stock market, which is always driven by profit expectations for the economy and America’s corporations. On February 21^st the S & P 500 stood at a level of 3337. It began to plummet soon after as investors realized the impact the pandemic might have on company earnings. On February 28^th, the index stood at 2954, a loss of 12%. The real rout began when investors realized that not just the travel industry would be impacted – the entire US economy was being shut down as an effort to stop the spread of the virus. On March 23^rd, the index had fallen to 2237 or a 34% drop! There was undoubtedly significant panic selling during that time, much of it by professional traders who try to time the market. Smart investors have stayed the course, knowing that prices will recover. Still, the loss is a shock to those with investment portfolios.

The second factor in play is government action. Trump has used has advisors in the NIH and CDC the way he should; letting them provide the picture as they see it so he has the information he needs to make decisions. For all the squawking about delays, the CDC was reacting to the outbreak very early. They did not run into trouble until the demand grew for test kits. For all the good science they do, the CDC shouldn’t be in the distribution business. Their requirement that test kits had to be issued by them or, even worse, that they had to do all the testing, became obsolete policy in less than a week. Quickly, the testing process was moved to state and private labs. This is a great example of why big government should not control large segments of the American economy. The federal government is too bureaucratic and too slow to react.

This pandemic reminds us of the military’s rule about war. When the first battle starts, throw out the battle plan.  

After the first missteps, the states were engaged and took over the testing. Since then, it has gone more smoothly. Creating inventory for essential medical equipment is now the highest priority. Of course, it takes some time to ramp up production, particularly when stockpiles are inadequate. Manufacturers produce product based on market conditions and don’t produce what they can’t sell.

The most significant government actions were the social distancing and business shut down declarations. These have had a great impact on the lives of every American. Staying home, not working, kids home, not in school – this has never happened in the history of the country. These restrictions cause anxiety, depression, and worry over sources of income that every family depends on. Many have or will lose their jobs and be unemployed.

The financial to all Americans has driven the federal government to unprecedented action to make up for the income shortfall. The recently passed $ 2.4 trillion recovery plan seeks to provide support for all segments of the American economy: unemployment payments to individuals, forgivable loans to small businesses, and aid for the most hard-hit industries. This aid was essential for the mental well being of the American people and the stabilization of the economy.

Bipartisan agreement in Congress was good to see as the parties put their differences aside for once. I am more surprised at the Republican response than the Democratic response, because Republicans have the reputation as hard-hearted capitalists, who don’t care for the common man. In this case, they have been upfront with their willingness to spend the money to help small business and individuals, no matter what the cost. The same can be said for the president, who built his case for re-election on the success of the economy. Rather than keeping the focus on the stock market, he has pivoted to placing the American people first. In his view, if we can remove the disease, the economy will fix itself.

The third component of the times is panic. The Coronavirus produces panic because of its novelty and behavior. It spreads like wildfire, and its infection rate is high. It’s easy to forget that the virus produces only cold-like symptoms in 80% of those who are infected and that most people, who are younger and don’t have underlying health conditions, will be fine. Those who have compromised health can be easily infected by contact with others and become seriously ill. The media is adding to the panic because there are few positive stories being written. Instead, they are focused on shortages, deaths, and personal hardship. This negative press weighs on the psyche of the people. One good plan for protecting one’s mental health is to avoid overexposure to the news.

In some cases, the professionals don’t help. The public wants absolute answers, but there aren’t any. The virus took hold too fast, and the research has to catch up. An accurate understanding of the disease takes time and the public has to understand that projections are estimates based on data accumulated from real world experience. Testing has to be used on everyone to establish how the disease operates. Counting only cases ignores those who already have immunity or have the disease with no symptoms. Sometimes the CDC mentions the concept of “herd” spread. This refers to the disease making its way through the entire population. Once that has happened, we’ll know how many are susceptible. As frustrating as it is to the public, the professionals can only say what they know even when the data is estimated.

In my state (Ohio), the governor has been very aggressive about stopping the spread of Coronavirus. He identified the risk early and appeared to be overreacting. Hindsight shows he was right on. I can’t say the same for his medical director who keeps presenting data that can scare a lot of people. She continues to say that the state should expect a period of 10,000 new cases in the state per day, before we reach a peak. I find that hard to believe given that the state infection rate curve is bending at 300 additional cases per day. Her numbers would probably have been correct if the state had not taken strong measures it did.

Scaring people might be good or bad. Who knows which is appropriate? It’s good if it creates compliance; its bad if it affects people’s mental health.

The fourth component to Coronavirus ecosystem is politics. This is an election year and the Left’s dislike of Trump will not allow them to unite with the rest of us to take on this unprecedented problem. They have an obvious effort underway to discredit Trump’s handling of the crisis, in order to impact his popularity and prospects for reelection. What they risk is exposing themselves as biased and selfish. That negative perception could outweigh any positive impact they think they are having.

Let’s look at a few facts.

If you indict Trump for being slow to react, you have to also indict the leaders of the other 140 countries that have been attacked by the disease. Is every world leader incompetent?

If you indict Trump for being slow, you have to indict the CDC and NIH for not having a handle on the seriousness of the outbreak and not getting anyone’s attention. As I pointed out above, NIH started looking into a vaccine for the virus the same day Washington state reported the first domestic case of the disease. That was January 20^th. They were on it.

You can’t indict Trump for blocking people coming from China and Europe, because that undoubtedly bought us time to react to the coming pandemic.

You can’t indict Trump for supply shortages. I don’t believe either the federal government or the states are to blame because no one could have foreseen the progress of this disease. Its rapid spread overwhelmed the supply chain of the country as well as federal government stockpiles. The only way to fix this problem was to engage industry to ramp up production. The support of industry has been tremendous and soon we will have all the supplies we need.

Trump has not engaged in politics with the states and has received some high marks from Democratic governors. By now, all the governors understand that they are in partnership with the administration and working together is the best for all.

Most of the politicking has come from Congressional leaders and the media, but when you look closely, our political leaders cannot escape their own behavior.

On February 24^th, Nancy Pelosi appeared in Chinatown, San Francisco saying “We want people to come to Chinatown. We are safe here.” This was a month after the first case appeared in Washington state.

As late as March 15^h, the mayor of New York, Bill De Blasio had not placed any pandemic related restrictions on the people of the city. He said, “if you love your neighborhood bar, go there now.”

We need to keep politics out picture until the pandemic is over.