Skip to main content

More on Why Oklahoma Should Have Already Fully Opened


Governor Stitt has declared that some businesses can open on Friday. By May 1, all enterprises in the state will be able to operate more or less normally. Eventually, at some unspecified date, Oklahoma will be fully operating again. But the question remains, and must be asked, “Was the shutdown and extreme social distancing even necessary?”

For several reasons, the answer is a clear and unequivocal “No.”

Let’s start with this little gem from a blog by an Oklahoma State University academic. “Harvard University epidemiologists determined that continuing extreme social distancing measures into the summer months could actually result in more COVID-19 deaths than a ‘do nothing from the beginning’ alternative.”

Now, it might sound like this only confirms the decision to open up now and not extend the shutdown into the summer. But in fact, the Harvard study has a lot more to say about how this epidemic has been handled than might immediately be obvious. The Harvard study recommends social distancing only be implemented when healthcare-related resources might be overwhelmed, in favor of developing “herd immunity” (a high level of general population immunity) as quickly as possible.

The recommendation by the Harvard epidemiologists, based on COVID-19 case history, is that government-mandated social distancing (shutting businesses) only be implemented when the number of currently confirmed COVID-19 cases are 39.33 TIMES greater than the number of ICU beds. That is:

IF 39.33 x (# ICU beds) < (# active COVID cases), then shutdown is justified.

The Harvard epidemiologists make a recommendation for opening back up only when the number of COVID cases is much reduced, but let’s focus on the shutdown threshold. Have we ever reached it?

Not even close. The IMHE COVID-19 model makers credit Oklahoma with 500 available ICU beds. An April 20 Oklahoma State Department of Health report credits Oklahoma with 1,024 total ICU beds, with 365 available. Obviously, ICU beds will be occupied by critical cases other than COVID-19, so let’s just credit Oklahoma with either 365 or 500 available ICU beds and apply the Harvard formula:

39.33 x 365 = 14,355

39.33 x 500 = 19,655.

These figures say that Oklahoma should only implement mandated social-distancing measures if the number of active COVID-19 cases exceeds (erring conservatively) either 14,000 or 19,000 cases.

The total number of COVID-19 cases Oklahoma has suffered so far is 2,894, FAR below either of the above case threshold conditions for shutting down. But actually, 1,772 have recovered, so the real comparison to be made is to the number of known active cases, which stands at 1,122. The obvious conclusion is that the shutdown in Oklahoma never should have happened, at least up to now. And, it shouldn’t happen again until the number of active, known cases gets far higher than it’s ever been to this point.

The very same point as the OSU blog is made in a recent The Hill editorial by a Stanford University M.D. that there is now more than enough data about actual cases to end the shutdowns across the country right now, not tomorrow, and certainly not a week from now. Fact is, bad decisions have been made in Oklahoma and across the country based on highly speculative information that has largely proven baseless. 

We decried the closing of schools a month ago, based on data-aware judgments from experts. We recently pointed out that expert epidemiologists are concerned our actions are more harmful than helpful. We explicitly called for an immediate end to the shutdown. The evidence keeps stacking up that the shutdown was never necessary or desirable in the first place. So why are our leaders still acting so cautiously and talking about a staged opening?

Open up, fully, NOW!

Byron Schlomach is 1889 Institute Director and can be contacted at bschlomach@1889institute.org.

Ben Lepak, Mike Davis, and Spencer Cadavero concur.  

The opinions expressed in this blog are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect the official position of 1889 Institute.

Popular posts from this blog

COVID-19 Proves Our Schools Are Social Service Centers First, Education Institutions Second

There is no way the 180-day (or 1,080 hours) school year can be completed by the end of previously established school calendars for this year given the fact that spring break has now already been effectively extended an additional two weeks. One option would have been to extend the school year into the summer. Given the level of family togetherness being experienced now, and the fact that incomes are being lost and many would be interested in making up the losses, it’s not unreasonable to expect vacation plans to be radically remade or canceled anyway. Instead, Oklahoma’s State Board of Education precipitously closed the schools and did not call for an extension of end-of-school dates. Thus, the summer option has been foreclosed. The State Board is within its rights. Oklahoma statutes (70 O.S. § 1-109 E) state, “A school district may maintain school for less than a full school year only when conditions beyond the control of school authorities make the maintenance of the term imp...
Read more

1889 Institute's Statement Regarding School Closures

The 1889 Institute, an Oklahoma think tank, has released the following statement regarding Joy Hofmeister’s proposal to keep schools closed for the remainder of the school year. We at the 1889 Institute consider Joy Hofmeister’s proposal to close Oklahoma’s schools for the rest of the school year a gross overreaction to the coronavirus situation. Even in the best of times and circumstances, suddenly shifting every student in the state from traditional classrooms to online distance learning will have negative educational consequences. This in addition to the economic burden on two-earner families forced to completely reorder their lives with schools closed. We believe many of our leaders have overreacted to worst-case scenarios presented by well-intended health experts with no training or sense of proportion in weighing the collateral damage of shutting down our economy versus targeting resources to protect the truly vulnerable. We say reopen the schools and stop the madness. ...
Read more

If Licensing Protects Consumers, Why Are Licensing Laws Blatantly Anti-Consumer?

Once upon a time, there was a small island whose economy revolved around scuba-diving tourism. Unfortunately, the island elected legislators who considered scuba dangerous. Inexperienced divers would surface too quickly and get the bends. The legislature, wanting to make diving feel safer, passed a law that banned sharks in designated scuba diving zones. There were no known cases of sharks attacking divers, nor were divers being frightened into surfacing too quickly by sharks. This is what most occupational licensing schemes look like. Legislators act, giving the public a sense of security, and giving powerful industries protection from competition. The laws do almost nothing to help consumers. Not only are they futile, they are also deceptive.   Some licensing regimes, like the Oklahoma Real Estate Broker ’ s Act, take the deceit one step farther. Instead of just telling the sharks not to eat people (which they weren’t doing anyway) the act does the equivalent of gathering a group...
Read more

Follow the Science: Eliminate Social Distancing and Focus Resources to Protect the Vulnerable

As the country entered into an election year, COVID-19 reared its head and became an unusual campaign issue. Exposed to extreme politization, facts were buried in an abundance of misinformation perpetuated by the invocation of “science.” With the overly polarized rhetoric of stump speeches mercifully behind us, it is time to return to the rigor and integrity in research that public policy deserves. Now that the polls have closed, let’s move on, dig into the facts, and, indeed, follow the science.   Upon the outbreak of the novel coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2 and the COVID-19 illness, little was known about it. Symptomatically, it was even difficult to tell whether or not one had the disease given that the list of symptoms seemed to expand continually. Despite what little information existed, there was no lack of self-proclaimed experts claiming the knowledge necessary to contain the disease. With the state's presumptive authority and dubious expertise, numerous state and local governmen...
Read more