"The Demographic Conundrum - An Existential Threat"

 The photo was taken on Tuesday. While snow can be a nuisance when driving or walking (at my age), it is also beautiful, and when the sun emerged the sky was a delight!

 

Sydney M. Williams

swtotd.blogspot.com

 

Thought of the Day

“The Demographic Conundrum – An Existential Threat”

February 27, 2026

 

“If we are unable to address our fertility crisis, the U.S. will face an

existential economic crisis driven by a steep decline in fertility rates...”

                                                                                                                                Jesús Fernández-Villaverde

                                                                                                                                Nonresident Senior Fellow

                                                                                                                                The American Enterprise Institute

                                                                                                                                February 11, 2025

 

The term “existential” is used with abandon. Many threats, from global warming to offending transgenders, are deemed existential. They are legitimate concerns but pale to the economic consequences that stem from a decline in birthrates, and an aging population with its attendant healthcare costs.

 

The scale of the threat is larger than most appreciate. The global total fertility rate (TFR)[1] has roughly halved over the past seventy-five years, from five in 1950 to an estimated 2.4 in 2025, according to the International Monetary Fund. In the U.S., the number is expected to be 1.6 for 2025 versus 3.1 in 1950. Europe’s TFR has fallen to 1.43 from 2.7 in 1950. Israel is the only member state of the 38-member OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) with a TFR above replacement. Over the next few decades, populations are set to decline in most of the developed world. It is in sub-Saharan Africa and in Middle East nations like Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria where birthrates remain above replacement.

 

As to the causes behind the decline, there are many but two worth mentioning. One reflects progress – improvements in birth control, particularly the oral contraceptive pill first approved by the FDA in June 1960, which allowed women to enjoy sex without the worry of pregnancy. As well, in January 1973, with the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade, abortion moved out of the shadows and into legal healthcare. The second cause reflects cultural changes, which include everything from women’s desire to find fulfilling careers, to decisions about family size. As well, in 1968 Paul Ehrlich published The Population Bomb. His popular book warned of a 1970s global crisis driven by over-population. He predicted mass starvation. Instead, as we now know, world population growth peaked five years earlier, and annual global deaths from starvation declined from over a million in 1970 to about 40,000 today.

 

Demographics is a subject I have written on in the past, most recently two years ago. Fewer children and an aging population suggest changes for Social Security and Medicare. In that essay I wrote: “But there is no way to avoid an aging population with ever-higher costs of healthcare for the elderly. Robots and computers do not pay taxes. People do.” According to data from the Mercatus Center, in 1950 there were 16.5 workers for every one person receiving Social Security. Today that ratio is 2.8 to one. In April 1970, Apollo 13 may have had a problem, but today we have a problem, one largely ignored by politicians from both parties. The astronauts on that Apollo flight resolved their problem. Will we solve ours?

 

A few days ago, in a talk about CCRCs (continuing care retirement communities), we were informed that Connecticut’s population ranks as the 7^th oldest in the union, with 19.1% of population over sixty-five. That number, expected to grow by 57% between 2010 and 2040, implies that over 30% of Connecticut’s population will be over 65 in fourteen years. While the numbers suggest increased demand for CCRCs, those numbers scared the hell out of me. Will Social Security recipients equal the numbers of people paying into the system? What do those numbers say about the viability of Social Security and Medicare? Who will support a growing number of senior citizens?

 

There are no clear answers as to how to halt declining birth rates. Pronatalism does not receive wide-spread support. Greece, Poland, Japan, Russia, Germany, Italy, France and China are among more than fifty countries whose populations are expected to decline in 2026. As populations shrink, the median age rises. In China, for example, the median age is double what it was fifty years ago. In the U.S., while our population is still growing, the median age has risen from 30 in 1950 to 39 today.

 

Those trends, both here and abroad, are likely to persist for the next several years. People my age are unlikely to be affected by a declining workplace and a surging retiree base. But unless something drastic is done to address Social Security and Medicare our children and grandchildren will face an existential problem. Starting in 2033, Social Security will not be able to make full retirement payments unless Congress intervenes. Tough choices confront us: raise the age of eligibility, increase taxes, or reduce payments. None are attractive alternatives. As former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors Herb Stein famously said: “If something cannot go on forever, it will stop.” Increases in legal immigration may provide a short-term solution – one that should be pursued, in my opinion – but with world population growth slowing, it is not a long-term answer. 

 

Nevertheless, a response to these concerns might well emerge from left field. At the risk of sounding Panglossian, I took comfort in a recent op-ed in The Wall Street Journal by columnist Holman Jenkins. He wrote about some of the foolishness associated with “green” politics. He ended: “A paradox of our time is a media with hair on fire about everything, yet democratic societies so complex, weighty and built on the emergent order of millions of people acting on their own information and initiative...tend to right themselves. They find a sensible course...” His words could apply to this population challenge – that we and the West will find our way out of this demographic maze before it becomes an existential crisis. I pray that we do.

