First, a reminder that, to help you through isolation, two of my novels are available free of charge, in Kindle ebook format. Free thru this Sunday. Tell a friend.
Now, to the subject at hand.
It’s been a tough week, here. I’ve been fighting depression and towering rage in equal proportions. We’re all still healthy, here, so no worries on that front. No, what’s been troubling me is a trend that has been gathering steam in recent weeks.
As the pandemic crisis has grown in America, most states have issued “stay at home” orders. Here in Seattle, we were among the first to implement such measures, and they have proven effective in slowing the spread. We have cut the transmission rate in half, our hospitals have not been overwhelmed, people have not died because they couldn’t get proper treatment, and we’ve actually been able to send ventilators from Washington to some of the harder hit areas on the East Coast. That’s all good stuff, right there, but it has come at a cost.
Our local economy has taken a beating. Even with our state’s rather liberal definition of what constitutes an “essential business,” a lot of people have been laid off, furloughed, had hours drastically cut, or have found that their employers have simply closed up shop. Restaurants, always a razor-thin profit margin enterprise, have shuttered by the dozen. Family-owned businesses have closed doors that have stood open for decades. Artists and artisans have no place to display their wares, as Pike Place Market and other venues echo in emptiness. People are hurting, unable to pay bills, unable to pay for basic necessities.
It is this—the economic shutdown—that has given rise to a line of discourse that, to be frank, keeps me up at night and fills part of every day with hair-tearing, are-you-kidding-me incredulity. The argument I’ve been battling boils down to this:
The economy is more important than people.
I’ve heard it from the president, from senators, from right-wing pundits, and from folks I know online. “Open the economy.” “Time to get back to work.” All in total contradiction to what science and medicine are telling us is the safest way forward.
I am more than flabbergasted that this line of reasoning even exists. I am more than shocked that it should be promoted by such a large proportion of our society. I am more than offended, more than disgusted, more than outraged, more than appalled.
This rhetoric positively frightens me.
Make no mistake: this rhetoric puts a price tag on human lives. Those who espouse it are saying that it’s better to let people die than to lose money, and that’s some weapons-grade reasoning, right there.
It is unconscionable that this is even an acceptable stance. It is grotesque. And the fact that it primarily comes from the ideological bloc that also aligns itself with “pro-life” causes makes it doubly so.
Those who promote this view usually wrap it up in the guise of “more people will die from a failed economy than from C19,” but never do they support this assertion with any data. In fact, the data that do exist on the topic say the opposite. During the Great Depression, mortality rates dropped and longevity increased. It wasn’t a picnic, as any of our elders will attest, but society did not crumble. And why? Why didn’t society devolve into armed gangs and anarchy? Because we pulled together. We pulled together during the Great Depression, during WWII, and we are pulling together now. All of these stay-at-home orders? They are us, pulling together, to save our fellows, our neighbors, our selves.
Society does not exist to serve the economy. The economy exists to serve society. And it’s not like somehow, during this temporary shutdown, be it for two months or six or even more, the economy will disappear, crumbling into dust and ruin for lack of souls to feed upon.
It’s just an economy, stupid.
We built this economy, and we can build another if we have to. But we won’t have to, because after this hiatus our economy will be revivified. Hopefully, it will be different, requiring better care for all and better wages and conditions for those who we realize truly are essential workers, but it will be there, it is there, ready to get fired up, ready to go. Ready, for when we need it again.
But before that time, we must work to save lives, for without us, without our toil, there is no economy.
In the interim, go, read a book, watch a movie, make love, get a bit squiffy on whatever makes you squiffy. We will be OK, when we all emerge from our burrows and see once more the light of day. And I truly believe, we will be better for this, as long as we hold true to our ideals.
It’s people who make a society, and if we don’t band together against a common threat, what the hell is the point?
Stay safe.
k
Unraveling Time
Desert Wind
Ploughman's Son
Ploughman King
The Year the Cloud Fell
The Spirit of Thunder
Shadow of the Storm
The Cry of the Wind
Beneath a Wounded Sky
Cryptogenesis: A Memoir
I’m with you–people first. But we need that antibody test so that those of us who have been exposed and are through it can keep things moving for the rest of us. If we had a president who more believed in science, I might think we’d be funding a rapid, accurate test . . . .
LikeLiked by 1 person
Indeed. If we had a plan of any kind, rather than haphazard bloviation, we’d be far ahead of where we are. Recent estimates of when such tests might be available are not rosy, though, and without the full authority of the federal government being brought to bear, we’re left with this patchwork quilt of competing demands. It’d be sad, if it weren’t so tragic.
