Right or wrong, Gretchen Whitmer is not acting based on data

Whitmer has done a 180. Nothing illustrates this better than comparing her actions now to those from the same time last year. On Nov. 15, 2020, she reimposed a lockdown on Michigan, claiming “If we don’t act now, thousands more will die, and our hospitals will continue to be overwhelmed.” A few days later, she said there was “out of control community spread” that was “inherently dangerous.”

At the time, 14% of those tested for COVID-19 were coming up positive. Today, the numbers are worse: The state’s positivity rate is above 19%. There are more hospital beds occupied by COVID-positive patients than at any time before, and hospital officials warn that they are on the verge of being overwhelmed. Yet Whitmer takes no action.

It is remarkable how readily the governor thrust herself into the daily lives of Michiganders in 2020. Facing the same threat to healthcare capacity, she told people when and for what purpose they could leave their homes. She told restaurants and other businesses how to treat their customers. She decided for us which recreational activities were worth the risk. She told retail stores what they could and could not sell and advertise. She decided which people we could invite into our own homes and how many.

Now, the governor leaves all those decisions to individuals and local authorities. Aside from a handful of local officials who have imposed mask mandates on schoolchildren, no one is trying to impose rules that resemble anything similar to the governor’s statewide orders from last year. It makes one wonder: If that approach is best now, why wasn’t it best last year, or, much less, at least considered?

Throughout 2020, the governor impressed upon the public that all her decisions were based solely on “the science.” It was as if she had no choice but to lock us in our homes, close schools, and order that masks be worn under penalty of law: It was simply a matter of following wherever the data led.

But even then, the governor sometimes abruptly reversed course or changed her mind without a corresponding change in the data. This indicated that additional factors influenced her decisions — there was more to it than just the science and data. It is clear that now, the data are not the primary driver of her decisions. There’s no way to know for sure, but perhaps they never were.

When the governor has been asked why she is using an entirely different approach to COVID-19 this year, she often mentions something about the importance of vaccines. But it is clear now that their mere existence cannot snuff out periodic waves of infection. Given Michigan’s current numbers and similar experiences in heavily vaccinated populations around the world, vaccines by themselves appear incapable of flattening curves or protecting healthcare capacity.

Despite her trust in a vaccine-only strategy, Whitmer does not push vaccination as hard as many of her Democratic colleagues. She once vowed not to remove social distancing restrictions until 70% of adults in Michigan got a vaccine shot, but now, she sounds critical of vaccine mandates. Here she parts ways with the likes of California Gov. Gavin Newsom, Mayor Bill de Blasio of New York City, and, of course, President Joe Biden. In a recent meeting with local business leaders, she called Biden’s proposed vaccine mandate “a problem for all of us.”

Whitmer seems to have painted herself into a corner.

Last year, she used extraordinary and unprecedented executive power, declaring that every action she took was necessary to save people from dying of COVID-19. Now, facing the same public health threat, she has switched tactics, leaving it up to individuals and local communities to decide for themselves. Without a rationale for this 180-degree turn, it is impossible to tell which approach is the best. But both cannot be correct. Either the governor got it wrong last year, or she’s getting it wrong now.

Michael Van Beek is director of research at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy.