Connect with us

Government

Presidents’ panel: How COVID-19 will change higher education

Presidents’ panel: How COVID-19 will change higher education

Published

on

COVID-19 has altered nearly every aspect of higher education. Gerald Herbert/AP

Editor’s note: From time to time, we ask the leaders of our country’s colleges and universities to address some of the most pressing issues in higher education. Here, the presidents of three universities answer six critical questions about the future of higher education as its being reshaped by COVID-19.

Beyond just moving online, how is COVID-19 forcing colleges to change?

Walter M. Kimbrough, president of Dillard University. 'from www.dillard.edu'

Walter M. Kimbrough, president of Dillard University: The disruption is causing us to rethink much of how we operate. Do we offer the right majors? How much time do students need to complete a class or a degree? How can we use technology more effectively? I think all of these will impact conversations going forward, but I also think COVID-19 has reminded us that as humans, we need personal interaction. Simply doing everything virtually is not optimal.

Samuel L. Stanley, president of Michigan State University:

Michigan State has elevated our research and medical programs to recognize and better address health disparities related to COVID-19 and from other causes. For instance, we’ve partnered with a local county health department to provide COVID-19 testing to at-risk communities.

Samuel L. Stanley, president of Michigan State University. 'from www.president.msu.edu

We are also working with the Henry Ford Health System in Detroit to improve access, affordability and outcomes for Michigan’s most vulnerable populations. Additionally, we are helping to lead a statewide initiative with Detroit Medical Center to address health disparities among women of color throughout the state.

Meanwhile, we established an online resource for working, teaching, learning and researching. This summer, faculty and staff have been participating in professional development programs for online and hybrid learning to ensure the best experience possible for our students. And we are realizing the continued need for more frequent communication to keep our many audiences — students, faculty, staff, alumni, families and the community — informed through all the uncertainty.

Ana Mari Cauce, president of the University of Washington. 'from www.washington.edu'

Ana Mari Cauce, president of the University of Washington:

We have been reexamining an array of long-standing practices and assumptions – whether it be who has the equipment and access that students, faculty and staff need to receive or offer online instruction or becoming more flexible with our version of “pass or fail” grading practices.

But our June 13 graduation ceremony is freshly on my mind. The move to a fully online ceremony was such a difficult and disappointing decision to have to make, as graduation day is truly the most cherished of traditions for students and their families, and for our entire campus community. Yet our Office of Ceremonies created what I believe was a wonderful, touching and meaningful virtual experience for our graduates. We, of course, hope students will still return to campus next year for a second in-person ceremony.

How do you expect the characteristics of the next few admitted classes to change in response to the virus?

Kimbrough: I expect new students to really want to be engaged even more after having the experience of being distanced for a while. My daughter is about to enter high school so she didn’t get to experience the joy of formally graduating from middle school. She wants to be with friends and I think values relationships even more. Likewise, this year’s college freshmen didn’t get the traditional high school graduation experience, so they are very eager for a coming of age experience that college can provide.

Stanley: For many universities, maintaining enrollment has become a significant priority. That will continue over the next few entering classes. This is particularly true for international student enrollment, which is so important to the goal of U.S. colleges and universities to be culturally diverse institutions with worldwide influence.

Michigan State expects to see more in-state students, given parental and student concerns about traveling away from home, and they will have an educational experience that is much more reliant on online and remote learning. Faculty members are working to put about half of their classes online, shift about a quarter of their classes to a hybrid model of instruction and move the remaining in-person classes into larger rooms to allow for 6 feet of physical distancing.

[You need to understand the coronavirus pandemic, and we can help. Read The Conversation’s newsletter.]

Yet we will continue to provide in-person teaching where it clearly matters — laboratory work, creative arts, small seminars. It will also be important to seek ways to add more social and experiential activities that are consistent with remote or social distancing measures.