LikeLike
Thanks for this thoughtful essay. I want to add one more idea here: the economy and public health aren’t independent. Instead they are tightly entangled with one another. Even if the powers that be release us from our homes prematurely, the economy will only be spurred until the illness and death rates rise to the point that we aren’t able to work or buy. Politicians and businesses can’t will this pandemic away. We need to just keep ourselves away from sources of infection. That is the only way we can get through this with our economy and our health and loved ones as intact as possible.
LikeLike
Yes, that is the underlying logic that seems to escape those with reactionary views. Send everyone back to work today, and you ensure a shutdown tomorrow as people fall ill and die (and in greater numbers than they would under our current mitigation policies). Today’s economic slowdown is voluntary. We’ve agreed to take a financial hit today in order to save lives. Send people back to work prematurely, and you lose more lives, and you _still_ take the financial hit, possibly a larger one (though I haven’t seen models either way on that aspect). Thanks, Wendy.
LikeLike
It’s a shame that you frame the issue as if there are only two options, either public health OR the economy, There are many more options, and the easiest way to see them is to change your scale.
Go micro, and look at your neighborhood’s economy. Have your local businesses stepped up and opened online/delivery options? Help your local businesses stay open and you are providing both for public health AND the economy
Go macro and see how some big businesses are keeping their employees on the production line by producing off-LOB products (Ford and the face masks, etc)
Or go super-macro (global) and take a look at how some countries are helping others
The ‘economy’ exists, and will continue to exist as long as you have something that I want and I have something that you want. The rules of the game do not change.
Don’t fall victim to some idiot who can only speak in headlines. The economy will shift and adjust, as will we.
But things will change and there will be a lot of pain, all around, as people come to grips with the fact that sometimes there are no good solutions, and that certain ‘benefits’ that we want to keep, may simply dry up and blow away (Social Security, f’rinstance).
LikeLike
I framed it that way because that’s how many politicians/pundits here are framing it; they want to open the economy, now, completely, like an on/off switch. Flick. Back to business as usual. I’m also am trying to counter those who speak only headlines, and sway those who hear only headlines.
The truth of it, as you implied, is that the economy is not shut down, not completely. I go to work every day (from home) as does my next door neighbor. My friends across the street and my gaming crew, they go to work, every day (in offices and driving trucks). Some on the block, though, are not working–the hairdresser, the schoolteacher, the office worker in a non-essential business–and so the economy, while not shut, is reduced.
The options you mention are all good ideas, but they are already being done, right now, by communities, companies, and individuals across the continent. Business-folk are being extremely innovative during this time, and I laud them for their actions. Unfortunately, those methods cannot be applied to those large swathes of the economy that are currently shut down. And when it comes down to human lives vs some pundit’s ability to get a mani-pedi (which is literally one of the arguments voiced, on air, by a regular host on a nationally televised show), well, put me down on the side of human lives.
But beyond this reduction, beyond the question of immediacy, you’re correct: it is not a binary argument. We will be able to bring the economy back on-line, piece by piece, and locality by locality, provided we have the tools to do so, i.e., testing regimes and hospital capacity. This is outside the scope of the argument, but as soon as we have an antibody test, those who have had C19 will be able to return to work without fear. Businesses with a high percentage of workers who are immune will have herd-immunity within the workplace, and can possibly reopen. And when a vaccine is available to everyone (which may be as soon as within a year), then there’s no reason for any sector of the economy to shutter in response to C19.
What you did not address, however, is my main point: that it is unconscionable to prefer loss of human life over short-term monetary loss. That’s what these reactionary folks are doing: valuing business and money over human lives. (I should not be so surprised, as with every regulation they void, with every clean air and water law they repeal, they are choosing money over lives; this current push to open the economy is simply the heart of those actions laid bare.)
We helped the unemployed for a long time in 2008/2009. We spent bazillions bailing out huge financial businesses during that crisis. As a result, our economy built itself back up, and was in many ways stronger for the (few) lessons we learned. We can do the same here, but rather than AIG and Goldman Sachs on Wall Street, we’re helping the dry cleaners on the corner, and the bookstore in the mall, and the waitstaff at the family owned taqueria down the street. And it’s not forever. It’s for six, eight, maybe twelve months, during which we will also be reopening businesses, tapering off the need as we ramp up the economy.
After all, isn’t this what society is for? To help one another when things get bad?
LikeLike
Our state governor (N.D.) keeps pushing that; he and his team work with city mayors and surrounding states. They communicate. Question & answer sessions ongoing and data collection and analysis. Pleased with the process. People are pulling together to problem-solve.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Most governors have stepped up to fill the vacuum of leadership I was hoping our federal admin would provide. Some, sadly, seem to still value economic stability to public health (e.g., FL). I’m glad you’re seeing progress in your state.
LikeLike
Also, N.D. has been socking away money during the state’s oil boom, and we’ve got the state-owned Bank of North Dakota, both resources helpful during crises.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Smart. We’ve had a “rainy day” fund for years, here. We need it, now.
LikeLiked by 1 person