Most politicians in most countries are going too far, ordering lockdowns that go beyond what is strictly demanded by the science. They are doing so not because they are foolish or corrupt but because their incentives are skewed.
And those incentives are skewed — sorry to be so blunt about it — by you, the voter.
Let’s start with what ought to be the most basic question of all. Does a complete lockdown — ordering people to stay home — significantly reduce the rate of infection compared to suspending only large gatherings and asking people to maintain their distance and wash their hands?
So far, there is no evidence that it does. Many of the Asian countries that applied relatively mild restraints, notably South Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore, have performed better than the United States or Western Europe. To be fair, there are other factors at work here. The experience of SARS left Asian nations in a greater state of preparedness. Face masks were already in widespread use, and the capacity to test and trace was more advanced.
So, let’s consider something closer to a like-with-like comparison. Spain, France, and Italy have enforced much tougher prohibitions than Germany, which has, in turn, been far tougher than Sweden, where only meetings of 50 people or more are prohibited. (Let’s leave out Belarus, which has imposed no lockdown at all but the infection figures of which cannot be trusted.) So far, Germany and Sweden have had proportionately fewer infections and fewer fatalities than their more authoritarian neighbors, which continue to close shops, schools, and businesses.
Looking at state-by-state comparisons within the U.S., we find a similar lack of correlation. If anything, the states that have imposed the lightest restrictions — at the time of writing, Arkansas, Iowa, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota — are faring much better than average.
That in itself proves nothing, of course. There are plenty of possible explanations. For example, that the main correlation is with population density, or climate, or demography. But, if you think about it, it shouldn’t be up to me to demonstrate that lockdowns don’t work. The onus is on those who propose massive state coercion and the limitation of traditional liberties to prove their case, not on the defenders of the status quo ante.
This is where public opinion comes in. We are bad at calculating trade-offs at the best of times. When there is panic in the air, we want safety at all costs. Or, rather, we don’t think about costs at all. The very idea of calculating the effect of the shutdown on people’s welfare and, indeed, overall longevity, seems distasteful. It’s far easier and far more satisfying to sloganize, to say, “Better safe than sorry” or “Lives before the economy,” as though the economy were some abstract entity rather than the word referring to human interaction intended to maximize health and happiness.
We get the leaders we deserve. Politicians know that they won’t be punished electorally for erring on the side of caution, the key word here being “erring.” There is an authoritarian tendency in every electorate, and crises of this sort inflame it. Once leaders around the world decided to immobilize their populations rather than just quarantining those most at risk, it became politically difficult to switch course. New evidence tended to be pressed into the existing narrative, that is, to be seized on as further justification for the lockdowns.
For example, when a test in Los Angeles last week found that many more people than expected had the virus, the response of the authorities was not to rejoice because it was therefore less lethal than previously thought but to declare that “the findings underscore the importance of … broad social distancing interventions.”
For what it’s worth, my hunch is that Isaac Ben-Israel is onto something. The Israeli scientist has studied data from all over the world and concluded that the infections follow pretty much the same trajectory however tight or loose the lockdowns. “It turns out that a similar pattern — rapid increase in infections that reaches a peak in the sixth week and declines from the eighth week — is common to all countries in which the disease was discovered, regardless of their response policies.”
He could be wrong, obviously. But that doesn’t mean we should reverse the burden of proof. A response that was wholly empirical would tighten the lockdown screw only if there were clear and credible evidence that doing so would save lives. It would not apply more restrictions simply because the fatality rate was rising and newspapers were demanding action.
But politics, alas, is not evidence-based. Our leaders reflect our biases and inconsistencies back at us. No wonder we blame them.