Finally, we’ll ask everyone to take greater personal responsibility to mitigate exposure and spread by wearing face coverings, limiting the size of in-person classes and regulating large gatherings. This will be a challenge, but we took similar actions to ban tobacco use on campus, and it required student, faculty and staff buy-in to make that possible. It is incredibly important that students unite in embracing the protective actions necessary to create a safer environment on campus.

Cauce: Resilient just barely begins to describe the incoming classes I expect to see. For everything they will have experienced – incomplete or online-based school years, detachment from friends and loved ones and perhaps direct impacts from this virus on their families – to have persevered through this phase in their lives and stayed dedicated to their education is nothing short of remarkable. I expect they will have a deep appreciation for the in-person campus experience. My biggest concern is making sure that the disproportionate financial impact of COVID-19 on low-income families, first-generation and underrepresented students does not set us back at a time when we were making real progress in ensuring that more of them have access to colleges and universities offering high-quality education.

Can you do college without sports?

Kimbrough: Sure you can, but we have heard so many in our nation lament not having sports because it is a big part of being American. I think the ESPN docu-series on Michael Jordan, “The Last Dance,” was super successful in part because we had no sports, so watching the story of Jordan’s last year felt like sports. For five weeks it seemed like we forgot about COVID-19 every Sunday night to hear all of the stories surrounding Jordan and that last season.

Stanley: While sports aren’t a true necessity, the college experience to many people includes earning a valuable degree and watching or participating in intercollegiate athletics. Sports unify a campus and create a strong identity. And once students graduate, sports can be an important means of keeping connected to their college or university. We often say, “You are students for a few years but alumni for a lifetime.” I also know that sports play an important role for student-athletes as many earn their degrees and go on to success in a completely different sphere, thanks in large part to an athletic scholarship or the skills they gain as a member of a team.

Cauce: We could, but we don’t want to. My heart aches for those student-athletes whose senior years were cut short or missed completely in the spring. With the fall coming, I know football is on the minds of many – and it is a huge source of pride, connection and community among our students, alumni and throughout the region. But every sport is filled with dedicated individuals who represent us so well that losing competitive sports would be a real loss to their experience and ours. I would add that the same loss would hold true if we are unable to resume our performing arts events and reopen our museums — these are places where students come together and that keep our alumni returning to campus.

Do you see any challenges of doing research with social distancing rules in effect?

Kimbrough: We are primarily a teaching institution but our faculty who engage in STEM research are continuing their work. Everyone in the world is studying the virus and reports are being produced now. But social science research should be very robust these days, because this is a new experience and we need to learn how this is impacting us. There needs to be lots of studies about kids in K-12 and if they lost learning, or studies about domestic violence during the pandemic, or how people dealt with their faith not going to houses of worship. There are lots of fascinating research opportunities.

Stanley: Scientists whose laboratories were paused stayed productive doing work such as analyzing data and a significant number of publications and grant proposals are going out our doors. Research has also carried on in the agricultural sciences and areas that received clearance to work on COVID-19 projects.

Research spaces have always followed rigorous health and safety protocols, so much of this isn’t new. Our labs are following detailed multistep programs as they reopen, from evaluating air and water systems to physical changes that accommodate new safety measures to defining occupation density, planning staggered shifts, stipulating face coverings and other measures. Nearly 300 of our labs have already turned in safety plans and 28 buildings were open as of July 1. Research related to human subjects is still restricted, though, and will likely be one of the last phases to resume because human contact is the primary source of infection.

Cauce: Absolutely. The adjustments we are making aren’t easy, but our faculty and students play a vital role in the world of discovery generally, and directly in the fight against COVID-19. Our Virology Lab was among the first to develop a viable test and we are – as are many talented scientists at other universities around the world – working toward treatments and a vaccine. Our experts in psychology, sociology, public policy, law and so many other areas are also increasing our understanding of the pandemic’s effects. Research has never been more critical, and we will rise to this challenge.

How will higher education make up for lost ground and lost revenue?