 

---

---

---

[1] The TFR is a measure that represents the average number of children a woman is expected to have over her lifetime. A number of 2.1 is needed for population stability

"Open Letter to President Trump"

 

Sydney M. Williams

www.swtotd.blogspot.com

 

Thought of the Day

“Open Letter to President Trump”

September 11, 2021

 

Open Letter: “A published letter of protest or appeal,

usually addressed to an individual but intended for the general public.”

                                                              Merriam Webster dictionary, 1995

 

 

Dear Mr. Trump, I wish you well, but I hope you do not choose to run for President in 2024.

 

I write this with all due respect for you and your Presidency. Democrats are in disarray, with a President who is more puppet than leader, and with far-left extremists having seized control of the Party. So, my caution may seem odd. Moderate Democrats recognize they are at risk in the 2022 mid-term elections, barring a miraculous or unforeseen event. But you are a unifying factor for Democrats and independent “Never Trumpers.” Your candidacy, I believe, would unite the opposition and hurt Republican prospects.

 

Taking a supporting role is against your nature. Nevertheless, my hope is that you will campaign for Republicans in the mid-terms and back their choice for President in 2024. Twice I voted for you. Your disruptive technique was welcome, as I wrote in an essay in January 2019. In my opinion, your Presidency was a great success in every way but one. Deregulation, along with personal tax cuts, unleashed an economy that had been mired in sub-three percent growth. Your corporate tax cuts repatriated an estimated $1.5 trillion, which was reinvested back in the U.S. Unemployment declined and employment increased, especially for minorities. According to the Institute for Energy Research, the U.S. achieved energy independence in 2019 for the first time since 1957. With help of the “Wall,” illegal immigration through our southern border was reduced. At your insistence, our NATO Partners increased their share of spending on defense. China was called out for its aggression in the South China Sea and for its Belt and Road initiative, which creates dependency on China on the part of participating nations. Moving our Israeli embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, along with the Abraham Accords, did more for Middle East peace prospects than any other proposals since Israel’s founding in 1948.

 

You appointed nearly as many appeals court judges in four years as your predecessor did in eight. You added three conservative Justices to the nation’s highest court. You took us out of the toothless Paris Agreement, a sop to climate self-interests, and you vacated the ill-conceived Iran nuclear deal. Despite all the media hype and disinformation to the contrary, you handled COVID-19 as well as could be expected. The dramatic economic slowdown in 2020s second quarter was nearly offset in 2020s third quarter rebound. Regarding the pandemic, you were forced to navigate between myriad (and often conflicting) medical recommendations, all claiming to be based on the latest scientific evidence. Your Operation Warp Speed delivered a vaccine far sooner than medical experts expected.

 

But, in one important way your Presidency failed the American people: Your narcissism helped widen the chasm that divides left from right. Extremists on both sides retreated to their respective corners. Political polarization preceded your time in office so is not your fault. But you made it worse. For many years, mainstream media has had a left-wing bias. Reagan was an “amiable dunce.” George W. Bush was “Dumbo.”  This bias on the part of the media goes back a long time. William Greider, in a 1984 article in Rolling Stone on Roone Arledge of ABC, wrote: “If the politics of 1984 describes the future, then Americans are being reduced to a nation of befogged sheep, beguiled by false images and manipulated ruthlessly.” The Bush-Gore election in 2000 hardened the divide. Since, the press has become less factual and less honest. President Obama, as the first Black American President, had an opportunity to address the problem of race. He did not. In fact, racial tensions increased during his years in office. But you are, as you know, a polarizing figure.

 

While you did nothing to heal that divide, you should not be blamed. The cards were stacked against you. We are not, as the left would have us believe, a nation of innocent victims and racist oppressors. We are a diverse people divided by ideas – not by race, gender or religion. But we should be unified as Americans. Our schools and colleges have become conduits through which ill-educated, progressive conformists are funneled. They do not educate students to think independently or instill in them a sense of mutual respect and personal responsibility. Again, this is the world you inherited when you became President. But we needed reflection, sobriety and humor, while you provided bluster, exaggeration and drama.

 

And after the election, and after the courts had sided in Biden’s favor, you should have swallowed your pride and accepted the results. In 1960, it was widely believed that Kennedy’s victory was due to the deceased voting in Chicago, but Nixon accepted the results and focused on eight years out. Your behavior in Georgia cost Republicans control of the U.S. Senate. Your speech on January 6 was okay by my standards, but when a few in the audience marched on the capitol you should have urged them to go home. As for the media, because of your directness in calling them out, you were never going to be treated fairly by them, but it was your post-election behavior that damaged your image and affected your legacy.   

 

2022 and 2024 are critical; they will determine the direction of the country. For conservatives, and for the good of the nation, it is important Republicans retake the Senate and the House. The Far-Left, with their socialist/authoritarian policies, wield power – in Washington; in wealthy, coastal enclaves, and in big cities. They no longer support America’s working middle classes. They have created a “them” versus “us” divide.

