'Opening' protesters gamble with virus, putting their rights above others' lives

Gordon L. Weil

Let's abolish the police.

That's just a modest proposal made possible by the low crime rate. The police are a drain on taxpayers when there's little for them to do.

Similarly, we should end social distancing, masks and stay-at-home orders, because the number of Covid-19 cases has peaked. It's time to get on with our normal lives. It's possible that a few extra people would die, but not many. Besides, they are mostly old people.

Not good ideas? The presence of the police is the main reason crime is under control. Covid-19 cases have slowed thanks to government-mandated protective measures that are reducing its spread.

The real and growing problem is that some people do not understand how this works.

The best case for opening would be that people need to work and collect their pay to cover the basic cost of living, and some people are simply bothered by prolonged stays within the four walls of home.

But many protesting state government requirements to reduce the spread of the virus say their reasons are not mainly about personal economics or peace of mind. They resist government action that they claim limits their freedom. They want to self-liberate, not self-isolate.

Angry people in the streets protesting actions to reduce the lasting effect of the virus are being organized by a right-wing coalition, including the Trump presidential campaign.

Interestingly, among the demonstrations against action by governors to limit the spread, a crowd gathered to oppose the Republican governor of Ohio, the conservative leader of a state essential to Trump's election effort.

The Ohio demonstration illustrates a split persists between Trump Republicans and traditional Republicans who support their governor. In some southern states that have been Trump strongholds, governors are already easing anti-spread measures.

In understanding the drive to “open” the country, there are economic and health realities. Even if government anti-virus action came to a halt, opening the country would not bring a quick return to the levels of health and the economy that existed before the coronavirus arrived.

Any reopening will be gradual. Change will come to places with less chance of people having undetected Covid-19. That may be less densely populated areas, though that's not yet a certainty. It will also come to those activities in which people are not in close contact with one another. Playing golf may come ahead of dining out.

The economy will not boom to serve unmet demand. The aftermath of World War II is cited, but the national economy then had been subject to wartime rationing. When the lid came off, people bought cars and millions of veterans wanted new homes.

Now, the economy is coming off a sustained boom. There is little unmet demand, so there is not likely to be an explosion of purchasing. It's possible that people will have picked up some new habits during the crisis, leading to more saving and less consuming.

Government, the frequent target of Trump and the GOP, may take a bigger piece of economic activity. It's possible more funding will go to health protection. Greater attention may be paid to older Americans and others who are vulnerable.

As a result of these possible changes from the country as it was before the crisis, the economy may not return to the way things were as recently as January.

Even worse, if protective measures are lifted too quickly, especially without adequate testing to determine the true scope of Covid-19's spread, it is highly likely there will be a new surge of cases and deaths. Re-opening then could take years.

Trump and his supporters appear to believe that reopening the economy will restore strongly positive economic results quickly. If good times were restored and the virus seen only as blip on the boom, that should improve Trump's re-election chances.

If there were a new surge of Covid-19, the economy would have no chance of a rapid recovery and it might slow again. There might be a political price to pay for acting too soon. Governors do not want to take those risks.

For Trump, the calculation is different. The strong economy was his best argument for re-election. He chose not to cast himself as the unifying national leader in time of crisis, preferring to stick with his original plan of relying on the economy. Politically, he has gambled and needs re-opening, even with its risks.

Beyond the 2020 elections, opponents of anti-spread measures insist that personal freedom should be set above the common interest. Perhaps their demonstrations will focus popular attention on deciding the right balance.

Covid-19 crisis shows endangered seniors need greater attention

Gordon L. Weil

When gentleman bank robber Willie Sutton was asked why he robbed banks, it was claimed, though falsely, that he answered, “Because that's where the money is.”

If you could ask Covid-19 why it goes after so many people in senior residential centers, it would have to answer, “Because that's where the old people are.”

For whatever reason, Sutton liked robbing banks. If Covid-19 could set its own priorities, it would admit that it attacks seniors because they are the most vulnerable, making it easier to do its deadly job.