Kimbrough: I don’t think we lost too much ground in terms of the educational experience. I think people worked really hard to close out the semester and in many cases I think people created new opportunities for engagement. Congress helped a great deal with the CARES Act to minimize the lost revenue, but places with significant auxiliary operations like hosting conferences, campus and concert venues, including in the summer, have taken a big hit. I don’t know if that can be made up anytime soon.

Stanley: Public universities and colleges, in particular, will suffer from state appropriations cuts and other budget impacts. We will have to find innovative ways to maintain the faculty, staffs and facilities that have created the best research universities in the world. In addition, I’m genuinely concerned about our most vulnerable students, who, due to health concerns or family financial setbacks, may be unable to continue their pursuit of a college degree, perhaps forever. It will be important to maintain or broaden access to a college education – at a point when the nation needs it for many reasons, including to address inequity.

Cauce: The lost revenue is a deep concern. The cruel irony is that while our UW Medicine enterprise has been saving lives and answering the call against COVID-19, that very work has forced a projected $500 million in financial losses largely due to the shuttering of all non-urgent procedures. Auxiliary units such as Facilities, Housing & Food Services, Athletics and our Study Abroad programs are also facing significant losses. Federal and state stimulus support is helping, and we are hoping for further recognition of the vital work that universities like ours have done and will do during the recovery – however long it takes. But, as concerning as these losses are, we are just as concerned about the losses yet to come as state budgets contract. Higher education is often in the “discretionary” column in these budgets, but the fight against COVID-19 has demonstrated again that the work universities do is anything but discretionary.

Where’s the silver lining?

Kimbrough: I think this is an exciting time, one that we need to lean in to and find new and creative ways to operate. It will be a time to use technology to strengthen relationships, and to fully appreciate being in community with one another.

Stanley: As a physician with a background in infectious disease research, I hope society gains a renewed appreciation for science and medicine as we address this massive public health crisis. We are demonstrating the enduring value and return on investment from research universities such as Michigan State. We’re collaboratively bringing to bear a huge store of knowledge and the means to apply it to defeat the virus, while supporting our communities with vital skills and resources, and, by the way, training the next generation of scientists, doctors, educators and creators.

Cauce: It has revealed incredible strength, capability and creativity across our university and all of higher education, and it has forced us to be flexible in ways that don’t always come naturally to those of us who are planners. Yet, in a world characterized by climate change and increasing interconnectedness and migration, these attributes will be increasingly important in the future. Our students, faculty and staff have adjusted remarkably well in the face of this unprecedented challenge. I know it hasn’t been easy or everything we would have wanted, but the response has been extraordinary, and we will take everything we learned this spring and make the fall quarter experience even stronger.

Over the course of her career, Ana Mari Cauce has received grants from the National Institute of Mental Health, The National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, the National Council of Child Health and Human Development, The National Science Foundation, W.T. Grant Foundation, Ford Foundation, Spencer Foundation, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Cauce also serves on the American Talent Institute Board, which is funded by Bloomberg Philanthropies. She also serves on the Board of the Canada-US Fulbright Foundation and has previously served on the Board of the Asian Pacific Rim Association.

Samuel L. Stanley and Walter M. Kimbrough do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Read More

Continue Reading

International

Illegal Immigrants Leave US Hospitals With Billions In Unpaid Bills

Illegal Immigrants Leave US Hospitals With Billions In Unpaid Bills

By Autumn Spredemann of The Epoch Times

Tens of thousands of illegal…

Published

on

Illegal Immigrants Leave US Hospitals With Billions In Unpaid Bills

By Autumn Spredemann of The Epoch Times

Tens of thousands of illegal immigrants are flooding into U.S. hospitals for treatment and leaving billions in uncompensated health care costs in their wake.

The House Committee on Homeland Security recently released a report illustrating that from the estimated $451 billion in annual costs stemming from the U.S. border crisis, a significant portion is going to health care for illegal immigrants.