 

Republicans have a long and strong bench. In no particular order, here is a list of a few. Governors: Ron DeSantis (Florida), Kristi Noem (South Dakota), Nikki Haley (former Governor of South Carolina and former U.S. Ambassador to the UN), Greg Abbott (Texas), Doug Ducey (Arizona), Larry Hogan (Maryland). U.S. Senators: Josh Hawley (Missouri), Rick Scott (and former Governor – Florida), Tim Scott (South Carolina), Tom Cotton (Arkansas), Mike Lee (Utah), Marco Rubio (Florida), Ben Sasse (Nebraska), Joni Ernst (Iowa). U.S. Representatives: Mike Pompeo (and former Secretary of State – Kansas), Dan Crenshaw (Texas) and Elise Stefanik (New York). These are men and women who span the spectrum of conservative thought. This list is not complete; the Republican Party is a big-tent Party, so not every name will be everyone’s choice. There are also non-political, articulate spokespeople for conservative causes, like Candace Owens and J.D. Vance, along with my favorite economist and commentator, Thomas Sowell. 

 

We expect elected representatives to find common ground. The idea of a representative government is that it provides a forum to debate ideas. When partisanship rules, we bounce between extremists on both sides, and the nation suffers. The President, the most powerful individual in the world, must have the wisdom to guide the nation, while exercising restraint to temper his or her power.    

 

Holman Jenkins titled last week’s column in The Wall Street Journal, “Is Trump Finished?” His belief is that you will not again run for President but will help pick the next President. I, too, trust and hope you are not finished. The Republican Party and Americans need you, just not as a Presidential candidate.

 

Best regards,

 

Sydney M. Williams

"Voting"

                                                                      Sydney M. Williams

www.swtotd.blogspot.com

 

Thought of the Day

“Voting”

August 25, 2020

 

“Our American heritage is threatened as much by our own indifference,

as it is by the most unscrupulous office or the most powerful foreign threat.

The future of this Republic is in the hands of the American voter.”

                                                                                                Dwight David Eisenhower (1890-1969)

                                                                                                New York Herald Tribune Forum

                                                                                                October 24, 1949

 

The ability to vote is a privilege, as well as a responsibility. It should not be denied any eligible individual, nor should it be granted to any non-citizen. Voters should learn all they can about candidates and their policies. To paraphrase Sy Syms’ ads from the 1980s, democracy depends on an educated electorate. “The ignorance of one voter in a democracy impairs the security of all,” said John F. Kennedy.

 

Many of us live in one-party states. A consequence is that if one is registered with the “out” party, there is a tendency to feel one’s vote will not matter, for example a Democrat in Wyoming or a Republican in San Francisco or New York City. Trends in voter registration suggest dissatisfaction with both parties. Twenty years ago, 30% of all voters were registered as Independents (up from 20% in 1960), today that number is 40%, according to a Gallup Poll conducted in May 2020. Nevertheless, not voting should never be one’s decision. “Nobody will ever deprive the American people the right to vote,” said Franklin D. Roosevelt, “except the American people themselves and the only way they could do this is by not voting.” And we should vote based on knowledge and reason, not inanity and emotion. Voting should be convenient and simple and should protect against fraud.

 

The presence of COVID-19 has many skeptical of being anyplace where crowds gather, including polling stations. One proposed alternative is to send ballots to every registered voter. There are about 153 million registered voters in the U.S. There are approximately 140,000 polling stations. Tracking legal voters is not easy. Every year, approximately 14% of the population – roughly 21 million voters – moves; another 1.5 million die and a similar number attain voting age. Keeping accurate records is a formidable task, which is why, historically, people have gone to their local polling stations to vote. Three states – Colorado, Oregon and Washington – have instituted a system to vote by mail, and their experience lends credibility to the viability of the process, but all three have been doing so for several years, ten years in the case of Colorado and twenty years for Oregon. Nevertheless, to take the process national will not be easy. “But running a vote-by-mail election is surprisingly complicated, and there’s a lot of room for things to go wrong. Validating and counting a deluge of posted ballots in an open and accountable way presents a major challenge, one that only half a dozen states are fully prepared for,” so ran an article in the August 9^th edition of The Oregonian. In close elections, unintentional errors are viewed with mistrust.

 

Absentee ballots are issued on request in every state, in some states for any reason. (When living in Connecticut but spending the work week in New York, I would go to the town hall in Old Lyme on the Friday before Election Day where, after showing ID, I would be given a ballot. I would fill it out, seal it and hand it back to the registrar.) Some commentators equate universal mail-in-voting and absentee voting, but they are different. In the first instance, ballots are sent to last-known addresses; in the second, ballots are sent by request. The mailing of 153 million ballots, having them filled out accurately and then having them returned and secured by election day eve is bound to encounter obstacles – ballots undelivered by the U.S. Postal Service, errors and confusion among voters and fraud, especially by those who “harvest” ballots. “A potential disaster arises not because of any deficiency at the post office but because of unrealistic ballot deadline and validation standards imposed recklessly by the states,” wrote Holman Jenkins in last Wednesday’s Wall Street Journal. Anyone who thinks the process will be easy, free of error and not lead to recriminations is living in fantasy land.