As people age, their immune systems, the body's mechanisms for fighting off invading illnesses, grow weaker. https://www.livescience.com/35908-aging-lowers-your-immunity.html It's natural. As they age, it is also likely that people have suffered from illnesses that have weakened their defenses, even if they seem to have survived in good health.

That's why the dosage of the annual flu vaccine is stronger for older people. It helps them fight off the virus despite the loss of some of their own immunity.

Many seniors live in retirement communities. Some cannot live on their own, because their health requires them to have access to care, sometimes from qualified professionals.

At one end of the spectrum of care are skilled nursing facilities and hospices. Because government health insurance may pay most of their cost, federal and state agencies impose standards of staffing and conditions on them.

But other communities may involve only the shared use of facilities, ranging from dining, to amusements, to exercise. These senior residence arrangements are lightly regulated, but are left to the market to determine costs and conditions.

Senior communities are growing as the number of seniors grows. In 2000, people over 65 were 12.4 percent of the American population. By 2030, they are expected to be 20.6 percent. https://www.statista.com/statistics/457822/share-of-old-age-population-in-the-total-us-population/ In other words, one person out of every five in this country will be a senior.

It is also possible that more seniors will be retired. While the recent trend has been for people to work until an older age, they may find it increasingly difficult to find jobs as the economy slowly recovers.

Seniors have been advised, where possible, to delay the start of receiving Social Security to maximize income. But, in the past few weeks, advice has begun to appear suggesting taking the federal payments earlier to be assured of some income when jobs are slow to come back. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/personal-finance/should-you-take-social-security-early-for-some-coronavirus-changes-the-math-on-waiting-until-youre-70/2020/04/10/e85486a8-7a6e-11ea-b6ff-597f170df8f8_story.html

Similarly, more seniors may turn to residential housing facilities because they are less costly than maintaining a home of one's own.

While it is known that seniors are far more likely to die from Covid-19 than the general population, insufficient data is available on the effect of the virus. Maine reveals only that more than half the cases are over the age of 50. https://bangordailynews.com/2020/04/20/news/state/another-mainer-dies-as-coronavirus-cases-hit-875-statewide/ That both confirms what we already know about reduced immunity and hides much relevant information about how serious the problem may be.

Across the country state agencies are reporting that, at some congregate care locations, Covid-19 has spread rapidly and, in some places, has caused a spike in deaths. Evidence mounts that regulation has been inadequate either in toughness, inspections or both. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/19/nyregion/coronavirus-nj-andover-nursing-home-deaths.html?campaign_id=2&emc=edit_th_200420&instance_id=17772&nl=todaysheadlines&regi_id=267859&segment_id=25542&user_id=dad4e9655de8f76c4cb3f9003974adeb

Some advocates of ending protective action appear to believe seniors are expendable. They accept the possibility of increased deaths as the price of opening the economy.

Short of such indifference to seniors, the solution might turn out to be a segregated society. Young people will go back to work, confident that, even if they contract Covid-19, they will survive. If older people need protection, they might find themselves unable to return to a normal life style.

For seniors, opening the country may mean closing it for them. Unless medical science produces a vaccine or medication that protects them, they may shelter in place for the long haul.

Unless government shares this kind of indifference to the problems facing seniors, it needs to take action.

Protecting public health will have to mean standards about conditions, staffing and emergency equipment that are applied not only to care facilities now subject to regulation, but to any congregate facilities for seniors.

Seniors should have a reasonable expectation that residential communities are taking steps to protect them from threats to which their immune systems can no longer respond.

While they do not all serve as health care facilities, they all offer special living arrangements for seniors. Just as they must meet higher fire protection standards, they should be required to meet certain health protection standards.

That also means more and better inspection both of facilities now subject to regulation and others to be added. Stronger sanctions are needed. If a senior residence falls below standards, government should have the tools to force it into compliance.

For Maine, this is both a special responsibility and an opportunity. With the oldest average population, the state needs to sharpen its focus on the well-being of the elderly. The first step would be greater transparency about the Covid-19 impact on seniors. Hiding behind patient confidentiality is unconvincing.