With the majority of the illegal immigrant population lacking any kind of medical insurance, hospitals and government welfare programs such as Medicaid are feeling the weight of these unanticipated costs.

Apprehensions of illegal immigrants at the U.S. border have jumped 48 percent since the record in fiscal year 2021 and nearly tripled since fiscal year 2019, according to Customs and Border Protection data.

Last year broke a new record high for illegal border crossings, surpassing more than 3.2 million apprehensions.

And with that sea of humanity comes the need for health care and, in most cases, the inability to pay for it.

In January, CEO of Denver Health Donna Lynne told reporters that 8,000 illegal immigrants made roughly 20,000 visits to the city’s health system in 2023.

The total bill for uncompensated care costs last year to the system totaled $140 million, said Dane Roper, public information officer for Denver Health. More than $10 million of it was attributed to “care for new immigrants,” he told The Epoch Times.

Though the amount of debt assigned to illegal immigrants is a fraction of the total, uncompensated care costs in the Denver Health system have risen dramatically over the past few years.

The total uncompensated costs in 2020 came to $60 million, Mr. Roper said. In 2022, the number doubled, hitting $120 million.

He also said their city hospitals are treating issues such as “respiratory illnesses, GI [gastro-intenstinal] illnesses, dental disease, and some common chronic illnesses such as asthma and diabetes.”

“The perspective we’ve been trying to emphasize all along is that providing healthcare services for an influx of new immigrants who are unable to pay for their care is adding additional strain to an already significant uncompensated care burden,” Mr. Roper said.

He added this is why a local, state, and federal response to the needs of the new illegal immigrant population is “so important.”

Colorado is far from the only state struggling with a trail of unpaid hospital bills.

EMS medics with the Houston Fire Department transport a Mexican woman the hospital in Houston on Aug. 12, 2020. (John Moore/Getty Images)

Dr. Robert Trenschel, CEO of the Yuma Regional Medical Center situated on the Arizona–Mexico border, said on average, illegal immigrants cost up to three times more in human resources to resolve their cases and provide a safe discharge.

“Some [illegal] migrants come with minor ailments, but many of them come in with significant disease,” Dr. Trenschel said during a congressional hearing last year.

“We’ve had migrant patients on dialysis, cardiac catheterization, and in need of heart surgery. Many are very sick.”

He said many illegal immigrants who enter the country and need medical assistance end up staying in the ICU ward for 60 days or more.

A large portion of the patients are pregnant women who’ve had little to no prenatal treatment. This has resulted in an increase in babies being born that require neonatal care for 30 days or longer.

Dr. Trenschel told The Epoch Times last year that illegal immigrants were overrunning healthcare services in his town, leaving the hospital with $26 million in unpaid medical bills in just 12 months.

ER Duty to Care

The Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act of 1986 requires that public hospitals participating in Medicare “must medically screen all persons seeking emergency care … regardless of payment method or insurance status.”

The numbers are difficult to gauge as the policy position of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is that it “will not require hospital staff to ask patients directly about their citizenship or immigration status.”

In southern California, again close to the border with Mexico, some hospitals are struggling with an influx of illegal immigrants.

American patients are enduring longer wait times for doctor appointments due to a nursing shortage in the state, two health care professionals told The Epoch Times in January.

A health care worker at a hospital in Southern California, who asked not to be named for fear of losing her job, told The Epoch Times that “the entire health care system is just being bombarded” by a steady stream of illegal immigrants.

“Our healthcare system is so overwhelmed, and then add on top of that tuberculosis, COVID-19, and other diseases from all over the world,” she said.

A Salvadorian man is aided by medical workers after cutting his leg while trying to jump on a truck in Matias Romero, Mexico, on Nov. 2, 2018. (Spencer Platt/Getty Images)

A newly-enacted law in California provides free healthcare for all illegal immigrants residing in the state. The law could cost taxpayers between $3 billion and $6 billion per year, according to recent estimates by state and federal lawmakers.

