Gordon L. Weil
On April 2, Gov. Janet Mills put a
Maine stay-at-home order into effect, joining in the third wave of
states issuing such orders to limit the spread of Covid-19.
States had begun acting when New Jersey
made such an order on March 21. The states sought to keep ahead of
the spread, after trying to avoid limiting the freedom of movement
valued by most people as their right.
Mills' order recognized the right of
each state to protect public health and safety within its borders,
especially needed in the absence of a coordinated national response
to what was obviously a world-wide crisis.
Covid-19, the illness caused by a new
coronavirus, had begun in Wuhan, a city in China unknown to most
Americans. Yet, in less than three months, it had spread from Wuhan
to Maine.
Despite this fact, American policy
treated the virus as if it recognized borders. By the time President
Trump declared a national emergency a few days ago, five states had
still not yet ordered people to stay home and three more had only
limited restrictions.
Much attention has been focused on
determining when the U.S. knew that action was needed and began
preparing for the invasion of the virus. Whatever the answer to
those issues, it is evident that much of the initiative in handling
it was left to the states.
There is no medication known to reverse
Covid-19 and no vaccine. On the front lines, states needed to
acquire the equipment to deal with caring for those who took ill and
order changes in human activity that would limit the spread of the
virus.
Some did better than others. The first
state to be hit hard was Washington, and it was in the first wave of
states to issue stay-at-home orders. It was joined by Oregon and
California, covering the entire West Coast. It may have paid off.
Los Angeles has experienced a lower per capita impact than Boston.
The problem in leaving the fight
against the worldwide spread of a virus to the states was the
shortage of the equipment needed to fight the spread : masks,
personal protective gear, tests and ventilators. Inevitably that
meant the states would compete to obtain the supplies they needed.
Competition was not the best way to allocate scarce resources
nationally.
Also, if governors had spare equipment,
how likely would they be to send it out of state when they might need
it later? Some sharing took place, but it was politically risky.
The states had expected a federal
back-up existed and could be deployed as needed across the country.
Instead the federal stockpile was both inadequate and kept in federal
hands. The federal government competed with the states in seeking
supplies from private manufacturers.
The response in states was uneven,
despite the threat being national. Mills has issued clear
directives. Maine data has been provided daily, though it has fallen
short in some details that other states publish. Maine CDC is the
source, and it appears not to be politically influenced. It is
probably not possible to collect hard data on compliance.
One characteristic of state responses
stands out. States with Democratic governors were the most active in
responding early, while most GOP governors hung back.
In the first wave of nine state
stay-at-home orders, only one governor was a Republican. Ohio Gov.
Mike DeWine took the threat seriously, listened to his science
advisors and has been criticized by fellow Republicans. One leader
reported that his “friends” find that DeWine is “overreaching
and ruining the economy.”
Like Mills, the states that have taken
the most organized action against the virus are relying on the advice
of scientists who serve no matter what party is in power. All of
the lagging states have Republican governors seeking to support
Trump's attempts to minimize the threat and “reopen” the economy
by accepting some casualties.
The split among states is clear
evidence of how the response to Covid-19 has been politically
partisan. Trump supporters claim that shutting down parts of the
economy is more harmful than Covid-19 itself. Opponents, including
all Democratic leaders, focus more on health than economic activity.
Now, three states on the West Coast,
called the Western States Pact, and seven states in the East,
including New York, are working on joint plans for recovery. All are
headed by governors who reject Trump's claim to call all the shots.
Some states, going it alone, try to track Trump's policies.
Trump attacks states and governors. He
assigns much of the blame for an insufficient response to them. If
the economy only can open slowly, governors face charges of
foot-dragging and inadequate loyalty to the president.
States may not forget their experience
in this crisis. When it has passed, the federal-state relationship
could be changed for good.
No comments:
Post a Comment