Beyond doing a better job of focusing on seniors, Maine could build its special role as a welcoming home for retirees. Even now, it is an obvious magnet for seniors. By strengthening its policies, it could boost its retirement role as an element of its economic growth.

Trump ignores Constitution, federalism; fails tests of leadership

Gordon L. Weil

On December 8, 1941, President Franklin D. Roosevelt asked Congress for a declaration of war against Japan, which had carried out a surprise attack on Hawaii a day earlier.

He sought to inspire Americans to fight in the new world war. “The American people in their righteous might will win through to absolute victory,” he said.

He said nothing about America First, the national organization determined to keep the country out of the war. Instead of gloating about his wisdom in starting war preparations or sneering at his critics, he focused on national unity at a time of crisis.

On March 4, 1865, at the end of the Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln did not glory in victory, but called upon the country to show “malice toward none, charity for all.” He did not even mention the defeated Confederacy.

Both Lincoln and Roosevelt are considered to be among the greatest American leaders. They earned their greatness not because they claimed it for themselves, but because their actions led others to honor them for their courage and leadership.

When the entire country is under attack, presidential leadership comes sharply into focus. Pearl Harbor in 1941, 9/11 in 2001 and Covid-19 in 2020 have all been national threats, whose outcome has been uncertain. All have caused harm and fear.

Whatever Americans thought of their leaders' policies, in these crises each found words to reassure and encourage the entire country.

While Americans cannot expect that the president will always have the right answer to a crisis, the people benefit from a president who exhibits qualities of leadership that ignore partisan battles and stresses common values and hopes.

What are characteristics of leadership that are needed?

Above all, the people seek a call to unity. Lincoln understood that Americans were linked by common ideals and a shared history, which he believed should be stronger than any dividing force. It explains why African-Americans, Indians, and people of Japanese descent fought in World War II in the armed forces of a country that severely discriminated against them.

Leadership also requires presidents who tell the truth. Americans expect to rely on what they are told. Then, they will act as the situation requires, whether that means enlisting in the armed forces or wearing a face mask.

People also look for consistency in messages from the White House and government. If they are to commit to a course of personal and community action, they want to know that their leaders are also committed. An unsteady signal undermines a willing response.

In a crisis, people will work together. Cooperation and shared sacrifice may come naturally, but they respond to leaders who set the example by setting aside past grievances and partisanship.

Leadership requires courage. Leaders, like all people, make mistakes, and we expect them to acknowledge their errors. Even more important, leaders need to have the courage to do what the situation requires, no matter the cost to themselves or their political futures. This is the basis of greatness.

President Donald Trump fails these tests of leadership.

The main point of his presidency is a focus on himself and his hope that winning in 2020 will remove any doubt about the legitimacy of his 2016 election. Everything about government is subject to that interest, not about leadership.

He awards himself greatness, an attribute that can only come from others. He uses self-congratulation mainly to promote what he thinks is his standing with voters, always with an eye on his re-election. He glories in his title and his false sense of success.

Not all presidents are great leaders, even when the times call for leadership, but few are destructive. Unfortunately, Trump is among that few.

“When somebody is president of the United States, his authority is total,” he said. That view would destroy the legacy of the American Revolution, which toppled the total authority of Britain's king.

The essence of the American system of government is that no person or group of people in it has total authority. It may not be efficient, but it's what we want.

“The federal government has absolute power,” he proclaims. If so, how can shared sovereignty, the keystone of federalism itself, survive?

The states created the federal government and kept for themselves all the powers not given to that government. The federal government's power has increased, but it has no power to abolish federalism.

In the face of criticism from across the political spectrum, Trump acknowledged that governors would decide on when and how recovery would occur. But he did not withdraw his assertion of power, saying, “If they need to remain closed, we will allow them to do that.” He has no power to “allow” states to exercise their powers.

Only the people have total authority and absolute power in America.

Voters will soon decide either to legitimize Trump's theory, changing the Constitution, or to protect the Constitution by changing the president.

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.