In New York, where the illegal immigration crisis has manifested most notably beyond the southern border, city and state officials have long been accommodating of illegal immigrants’ healthcare costs.

Since June 2014, when then-mayor Bill de Blasio set up The Task Force on Immigrant Health Care Access, New York City has worked to expand avenues for illegal immigrants to get free health care.

“New York City has a moral duty to ensure that all its residents have meaningful access to needed health care, regardless of their immigration status or ability to pay,” Mr. de Blasio stated in a 2015 report.

The report notes that in 2013, nearly 64 percent of illegal immigrants were uninsured. Since then, tens of thousands of illegal immigrants have settled in the city.

“The uninsured rate for undocumented immigrants is more than three times that of other noncitizens in New York City (20 percent) and more than six times greater than the uninsured rate for the rest of the city (10 percent),” the report states.

The report states that because healthcare providers don’t ask patients about documentation status, the task force lacks “data specific to undocumented patients.”

Some health care providers say a big part of the issue is that without a clear path to insurance or payment for non-emergency services, illegal immigrants are going to the hospital due to a lack of options.

“It’s insane, and it has been for years at this point,” Dana, a Texas emergency room nurse who asked to have her full name omitted, told The Epoch Times.

Working for a major hospital system in the greater Houston area, Dana has seen “a zillion” migrants pass through under her watch with “no end in sight.” She said many who are illegal immigrants arrive with treatable illnesses that require simple antibiotics. “Not a lot of GPs [general practitioners] will see you if you can’t pay and don’t have insurance.”

She said the “undocumented crowd” tends to arrive with a lot of the same conditions. Many find their way to Houston not long after crossing the southern border. Some of the common health issues Dana encounters include dehydration, unhealed fractures, respiratory illnesses, stomach ailments, and pregnancy-related concerns.

“This isn’t a new problem, it’s just worse now,” Dana said.

Emergency room nurses and EMTs tend to patients in hallways at the Houston Methodist The Woodlands Hospital in Houston on Aug. 18, 2021. (Brandon Bell/Getty Images)

Medicaid Factor

One of the main government healthcare resources illegal immigrants use is Medicaid.

All those who don’t qualify for regular Medicaid are eligible for Emergency Medicaid, regardless of immigration status. By doing this, the program helps pay for the cost of uncompensated care bills at qualifying hospitals.

However, some loopholes allow access to the regular Medicaid benefits. “Qualified noncitizens” who haven’t been granted legal status within five years still qualify if they’re listed as a refugee, an asylum seeker, or a Cuban or Haitian national.

Yet the lion’s share of Medicaid usage by illegal immigrants still comes through state-level benefits and emergency medical treatment.

A Congressional report highlighted data from the CMS, which showed total Medicaid costs for “emergency services for undocumented aliens” in fiscal year 2021 surpassed $7 billion, and totaled more than $5 billion in fiscal 2022.

Both years represent a significant spike from the $3 billion in fiscal 2020.

An employee working with Medicaid who asked to be referred to only as Jennifer out of concern for her job, told The Epoch Times that at a state level, it’s easy for an illegal immigrant to access the program benefits.

Jennifer said that when exceptions are sent from states to CMS for approval, “denial is actually super rare. It’s usually always approved.”

She also said it comes as no surprise that many of the states with the highest amount of Medicaid spending are sanctuary states, which tend to have policies and laws that shield illegal immigrants from federal immigration authorities.

Moreover, Jennifer said there are ways for states to get around CMS guidelines. “It’s not easy, but it can and has been done.”

The first generation of illegal immigrants who arrive to the United States tend to be healthy enough to pass any pre-screenings, but Jennifer has observed that the subsequent generations tend to be sicker and require more access to care. If a family is illegally present, they tend to use Emergency Medicaid or nothing at all.

The Epoch Times asked Medicaid Services to provide the most recent data for the total uncompensated care that hospitals have reported. The agency didn’t respond.

