We could have had less lockdowns, but we could not have had more

The asymmetry of the United States

I often encounter people who wish to talk through what would have happened if only.  If only, we had taken the coronavirus more seriously. If only, we have never closed school. If only, people wore their mask. If only, we admitted early that cloth masking doesn’t work. If only, we never locked down. If only, we locked down harder and longer.

I don’t mind these thought experiments. Imagining the first and second order effects; how things might have been different.   But the more I consider such scenarios, I come back to a fundamental asymmetry.  You might have been able to do more in one direction, but not the other.

You go to war with the country you have, not the one you wish, and the same is true for pandemics. America is hyper-polarized, has horrific wealth inequality, and a growing cultural divide.  Religion is in decline and politics is the new God for so many.  It is a land of fierce independence, where personal autonomy and free speech have long been valued.

In what follows, I will not primarily argue about what polices would have been best (that’s a longer essay), but simply want to think about the pre-requisite:  What was even possible?  What could the United States have done starting in the second week of March 2020 when we decided 15 days would flatten the curve. In one direction—less onerous restrictions—I see considerable freedom. In the other direction—more and harder restrictions—I see a brick wall.   I want to discuss the asymmetry of what was possible.

Let’s imagine the direction of less draconian measures. We could have skipped the initial lockdown. We could have kept schools open.  We could have deployed the army to build makeshift hospitals to handle excess hospital load in hot spots.  Very likely the fear of the coronavirus was enough to dramatically change behavior for 15 days (as cellular mobility data would later show).  Business closures, stay at home orders, etc. could have been avoided, and the initial behavioral change might have been very similar. 

I think we could have launched randomized trials of community masking. Cluster trials with cloth, and surgical masks.  I think we could have tested variations in school policy. Randomizing schools to opening windows, or getting HEPA filters, and/or plexiglass barriers (which looks so stupid now).  We could have tried to apply resources rather than restrictions.  Free hotels for those who were ill or wished to quarantine away from extended family.  Expansions in health insurance, and subsidizing those who would lose their jobs. 

Many want us to imagine the other direction. What if we had more allegiance from local governors and locked down harder, and for longer?.  Using the brute force of the state to ensure the rules. What if we pushed harder on masking?  What if we de-platformed more speakers who subverted our plans? What if we censored or extinguished news outlets on the political right? 

A few months into the pandemic, I saw someone argue if we all wore n95’s for 21 days the virus would be gone forever. This was a particularly naïve thought.

I think we should recognize that this direction was simply not possible in the United States, particularly in the areas that moved fast to re-open the economy. Many of these regions are fiercely individualistic, and had exhausted the initial supply of fear, and were willing to resume life with some risk.  Placing excess pressure on such places might have led to unpredictable chaos.  Acts of violence or resistance may have broken out.   These acts might have negated any health gains, exceeding them by an order of magnitude.

Locking-down harder for longer I think was simply not a viable path to explore, as less locking down and more restrictions. The former would lead to highly volatile and unpredictable situations, while I do not see the latter as prone to the same challenges. Some say if we had different governors, but to so some degree, governors who rushed to reopen were embodying the preferences of those who elected them. Also, these governors provided a release value on the emotional pressure of their populace.  Changing them might have paradoxically resulted in more conflict and confrontation. 

Perhaps, a lighter touch on restrictions might have even quelled anxiety. Had schools never closed, many would never have come to think of them as risky.  Some parents now are pulling their kids out of school due to irrational fear—that could have been avoided.  Had we applied resources over restrictions, some in the public may even have come to love Public Health, viewing them as a service industry, rather than (I worry) come to loath Public Health, viewing it as an unaccountable arm of the police state. 

When we imagine the paths we did not take, we have to remember the country we live in.  You don’t see that country if you spend all your time in elite urban left of center cities.  You only see that country when you travel widely.  That country would not have been able to tolerate Melbourne style restrictions—end of story.  It simply was not an option here. I just don’t see that as even possible.

As someone who grew up in rural Indiana, went to college in Michigan, who still has friends in both places, and then moved to a series of highly urban cities, and made new friends, I feel like I see virtues and limits in all of America.  But when we replay what happened we must think about the country we have, and not some Utopia that does not exist.  To be honest, I am not sure I want to live in either Utopia.