States fight coronavirus on their own, revealing partisan split

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.

Covid-19 models miss the point: “It's not over until it's over”

Gordon L. Weil

People are fascinated by numbers.

Not surprisingly, the Covid-19 pandemic has become entangled with statistics. The problem may be that people focus on those numbers, so they lose sight of the real problem.

How many cases have there been in China or Italy or the U.S.? Where is the pandemic “epicenter” based on the case count? What's the number of ventilators, face masks, or protective gear?

Experts have been busy building models to create forecasts of the possible number of new cases, recoveries and deaths. Daily press briefings are mainly about the latest counts and the expected shortfalls in equipment generated by models. Models seem to be used to frighten people.

Suddenly, we are expected to understand enough math to know that an important goal is to “flatten the curve.” The models produce a curve. What curve? What does flattening do? Whatever, let's just do it.

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo heroically fights the country's toughest challenge, but he seems to believe he can scare people into reducing the spread by citing forecasts. In Washington, the federal government publicly revealed a controversial forecast showing a stunning quarter of a million dead.

Dr. Nirav Shah, the Maine CDC head, says he uses the models not to produce forecasts as their main purpose, but to plan for a range of possible health challenges. He understands that the models tell him that what might happen depends on what people do to reduce the spread.

That's why he reluctantly released model results. People are likely to believe models yield reliable forecasts, when they are really only a tool.

The most important data from a Covid-19 model is how many cases can be expected. Differing assumptions about people's behavior produce a wide range of results, but no single, reliable forecast. People influence the model not the other way around.

Social distancing, using face masks and hand washing matter more than models.

The simple lesson of the models is that more spread means more illness. That hardly requires a lot of detail about the numbers. And knowing the exact number of people who will be affected is impossible.

Shah makes one mistake when he says the Covid-19 forecasts are like weather forecasts. Weather forecasts are famously inaccurate, because conditions beyond our control continually change. But people can control Covid-19 models by cutting down on current cases. In fact, right now, that's about all that can.

People would be unwise to take comfort from models or even from the belief that “flattening of the curve” is the goal. We simply know too little and numbers produced by models may tempt people to believe their hopes.

Flattening the curve does not necessarily mean that fewer people will get Covid-19. It means that the number will be spread over a longer period, which will stress hospitals less and provide time to find a helpful medication or vaccine. That could save some lives.

“It's not over, until it's over,” said Yogi Berra, the philosopher-baseball player.

With stay-at-home orders to fight the spread, the economy loses both producers and consumers. It slows down. The government keeps it alive by pouring out money to people and companies.

President Trump and others see the stock market as an indicator of the health of the economy. Investors have extreme reactions to each day's model numbers and data reports, which they treat as a daily forecast. The market swings wildly.

Trump's re-election is reportedly dependent on the state of the economy. Like everybody else for their own reasons, he wishes for a speedy economic recovery.

Falling stock market indexes – numbers, again – cause some policy makers to press for an early finding that there is a cure for the virus and that the crisis is ending, freeing people from protecting themselves so they can get back to work.

Peter Navarro, a presidential advisor, says his economics doctorate makes him as much an expert on the virus models as the medical doctors. He asserts the crisis is not so bad as they say, so we should test and simply declare, “It's over.” He admits that some people will die. Economic recovery is apparently worth lives.

“Dr.” Rudy Giuliani, Trump's personal lawyer, claims that some sketchy data is enough to show an unproven drug is the Covid-19 cure, though scientists are still far from that conclusion. Fall ill, take the drug, and go back to work.

Navarro is flat wrong. Giuliani is dangerous. The health of the economy depends on the health of people.

The health of people depends on their protecting themselves and others and, in the end, on science, not math.

Coronavirus kills one branch of government

Electronic legislative proceedings would revive 'checks and balances'

Gordon L. Weil

We have three branches of government – legislative, executive and judicial.

Except we don't. The coronavirus killed one.

The executive branch is fully in charge of the government. The courts are open to deal with the most urgent matters. Congress and the Legislature are shut tight.

While all three branches are equal and can keep a check on one another, constitutions assign the leading role to legislative bodies. They make the laws, setting the agenda and terms of government for the other two branches. They represent the people and can prevent any excesses of the executive. But not now.

The president and key executive personnel are at work. So is the governor and her officials. Federal and state courts are open and can operate. Federal courts have moved to “video teleconferencing” for many matters. Meanwhile, legislators are at home and the legislative halls are almost empty.

The reason is the national Covid-19 crisis, demanding rapid government action. The executive branch is compact, with most key players in a single location. It can react quickly. Though the courts usually do not need to act as rapidly, they can function when necessary, because most courts consist of a single judge.

To deal with the emergency, legislative bodies cede their oversight powers to the executive branch. They write blank checks.

At the the federal level, Congress authorized emergency moves to fund essential services and rescue the economy. At the state level, the Maine Legislature gave the governor what might seem, at other times, like near-dictatorial powers.

By these actions, the legislative bodies gave up any pretense of checking the conduct of the executive, much less limiting it. In a major emergency, it seems that “checks and balances” are among the victims.

To be sure, we cannot expect hundreds of legislators to “shelter in place” in capitol cities so they can promptly go into session. Nor can we expect them to crowd into legislative chambers, where physical separation is not possible, placing themselves in direct danger.

But neutering legislative oversight in time of crisis comes to modern America right out of the 18^th Century, when the Constitution was written on the understanding that the federal government would take a multi-month break every year. Obviously, that is no longer true.

If we have come to understand that legislative bodies need to meet almost year round, why can't that thinking also apply to emergencies? For much of history, there has been no practical way to do it.

But now there is. The internet was invented in the U.S. with Department of Defense funding. It opened the way to a new world of communications. Why can't the U.S. again lead the world by developing its use for legislative purposes?

Legislative bodies could meet using electronic means. All members can see and hear one another, whether in a legislative committee or the full body. Though it is not the time for routine legislation, committees could exercise oversight and consider emergency measures. Electronic voting is easy and can be kept secure.

In the 21^st Century, that would not be a “virtual” meeting, it would be the real thing. It's time to drop “virtual.” (Aside: It is also time to drop saying that the broad and rapid transmission of a single item means it is going “viral.”)

Critics could claim that there would be no real debate among members when they were voting from distant locations. It is difficult for anybody to keep a straight face in saying that. Just watch C-SPAN.

There is no debate, at least in Congress. Not a single member is swayed by what is said during floor debate. It's all stagecraft, designed to create content for the media back home. If anybody is swayed, it's when a member talks with a lobbyist. Or their staff assistant. Or through bilateral contact with a legislative ally.

In the era of extreme partisanship, most members follow the party line. That's what gives leaders so much power. And with well-defined ideologies, members know almost reflexively how to vote.

The development of the electronic legislature should be a product of the current crisis. Now, here's a suggestion that might validly come from Al Gore, burdened with the false charge that he claimed to have invented the internet. He was a House and Senate member and winner of the Nobel Prize.

Congress and the Legislature could elect a small, representative group of their members to remain in session. Instead of having a blank check, the president or governor would have to report to this group before taking extraordinary action. The group could either assent, negotiate or call the legislative body back into electronic session.

These changes can be accomplished through the rules legislative bodies adopt. It's time to update how legislatures do their business.