Continue reading over at The Epoch Times

Tyler Durden Fri, 03/15/2024 - 09:45

Read More

Continue Reading

International

Fuel poverty in England is probably 2.5 times higher than government statistics show

The top 40% most energy efficient homes aren’t counted as being in fuel poverty, no matter what their bills or income are.

Published

on

By

Julian Hochgesang|Unsplash

The cap set on how much UK energy suppliers can charge for domestic gas and electricity is set to fall by 15% from April 1 2024. Despite this, prices remain shockingly high. The average household energy bill in 2023 was £2,592 a year, dwarfing the pre-pandemic average of £1,308 in 2019.

The term “fuel poverty” refers to a household’s ability to afford the energy required to maintain adequate warmth and the use of other essential appliances. Quite how it is measured varies from country to country. In England, the government uses what is known as the low income low energy efficiency (Lilee) indicator.

Since energy costs started rising sharply in 2021, UK households’ spending powers have plummeted. It would be reasonable to assume that these increasingly hostile economic conditions have caused fuel poverty rates to rise.

However, according to the Lilee fuel poverty metric, in England there have only been modest changes in fuel poverty incidence year on year. In fact, government statistics show a slight decrease in the nationwide rate, from 13.2% in 2020 to 13.0% in 2023.

Our recent study suggests that these figures are incorrect. We estimate the rate of fuel poverty in England to be around 2.5 times higher than what the government’s statistics show, because the criteria underpinning the Lilee estimation process leaves out a large number of financially vulnerable households which, in reality, are unable to afford and maintain adequate warmth.

Blocks of flats in London.
Household fuel poverty in England is calculated on the basis of the energy efficiency of the home. Igor Sporynin|Unsplash

Energy security

In 2022, we undertook an in-depth analysis of Lilee fuel poverty in Greater London. First, we combined fuel poverty, housing and employment data to provide an estimate of vulnerable homes which are omitted from Lilee statistics.

We also surveyed 2,886 residents of Greater London about their experiences of fuel poverty during the winter of 2022. We wanted to gauge energy security, which refers to a type of self-reported fuel poverty. Both parts of the study aimed to demonstrate the potential flaws of the Lilee definition.

Introduced in 2019, the Lilee metric considers a household to be “fuel poor” if it meets two criteria. First, after accounting for energy expenses, its income must fall below the poverty line (which is 60% of median income).

Second, the property must have an energy performance certificate (EPC) rating of D–G (the lowest four ratings). The government’s apparent logic for the Lilee metric is to quicken the net-zero transition of the housing sector.

In Sustainable Warmth, the policy paper that defined the Lilee approach, the government says that EPC A–C-rated homes “will not significantly benefit from energy-efficiency measures”. Hence, the focus on fuel poverty in D–G-rated properties.

Generally speaking, EPC A–C-rated homes (those with the highest three ratings) are considered energy efficient, while D–G-rated homes are deemed inefficient. The problem with how Lilee fuel poverty is measured is that the process assumes that EPC A–C-rated homes are too “energy efficient” to be considered fuel poor: the main focus of the fuel poverty assessment is a characteristic of the property, not the occupant’s financial situation.

In other words, by this metric, anyone living in an energy-efficient home cannot be considered to be in fuel poverty, no matter their financial situation. There is an obvious flaw here.

Around 40% of homes in England have an EPC rating of A–C. According to the Lilee definition, none of these homes can or ever will be classed as fuel poor. Even though energy prices are going through the roof, a single-parent household with dependent children whose only income is universal credit (or some other form of benefits) will still not be considered to be living in fuel poverty if their home is rated A-C.

The lack of protection afforded to these households against an extremely volatile energy market is highly concerning.

In our study, we estimate that 4.4% of London’s homes are rated A-C and also financially vulnerable. That is around 171,091 households, which are currently omitted by the Lilee metric but remain highly likely to be unable to afford adequate energy.

