Press "Enter" to skip to content

Trying to protect everyone, we left the most vulnerable exposed to the virus

In the Senate hearing last week on the country’s response to the coronavirus pandemic, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Tenn.) challenged the preternatural influence of Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), saying: “You are not the end-all.”

Paul was rude, but right. The nation has become transfixed by Fauci and his approach to the pandemic, which Paul described accurately as a “one-size-fits-all” policy. Almost the entire nation has been ordered to stay home and socially distance, and almost the whole economy has been shut down. You can’t get more one-size-fits-all than that.

It is a marvel that the nation has followed such a uniform policy in the face of a virus which afflicts different population segments in such wildly different ways. Over three-quarters of all serious cases and deaths have befallen people over age 65, who comprise only about 16 percent of the population. And it is just plain common sense that people with serious prior conditions would be at greater risk, and that transmission would be greatest in densely populated urban areas and residential settings. To offer a uniform policy is like a shoe store selling only size-8 shoes.

The dramatic imbalance was clear before the U.S. shutdown began. Data out of China and Italy were unambiguous that the virus attacked the elderly and spared those younger. Moreover, our first reported outbreak occurred at the Life Care Center nursing home in Washington state, i.e., among seniors in a dense residential setting.

Tragically, the U.S. has failed to protect precisely those population segments whose high risk was obvious from the start. While the damage already sustained – both in terms of lives and livelihoods – cannot be undone, it need not be compounded. From the start, many people saw a targeted approach without a total economic shutdown as a better approach – and they still do.

Unfortunately, partisanship has crept into the debate over the best policy, with Democrats supporting Fauci and many Republicans the targeted alternative. Let’s look at the targeted alternative — not as presented by a Republican or a conservative but, rather, by Thomas Friedman, renowned opinion columnist for The New York Times, a generally left-leaning newspaper.

Shortly after the U.S. shutdown began, Freidman wrote a column entitled “A Way to Get America Back to Work,” articulating the same grave concern about the total shutdown of the economy as expressed by The Wall Street Journal , this columnist and many others at that time and since. Friedman even used the same words that became so controversial when uttered by President Trump: “Is the cure worse than the disease.”

Friedman worried about “group think,” presciently anticipating the virtually universal adoption of the stay-home-shutdown strategy. He worried that the exclusive focus upon the virus would crowd out treatment of other serious illnesses and conditions, e.g., someone in cardiac distress might hesitate to go to the hospital or be unable to summon an ambulance. He pointed out that, in the long term, a prolonged shutdown would make us all significantly poorer with consequently poorer general health, because a poorer society cannot afford the best health care.

Friedman turned to a discussion of “another way” advocated by Dr. David L. Katz, founding director of the Yale-Griffin Prevention Research Center. Katz is an MD with a graduate degree in public health from Yale, who had penned an op-ed in the Times two days before. Katz advocated a pivot from the “horizontal interdiction” strategy – restricting the movement and commerce of an entire population – to a more “surgical” or “vertical interdiction strategy” that would focus on protecting and sequestering those most likely to be killed or suffer long-term damage.

Katz said everyone should stay home for two weeks, rather than indefinitely. Those who develop symptoms within the virus’ usual two-week incubation period should then self-isolate; those not symptomatic, if in the low-risk population, should be allowed to return to work or school.

With more than nine weeks having passed – far more than the two-week period Katz considered sufficient — we should go back to work and school, according to his strategy.

If this alternative strategy is not compelling in its own right, consider what our uniform universal strategy has failed to prevent: the highest infection and death rate in the world, concentrated in exactly the high risk groups, areas and settings which were clearly identifiable at the start.

Not only that, but the current strategy is almost certain to make things worse in the future. Had younger people not stayed home and socially distanced, they would have become infected – with only the rarest incidence of serious cases – and herd immunity would have developed, vastly reducing transmission and spread in the dreaded second wave.

What leaps to mind is that, in trying to protect everyone, we left the highly vulnerable few tragically exposed. A central precept of medicine in the context of scarce resources is triage. God knows, we had scarce resources as the pandemic broke out. When everyone can’t be saved, triage means focusing policy, effort and resources in a manner designed to maximize survivors – in case of this virus, to protect those most clearly vulnerable.

Fauci’s approach has come at great cost. In contrast, the targeted approach would not have required the costly economic shutdown, quite simply because it focuses almost exclusively upon people of retirement age.

The economic fallout of the shutdown has been catastrophic: 36 million citizens have filed for unemployment benefits. The unemployment rate has hit 14.7 percent, and is expected to top 20 percent. GDP has collapsed, falling by 4.6 percent in the first quarter which included only two weeks of the shutdown; economists project a 30 percent GDP drop in the second quarter.

We have added $3 trillion to our national debt just in the fiscal “stimulus” already dispensed. The Federal Reserve Bank has already extended about $2.5 trillion in monetary support, with much more planned. Income tax revenues will evaporate as businesses sustain losses and individuals suffer massive declines in income.

There’s a pernicious canard circulating that focusing on the economy is “putting money before lives.” Does anyone seriously believe that these apocalyptic numbers do not spell extreme pain and decreased life expectancy for the vast majority of Americans?

What now? We have flattened the curve, our original objective. While we are reopening the economy, we are reopening painfully slowly, with many state governors imposing myriad rules and regulations which effectively extend the shutdown and continue to scare the public. The likely result will be an anemic recovery. We need to reopen aggressively to survive the economic apocalypse we have put ourselves through, and we need to focus almost exclusively on a comprehensive effort to protect the obviously vulnerable until a vaccine is deployed, or, at least, effective therapeudic treatments are widely available.

The targeted approach presented here is largely that of Thomas Friedman, a journalist at a generally liberal newspaper, and it is based upon conversation with a public health expert. The fact that many Republicans and conservatives share this view should not prevent reasonable people of all political and ideological persuasions from considering the targeted approach.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Notify of
1 Comment
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Bill Hunnicutt

A politicized media driven panic that enabled a totalitarian response masked by an utopian illusion. If we could have substituted Fauci with Katz, we’d be $Trillions better off with fewer deaths since herd immunity would have kicked in much sooner.

.attachment {display:none;}