For many years, beginning over 2 decades ago, I ravenously consumed anything and everything National Review produced, both online and in print. In recent years I have gradually untethered myself from NR for a variety of reasons, which I’m happy to discuss another time. My one remaining umbilical cord to NR is Jim Geraghty’s Morning Jolt e-newsletter, which I read religiously every morning. Jim is one of my favorite commentators, and I find his research and commentary unusually (in this day and age) logical, insightful, and fair.
Having said that, I found a few statements in this morning’s Morning Jolt a little simplistic. Let’s start with his opening paragraph:
If you tune in to the latest episode of The Editors podcast, you’ll notice intermittent notes of impatience in my rants. The United States and the world have to make a series of difficult decisions, choosing from a menu of bad options that all involve considerable risk. I quipped that this is a time for the grown-ups to make a decision. The metaphorical children in our national debate, the folks who cannot handle nuance or grasp different degrees of risk and who instantly demonize any position that isn’t theirs, ought to be quiet.
My initial reaction to Jim’s statement is this: doesn’t everyone with an opinion think they are the adult in the room? Trump always thinks he’s the adult — and the smartest person — in the room, and yet he frequently says the most childish things.
Then there’s this observation:
The country enacted a set of rules that were designed to help hospitals to continue to operate safely; in the process, they cut off most of the revenue for hospitals [from elective procedures]. I cannot think of a more spectacularly ironic headline than “Mayo Clinic to furlough or reduce pay of 30,000 employees” in the middle of a global health crisis.
Jim doesn’t explicity state that we should not have charted that particular course, so I may be misinterpreting his writing (if so, I do apologize). However, the context and tone seem to imply that Jim thinks in hindsight that we should not have temporarily reduced or eliminated elective procedures for the sake of safety. I’m not gigging him for making judgments in hindsight — in this unprecedented situation, we are operating a great deal on the basis of trial and error, a system which is based almost entirely on hindsight. However, his judgment on this seems particularly wrong-headed. Sure, those regulations — usually enacted by executive orders of the various state governors — are going to seriously hurt hospital P&Ls and balance sheets. But consider the consequences of not temporarily halting elective procedures. How many breast augmentation patients, the number one most popular plastic surgery in the U.S., will contract the coronavirus while preparing for or undergoing their procedure, consequently requiring a hospital bed (and possibly a ventilator, and definitely personal protective equipment, etc.)? How about knee arthroscopy patients (the fifth most common orthopedic surgery)? Non-emergency hysterectomy patients (the eighth most common surgery)?
And all this is not to mention the possiblity of — oh, I don’t know: death? Let me be clear here: Jim is, from what I can tell from his writing (I don’t know him personally, and can’t get him to answer any of my fan emails), one of the most pro-life people I can imagine. I point this out here because the possibility of “allowable” deaths versus preventing death, while present in much of the debate, doesn’t seem to carry nearly the weight it should. Even in discussions among evangelical Christians, there appears to be an unacceptably high willingness to trade off lives for economic reasons. I know this is a very difficult kobayashi maru (by definition) decision with no good options, but when it comes to how we run our hospitals in a pandemic crisis, we should be erring heavily on the side of infection prevention, and find other ways to keep the lights on and the doctors working. I’m not a big fan of government handouts (not a “bailout”, which is used to save a company from its own foolish decisions), but this is a case where I think it is appropriate for the common good.
The cries to begin the gradual, evidence-driven, locality-based, safety-focused reopening of our society and economy are not driven by boredom, or greed, or selfishness, or ignorance.
No, they’re not. They are based on fear. Fear of small businessmen that they will lose their business. Fear of workers that they will not be able to pay their mortgage, or buy food. Very real fears.
Let me say this very loud and clear: I understand the delicate balance between re-opening the economy (whatever that really means; different people have different ideas) and continuing to fight this pandemic. I’ve read the arguments on both sides, and I agree with most of them. I don’t have an answer, but there are much smarter people than me who have come up with what appears to be a very logical, smart, do-able game plan. Let’s trust them, rather than give in to fear.
Having picked some nits with Jim’s opinions, let me encourage you to read the whole thing. It’s worth the time (it’s not terribly long), and it makes a lot of very good points regarding the re-opening of America, as well as some good news about very smart people tackling the crisis, and some insight about the source. By the way, Jim has been one of the leaders in shining a very bright light on China’s responsibility in this whole thing, from start to finish, and let me tell you, it doesn’t look good.