 

This year’s primaries provided trial runs in states new to universal-mail-in ballots. The results should serve as a warning for national elections on November 3: Two months after the election, the outcome of New York’s 12^th Congressional District remained unknown, as did results from Paterson, New Jersey’s Third Ward City Council elections, where 24.3% of ballots were deemed ineligible. Ballots were left in the foyers of apartment buildings, not delivered to eligible citizens. The Center for Voter Information has said that half a million inaccurate applications for ballots were sent to Virginians two weeks ago. In Florida’s 2018 elections, a state Trump won in 2016 by a margin of 1.8%, 1.2% of mailed in ballots were rejected. Margins of victory in Presidential elections have narrowed over the past two decades, making disputes more likely.

 

The greater concern, in my opinion, is early voting, a separate issue, but also a consequence of universal-write-in voting. Voting early does not accord with an informed electorate. Partisans vote straight Party lines, but as Independents have become the largest segment of voters, time favors those who wait until election day. However, politicians love early voting. Each vote cast is one less to seek. People are encouraged to vote early, especially after boisterous rallies, before enthusiasm dims. Forty states, plus the District of Columbia, offer early voting options, some allowing voters to vote forty-five days in advance. Early voting diminishes, not enhances, democracy.

 

Elections should be free and fair. Results should express the intent of voters. Winners should be magnanimous in victory and losers gracious in defeat. There will always be those unable to get to their designated place to vote, thus a need for absentee ballots. Voters should base decisions on thoughtful considerations of the best and latest information available. The media should put aside bias and be alert to fraud. In the same column by Holman Jenkins quoted above, he wrote: “Elections, in fact, are on the list of things that people like to steal and will steal if opportunities are available.” Problems are fewer when voters go to polling stations on election day. That may not be possible in this season of COVID-19 and with government’s Orwellian response; so be ready for a fight that will make hanging chads in the 2000 election seem like a fond memory.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Truth or Consequences"

Sydney M. Williams

www.swtotd.blogspot.com

Thought of the Day

“Truth or Consequences?”

June 1, 2020

“Who ya gonna believe? Me or your own eyes?”

                                                                                    Chico Marx (1887-1961)

                                                                                    “Duck Soup,” 1933

Truth or Consequences was a long-running American game show, originally hosted by Ralph Edwards. If the contestant could not complete the “truth” portion there would be “consequences,” generally an embarrassing stunt. In 1950, Ralph Edwards announced he would host a show from the first town that changed its name to Truth and Consequences. On April Fool’s Day 1950, the town of Hot Spring, New Mexico voted to become Truth and Consequences.

“Quid est veritas?”, asked Pilate of Jesus. To Christians, truth is the word of God, for whom His son Jesus bore witness. For Daniel Patrick Moynihan, the “central conservative truth is that it is culture, not politics, that determines the success of a society,” while the “central liberal truth is that politics can change a culture and save it from itself.”

The United States is a multi-racial and multi-ethnic country. We are White, Black, Native American, Asian, Hispanic and Pacific Islanders. According to the U.S. Census, 350 languages are spoken in the U.S. We identify as Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, and multiple other religions. We come (or came) from most every country in the world. Yet, despite those differences in heritage, as Americans we have fundamental interests in common. We live under a Constitution that consumes only forty-one pages, at least in my copy – a Constitution that restrains rather than enables government. We live in a country where liberty is prized above all else; where fundamental rights are guaranteed. under the rule of law. We have a government comprised of three co-equal branches, and a military to safeguard us from foreign enemies. We have police forces to carry out our state and local laws. And we have a judicial system to assure laws are adjudicated fairly and equitably, and to protect us from those in government, be they politicians, bureaucrats or police who use power for their own purposes.

It is a fundamental right that permits people to demonstrate. Protestors and rioters have responded to the death of George Floyd at the hands of the Minneapolis police. Videos of the arrest are difficult to watch and show excessive force by the police. The four officers involved were fired, and Derek Chauvin was arrested for murder. But we live in a nation of laws, not of men or mobs. Dozens of buildings in Minneapolis were destroyed. Riots broke out across the United States, calling for an end to police brutality. People have been killed. Stores have been vandalized. Police vehicles have been burned. This has happened before, usually with the help of imported professionals:  In 2012, George Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin, a young black man in Sanford, Florida. Two and a half years later Eric Garner died in a chokehold by a New York policeman. A month later Michael Brown, an eighteen-year-old Black teenager in Ferguson, Missouri was killed by a White police officer, Darren Wilson. One year later, in Baltimore, Freddie Gray, a young black man, died of back injuries while being transported in a police van, accompanied by six police officers. Destructive riots ensued. Hundreds of small businesses were looted and destroyed, many of them minority owned. It is understandable why members of the Black community are outraged and feel the system is rigged against them. Yet, with all its flaws, our system of justice, over time, generally reveals truth.  Burning one’s neighbor’s place of business or employment will not bring back Mr. Floyd, but justice, when properly applied, can help right wrongs.

Police brutality exists; that is reality and needs to be corrected when and where it exists. Yet it is also true that without laws and their enforcement no society can survive. How many members of the press would willingly swap jobs with an inner-city policeman or policewoman? Inequality will never disappear. There will always be wealth and privilege, and there will also always be an underclass. The important thing, in a liberal society, is social and economic mobility – an up-escalator that carries the aspirant, those dedicated to education and work. On the down-escalator are the dependent and morally corrupt, with no sense of self-worth or appreciation of the dignity a job provides.

Truths about COVID-19 are evasive. In part, because it is a novel virus, which means it is new and little about it is known, and in part because facts and science change. Yet the mantra has been: “Follow the science,” accompanied by a knowing smirk. Fatality rates are debated, as are practices like wearing masks. Of the latter, the highly praised Dr. Anthony Fauci has been ambivalent. On May 26, in an interview with America Magazine, he said they “absolutely” should be worn in church. Two days later, in an interview on CNN, he referred to masks as a symbolic gesture.

The shut-down of the economy was based on imperfect knowledge – an absence of truth – yet with severe consequences: unemployment at Depression-era levels; bankruptcies that have included oil drillers, retail outlets, restaurants, theater chains, hospitals, meatpackers, dairy farms, gyms, airlines and tens of thousands of small businesses, with more to come. Despair and loneliness have increased, as have suicides and drug usage. Despite knowing the truth of who was most vulnerable (the elderly and those with comorbidity issues), politicians in a few states like New York allowed the hospital-released, COVID-19 infected into nursing homes, where a third of all deaths have occurred. Politicians in all states shuttered schools, affecting 56 million school age children who were at little risk. Doing so has hurt their educational prospects and endangered those who rely on school meals. And everything done was “approved” by so-called experts. Absent a vaccine, COVID-19 will not be eradicated and it cannot be contained; it must be managed.

In the midst of riots and a pandemic, we should not forget how far we have come as a nation and a people. To most, a hundred years is a long time, but in the life span of mankind it is a short period. The discovery of penicillin in 1928 by Sir Alexander Fleming was the beginning of the antibiotic revolution. It was in 1953 that Dr. Jonas Salk produced a vaccine against polio, a year after 3,000 children died from the disease. The U.S. Armed Forces were segregated during World War II. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a landmark piece of legislation that outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin. My generation was the first to raise children without fear of diseases like smallpox, tuberculosis and polio. My generation was the first to serve in an integrated Armed Forces. Real GDP per capita has increased three-fold over the past seventy years, while life expectancy has risen by ten years. While we are not perfect and there are those who are evil, we are a compassionate people. As a percent of GDP, Americans give four times what Europeans do to charities.  As a nation, the success we have had is due to the government our Founding Father’s bequeathed us, the capitalist system which promoted the innovation that enriched us, and a culture of self-reliance, liberty, respect for personal property and the rule of law and an intolerance for racism. We owe it to ourselves and to one another to encourage a culture that is gender and colorblind as regards justice, but also one that promotes respect, decency and civility. Vincit omnia veritas.

In last weekend’s edition of The Wall Street Journal, Holman Jenkins wrote: “The vision of a people marching in the same direction, the same song in their hearts, is a fascist vision. It’s the societal ideal of North Korea.” That is not America. The American people can accept truth, and they can take the consequences when dealt with honestly, whether the subject is police brutality or a pandemic.

"Lockdown v. COVID-19"

Sydney M. Williams

www.swtotd.blogspot.com

Thought of the Day

“Lockdown v. COVID-19”

April 15, 2020

“Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.”

                                                                                    Hanlon’s Razor

Murphy’s Law Book Two, 1980

                                                                                    Attributed to Robert J. Hanlon

                                                                                    Scranton, Pennsylvania

                                                           

The world has seen other pandemics, but the response to COVID-19 has been unlike anything the world has ever experienced. It is said we should not put a price on a life. Yet, that happens every day. Emergency rooms constantly make life and death decisions. When a hospital suspends a cancer treatment in favor of a COVID-19 patient, a life and death decision has been made. The closing of a food processing plant in Iowa or the downsizing of a shipping facility in Newark, both for fear of spreading COVID-19 are decisions that will likely cause starvation in underdeveloped countries. Every action has a consequence.

Experts in the field of epidemiology scare us through words. On Monday evening, listening to the president of New York’s Mount Sinai Hospital, Dr. David Reich, I grew fearful. He spoke of pathogens and their mutability, and of molecular biology and infections. He lost me in his vocabulary. A friend sent a blog written by Dr. Erin Bromage who teaches at the University of Massachusetts, Dartmouth. Dr. Bromage wrote of how a single cough releases 3,000 droplets that travel across a room at 50 mph, while a sneeze releases 30,000 droplets that travel across the same room at up to 200 mph. If an infected person coughs or sneezes, 200,000,000 virus particles could be released. It’s enough to scare the bejesus out of the most fearless – that is until one realizes that any expert, in using unfamiliar words, can frighten someone less knowledgeable. As well, we ignore the fact that in our lifetimes, we have been exposed to trillions of virus particles. Perspective and common sense are needed. For example, each cubic meter of air contains ten trillion molecules, and each human is host to about 300 parasitic worms and 70 species of protozoa, many of which are employed in fighting infections. We are complicated beings who through millions of years of evolution have developed sophisticated immune systems. There is much we know, but more we don’t.

As accurate as what Dr. Reich said and what Dr. Bromage wrote, they do not change the fact that politicians unleashed an even deadlier response. We count those who die from COVID-19, but we ignore those who suffer and die from despair, depression and loneliness. It is balance we should seek. John Kass, a columnist for the Chicago Tribune recently wrote: “All I see is the imposition of extremes. Those of us who want to get the country back to work are portrayed as selfish fools who Just Want People to Die. And those who never want the lockdown to end are dismissed as fearful Coronavirus ‘Karens,’ peering through their windows, calling the police if they see someone walking on the street without a mask.”

The actor Matthew McConaughey, in a recent interview, spoke of the need for unity to fight COVOD-19, as Americans unified during World War II to fight Nazism and Japanese Imperialism. But his analogy is false. World War II was fought to combat assaults on freedom and western culture. Today we fight a virus. As well, the economic differences between then and now are enormous. Unemployment in the U.S. in 1940 was 14.7 percent. By 1943 it had declined to 1.9 percent. That crisis put people to work. Unemployment in December 2019 was 3.5 percent. Today it has risen to 14.7 percent. This crisis has seen unemployment soar. Last weekend, the editors of the Wall Street Journal wrote, “…this is the fastest jobs collapse in modern history.” COVID-19 is a virus that attacks, most aggressively, specific segments of our population – the elderly and the health-impaired. That is not to say other segments are immune. They are not. But we should be unified in our intent to protect the most vulnerable; we should be unified in our efforts to get the economy back on track, and we should be unified in our desire to protect the fundamental rights of all Americans to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, to avoid what Alexis de Tocqueville warned as the “soft despotism” of unnecessary rules and regulations.

The economic consequences have been devastating. On April 14, CNBC estimated 7.5 million small businesses, 25% of all small businesses in the U.S., were at risk of closing. On the day earlier, MarketWatch, a website providing financial information, put the number at 43 percent. The valuation of all U.S. public equities has declined $6.5 trillion, negatively affecting 160 million Americans who have investments in retirement plans. A study released on May 4, 2020 by the nonprofit research institute JustFacts concluded: “…the total loss of life from all societal responses [world-wide] to this disease is likely to be more than ninety times greater than that prevented by the lockdowns.” They are referring, in particular, to food shortages in developing nations, a consequence of food processing plant shutdowns and disruptions to food deliveries. Consider borrowings. Three trillion dollars have already been appropriated by Congress. The House wants an additional three trillion dollars, a third of which would be earmarked for states to help bailout over-extended pension obligations. To put those dollars in perspective: during three and a half years of World War II, the U.S. spent $350 billion – $5 trillion in today’s dollars. We will spend more to fight this virus than we spent to conduct World War II.

The what of what happened is well known; it is the why that should focus our attention, and not only the why of the virus. Why shut the world down? Why take such draconian measures? Why did we listen to Cassandras using models with false inputs? We are told we must obey the science. But whose? Yours or mine? Are COVID-19 deaths undercounted or overcounted? Should we pay attention to Dr. Anthony Fauci’s flip or his flop? In the UK, according to the Office of National Statistics, all deaths in 2019 amounted to 0.0074% of the population; thus far this year (annualized through May3), they account for 0.0075% of the population. No politician likes to be called a Luddite, yet science is always a work in progress. Science has no horizon; it exists on an infinite continuum, limited only by curiosity, experimentation and risk. We have not reached the end of science, any more than we reached the end of history in 1991. Doctors agree that COVID-19 can be slowed but not contained. As Holman Jenkins wrote in the Wall Street Journal, “…pandemics in the past have ended not with the virus going away – the 1918, 1957 and 1968 strains are still with us.” We adapt to a virus’s existence.

COVID -19 is particularly toxic for the elderly and those with life-threatening diseases. Protecting the vulnerable should have been our first order. Instead, perverse incentives were offered to nursing homes to accept COVID-19 patients, thereby threatening existing patients. Hospitals were incentivized to place COVID-19 patients on ventilators, while the same hospitals were directed to suspend elective surgeries and care for cancer and heart patients, the two largest causes of death in the United States. Schools and colleges, filled with the young who are less susceptible to the ravages of the disease, were closed, as were open-air parks and beaches. A commonsensical approach was never employed. Instead, models with phony input data were used to justify oppressive measures. Jobs are determined to be either “essential” or “non-essential,” when every job is essential to him or her who is employed. As Heather MacDonald wrote in City Journal last month: “It is not the role of a state bureaucrat to decide how essential an enterprise is. That is a judgement for consumers to make. To its employees, every business is essential.” People’s rights to assemble in prayer were denied. To satisfy media and political scolds, the public good was sacrificed.

"Risks and COVID-19"

Sydney M. Williams

www.swtotd.blogspot.com

Thought of the Day

“Risks and COVID-19”

April 11, 2020

“There is freedom waiting for you.

On the breezes of the sky.

And you ask. What if I fall?

Oh, but my darling,

What if you fly?”

                                                                                    Erin Henson (1981-)

                                                                                    Artist, Designer, Poet

Most decisions we make involve some measure of risk. Generally, the consideration is fleeting. Do I take the stairs and risk falling, or the elevator and risk it breaking down? At times, the choice is more absolute: Do I take the double-black diamond with moguls, or do I go around on the bunny trail? Sometimes the odds are important: Is my need to cross the street against traffic so great that the attempt should be made despite oncoming traffic? Risk is ubiquitous. It is embedded in the friends we make, where we go to college, what job we take and in our choice of a marriage partner – a risk my wife and I took fifty-six years ago today. A wise friend used to say that he was never upset with mistakes he had made but was troubled by risks he never took. Risks vary depending on what we do. To a soldier in combat, risks have different consequences than the ones we encounter daily. In his 1916 collection of poems, Mountain Interval, Robert Frost included “The Road Not Taken.” At a fork in the road a traveler pauses, knowing he cannot walk down both paths, so chooses “the one less traveled by…”  The reader never knows whether the choice was a good one or not, only that it “has made all the difference.” As well, progress is impossible without risk. A baserunner cannot steal second without taking his foot off first. Neither can we avoid risk. “Security,” as Helen Keller once wrote, “is mostly a superstition.”

Risk is defined as the interaction with uncertainty, a measure of the probability of danger or loss, against safety or profit. In our daily lives, we try to mitigate risk. We are encouraged to look before we leap. Insurance companies employ actuaries to assess risk and calculate premiums. Investors use algorithms to quantify the risk of loss against the potential for gain. While these calculations are never perfect, they are Darwinian in that those who are best at measuring risk tend to be the most successful, what Joseph Schumpeter termed creative destruction in industries as they adapt to change.

Politicians employ risk to further agendas: we are told we will be overrun by illegal immigrants if we do not shut our borders; we are frightened into believing that anthropomorphic warming will destroy the planet, and that an ever-expanding population will lead to mass starvation. Now we have the health risk of COVID-19 that was first downplayed by professionals, the media and politicians, but which now dominates the news. As well, COVID-19 has created enormous economic risks.  

There is little question that COVID-19 is dangerous, especially for the elderly and those that have under-lying medical conditions, like asthma, lung diseases, heart conditions, diabetes, liver or chronic kidney disease. Given the game of blame, as to who missed the seriousness of the virus, it may be of value to review some of what was said and done about COVID-19, from when it first made its appearance – a timeline, if you will, but a list that does not pretend to be exhaustive; but it is indicative.

November 17, 2019 – On March 14, 2020, Jeanna Bryner, Editor-in-Chief of Life Science, quoting the South Morning China Post, reported that a “55-year-old individual from Hubei Province may have been the first person to have contacted COVID-19…That case dates back to November 17, 2019….That’s more than a month earlier than doctors noted cases in Wuhan, China, which is in Hubei Province.”

December 31, 2019 – The New York Times reported on April 7, 2020 that on December 31, 2019: “The Chinese government confirmed that health authorities were treating dozens of cases.”

January 14, 2020 – The World Health Organization (WHO) said: “Preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities have found no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission.”[1]

January 17, 2020 – The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) stated that, “based on current information, the risk from 2019-nCoV to the American public is currently deemed to be low.” The CDC and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced that American citizens returning from travel-restricted countries were being rerouted to specific airports where they would be screened and isolated.

January 20, 2020 – Japan, South Korea and Thailand reported their first cases of the novel coronavirus.

January 21-24, 2020 – World Economic Forum in Davos – attended by 3000 individuals from 117 countries, including 53 heads of state. China sent a large delegation, though Xi Jinping did not attend.  

January 21, 2020 – The first case of coronavirus in the United States was reported of a man who had traveled from Wuhan, China.

January 22, 2020 – President Trump, in response to a question regarding COVD-19: “We have it totally under control; it is one person, coming in from China.”  On that same day, Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR), a hawk on China, sent a letter to Alexander Azar, Secretary of Health and Human (HHS), encouraging the Administration to consider banning travel between China and the U.S.

January 24, 2020 – The CDC confirms the second U.S. case of coronavirus, adding, “based on what we know right now, the immediate risk to Americans remains low.”

January 28, 2020 – The WHO, following a meeting between WHO Director-General Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus and Chinese President Xi Jinping, issued a release: “The WHO delegation highly appreciated the actions China has implemented in response to the outbreak, its speed in identifying the virus and openness in sharing information with WHO and other countries.”

January 29, 2020 – According to an April 5th article in the New York Times by Maggie Haberman, Peter Navarro, President Trump’s trade advisor, warned the White House on January 29th that coronavirus could “cost the Country trillions of dollars and put millions of Americans at risk of illness or death.”

January 30, 2020 – The WHO declared a global health emergency of international concern. The CDC confirmed publicly for the first time the person-to-person spread of coronavirus. That same day President Trump created the White House Coronavirus Task Force to coordinate all efforts, with HHS Secretary Alexander Azar as chair.

January 31, 2020 – President Trump declared coronavirus a U.S. public health emergency and issued a ban on travel between the United States and China. On that same day, Joe Biden criticized the President for the travel ban: “This is no time for Donald Trump’s record of hysteria and xenophobia.”

February 4, 2020 – The White House directed the FDA (The U.S. Food and Drug Administration) to step up coronavirus diagnostic testing procedures.

February 5, 2020 – The CDC issued a statement: “While we continue to believe the immediate risk of 2019nCoV exposure to the general public is low, CDC is undertaking measures to help keep that risk low.”