In most other European nations, what is known as the 10% indicator is used to gauge fuel poverty. This metric, which was also used in England from the 1990s until the mid 2010s, considers a home to be fuel poor if more than 10% of income is spent on energy. Here, the main focus of the fuel poverty assessment is the occupant’s financial situation, not the property.

Were such alternative fuel poverty metrics to be employed, a significant portion of those 171,091 households in London would almost certainly qualify as fuel poor.

This is confirmed by the findings of our survey. Our data shows that 28.2% of the 2,886 people who responded were “energy insecure”. This includes being unable to afford energy, making involuntary spending trade-offs between food and energy, and falling behind on energy payments.

Worryingly, we found that the rate of energy insecurity in the survey sample is around 2.5 times higher than the official rate of fuel poverty in London (11.5%), as assessed according to the Lilee metric.

It is likely that this figure can be extrapolated for the rest of England. If anything, energy insecurity may be even higher in other regions, given that Londoners tend to have higher-than-average household income.

The UK government is wrongly omitting hundreds of thousands of English households from fuel poverty statistics. Without a more accurate measure, vulnerable households will continue to be overlooked and not get the assistance they desperately need to stay warm.

Torran Semple receives funding from Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) grant EP/S023305/1.

John Harvey does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Read More

Continue Reading

Government

Looking Back At COVID’s Authoritarian Regimes

After having moved from Canada to the United States, partly to be wealthier and partly to be freer (those two are connected, by the way), I was shocked,…

Published

on

After having moved from Canada to the United States, partly to be wealthier and partly to be freer (those two are connected, by the way), I was shocked, in March 2020, when President Trump and most US governors imposed heavy restrictions on people’s freedom. The purpose, said Trump and his COVID-19 advisers, was to “flatten the curve”: shut down people’s mobility for two weeks so that hospitals could catch up with the expected demand from COVID patients. In her book Silent Invasion, Dr. Deborah Birx, the coordinator of the White House Coronavirus Task Force, admitted that she was scrambling during those two weeks to come up with a reason to extend the lockdowns for much longer. As she put it, “I didn’t have the numbers in front of me yet to make the case for extending it longer, but I had two weeks to get them.” In short, she chose the goal and then tried to find the data to justify the goal. This, by the way, was from someone who, along with her task force colleague Dr. Anthony Fauci, kept talking about the importance of the scientific method. By the end of April 2020, the term “flatten the curve” had all but disappeared from public discussion.

Now that we are four years past that awful time, it makes sense to look back and see whether those heavy restrictions on the lives of people of all ages made sense. I’ll save you the suspense. They didn’t. The damage to the economy was huge. Remember that “the economy” is not a term used to describe a big machine; it’s a shorthand for the trillions of interactions among hundreds of millions of people. The lockdowns and the subsequent federal spending ballooned the budget deficit and consequent federal debt. The effect on children’s learning, not just in school but outside of school, was huge. These effects will be with us for a long time. It’s not as if there wasn’t another way to go. The people who came up with the idea of lockdowns did so on the basis of abstract models that had not been tested. They ignored a model of human behavior, which I’ll call Hayekian, that is tested every day.

These are the opening two paragraphs of my latest Defining Ideas article, “Looking Back at COVID’s Authoritarian Regimes,” Defining Ideas, March 14, 2024.

Another excerpt:

That wasn’t the only uncertainty. My daughter Karen lived in San Francisco and made her living teaching Pilates. San Francisco mayor London Breed shut down all the gyms, and so there went my daughter’s business. (The good news was that she quickly got online and shifted many of her clients to virtual Pilates. But that’s another story.) We tried to see her every six weeks or so, whether that meant our driving up to San Fran or her driving down to Monterey. But were we allowed to drive to see her? In that first month and a half, we simply didn’t know.

Read the whole thing, which is longer than usual.

(0 COMMENTS)

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending