Paul Krugman wants you to stay home until January

Pulitzer-winning economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman wants you to stay at home until January. At least, that’s the only logical way his tweet on Saturday can be deciphered.

OK. Neera Tanden’s politics aside, she has always been personable when we’ve met previously. I feel bad for her and wish her a speedy and as painless-as-possible recovery. But Krugman’s argument isn’t ultimately about Tanden. It’s about the nation. And as I said, Krugman’s necessary extension is that we all remain home until a vaccine is viably shared across America.

There are a couple of problems here.

First, the expert opinion, both from scientists and policymakers leading the coronavirus fight, suggest that a vaccine will not be available for widespread use until December at the earliest. Most analysts believe it is far more likely that a vaccine won’t be rolled out for this use until January. One caveat here. Considering it views its people as slaves and feudal drones, and is relentlessly stealing vaccine information, China may rush its way to vaccinating its people before December, ignoring the risks in doing so. Regardless, it doesn’t seem credible to expect that a critical mass of U.S. citizens will be vaccinated before at least 2021. Krugman must know this.

The extension, then, is that Krugman has factored that understanding into his tweet. And considering that the total prescription Krugman seeks, none safe until all safe, it seems clear that he is talking about everyone being immune to the virus. On paper, he is right. But in practical terms, his health analysis suffers greatly in its zero-sum understanding of cost.

Because the coronavirus cost to the people and nation is not measured simply by its infection or mortality rates in any moment. Considering that most younger individuals do not suffer major illness from infection and that the vast majority of those who are hospitalized eventually recover, this is nowhere near what the bubonic plague was to medieval Europe. That plague wiped up to 50% of Europe’s population, this virus will kill far less than 0.1% of the world’s population.

But by endorsing Krugman’s shutdown-at-all-costs approach to the virus, we are approaching the virus as if it is the plague. And causing far much harm in doing so. Doctors across the nation report far fewer than expected admissions for major ailments such as heart attacks. And cancer treatments are being delayed or disrupted across much of the world. That’s to say nothing of noncritical but important quality-of-life surgeries such as hip replacements.

At the same time, tens of millions of U.S. citizens are unemployed and suffering serious economic pain. That pain ripples into their families, who must now support them. The rest of us must contend with two broader challenges, arestriction on that which makes us American: the right to assemble in pursuit of happiness, whether that be at sports games, restaurants, or places of religious worship.

That takes us back to Krugman. Because his argument also belies the now established fact that maximal national benefit comes not from the total lockdown he prescribes but from an easing of restrictions in support of a broader range of higher values. That is to say, actions such as those of Sweden, which protecting the vulnerable, has kept its society open in support of social and economic needs and has suffered higher death rates than its neighbors, but not higher per capita death rates than lockdown-centric nations such as Belgium, Italy, Britain, and France. Krugman and other liberal economists normally like Swedish policy. Not here.

Still, Krugman should be wary. As states such as Florida show success reopening their economies with nuance, and President Trump centers his reelection strategy on a reopening agenda, those who call for a tyranny of seclusion may find themselves again outfoxed at the ballot box.