February 7, 2020 – New York City Health Commissioner Oxiris Barbot told a TV interviewer, “I want to be clear, this is about a virus, not a group of people. There is no excuse for anyone to discriminate or stigmatize people of Asian heritage. We are here today to urge all New Yorkers to continue to live their lives as usual.”

February 10, 2020 – New York’s Mayor Bill de Blasio was interviewed on MSNBC: “If you are under 50 and you’re healthy, which is most New Yorkers, there’s very little threat here. This disease, even if you were to get it, basically acts like a common cold or flu. And transmission is not that easy.”

                  February 18, 2020 – The CDC reaffirmed, “The risk to Americans from coronavirus is low.”

February 20, 2020 – The White House raised travel warnings to their highest level for Japan and South Korea.

February 24, 2020 – Nancy Pelosi toured San Francisco’s Chinatown, urging people to come along, mingle and shake hands with residents.

            February 26, 2020 – The first case of suspected local transmission in the United States was announced by the CDC. On that same day, President Trump replaced Mr. Azar as head of the corona task force with Vice President Michael Pence.

            February 27, 2020 – Vice President Pence named Dr. Deborah Birx to serve as the White House Coronavirus Response Coordinator.

            February 29, 2020 – The first death in the U.S. from coronavirus was recorded in the U.S. On the same day, President Trump halted travel to and from Iran.

            March 11, 2020 – The WHO declared coronavirus a worldwide pandemic.

            March 12, 2020 – President Trump imposed travel restrictions with Europe.

            March 13, 2020 – President Trump declared coronavirus a national emergency.

            March 14, 2020 – The White House extended travel bans to the United Kingdom.

All the incidents mentioned above reflect risks that were either political, reputational or both. People on both sides of the aisle can find the fodder to satisfy claims of neglect or worse. But should that be our pursuit as we face the twin crises of a pandemic and a collapsed economy? As someone once said (or should have if they did not), “democracy is a slow process of stumbling to the right decision, instead of going straight forward to the wrong one.” Unlike dictatorships, democracies move slowly, as they listen to multiple voices and encourage debate. Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, after Pearl Harbor, is alleged to have said: “I fear we have awakened a sleeping giant and filled him with a terrible resolve.” They had. Was the President late in declaring a health emergency, or did the fault lie with the WHO and the CDC who downplayed its seriousness? Should Democrats have been pursuing a feckless impeachment when the coronavirus was invading our shores? Early on, with the exception of Senator Tom Cotton and Secretary Alexander Azar no one in Washington appeared to take seriously what became a pandemic. Why? Was it because of a deceitful China or a compromised WHO? Was it because Washington and the media were otherwise engaged? In a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed, Holman Jenkins concluded: “Many things are worth doing; many risks are worth taking, and many are worth avoiding. It would be great to have more clear thinking about which is which in our current crisis.”  But that is the problem with forecasts. We deal with things as they are. “The future,” as the song goes, “is not ours to see.” At the moment the focus should be on helping the sick, finding cures and righting the economy. There will come a time to disinter the past and place blame where it belongs: who underplayed and who overplayed the risks of COVID-19?

With the benefit of hindsight, it is easy to point out missed signs, like the concern of Senator Cotton on January 22 or the warnings from Secretary Azar a week later. But it wasn’t until January 30 that the WHO and the CDC elevated coronavirus to a health emergency of international concern. The next day, the President declared COVID-19 a U.S. public health emergency and banned flights from China. So, should he have listened to two men, accomplished in their fields but neither a doctor, or should he have heeded the scientists and doctors at the CDC and the WHO? Keep in mind, the President had to navigate the ship of state through the Charybdis of a public panic and the Scylla of ignoring an unknown health threat. He chose a middle course. Given what we now know about the failure of a compromised WHO and a depleted Strategic National Stockpile of drugs and medical equipment, it appears, at least to me, that he chose well. But risks continue to propagate. The United States has lost 10% of its workforce in three weeks, a rate of decline faster than during the Great Depression. The President now faces a challenge – how to restart a twenty-two trillion-dollar economy, without reigniting the deadly virus.

It has been three months since coronavirus struck our nation. As a Country, we have rallied. It appears that social distancing, self-isolation and commonsense hygiene are working, and that the worse may soon be over – that the light at the end of the tunnel may not be a freight train barreling toward us, but the light of resurrection, appropriate in this time of Passover and Easter. But there remain risks our leaders must take – How to restart this economy from the somnolence of a six-to-eight-week shutdown? How to pay back the two to four trillion dollars borrowed to save businesses and jobs? This will require more choices, decisions (and risks) for the politicians who lead. We are in untraveled territory. COVID-19 has not been eviscerated. Re-starting the economic engine will not be easy. Money is not free, and we all know it is the private sector that generates the income the public sector spends. Voters in November will elect the individual they believe best suited to lead us toward a healthy, economic revival.    

---

[1] Dates, not otherwise identified, come from a March 31, 2020 report by Cleta Mitchell in The Federalist. She is a partner in the Washington, D.C. law office of Foley and Lardner