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

Present Reforms to Keep the Ghost of State Questions Past from Creating Future Headaches

Oklahoma, like many western states, allows its citizens to directly participate in the democratic process through citizen initiatives and referendums. In a referendum, the legislature directs a question to the people — usually to modify the state constitution, since the legislature can change statutes itself. An initiative requires no legislative involvement, but is initiated by the people via signature gathering, and can be used to modify statute or amend the constitution. Collectively, the initiatives and referendums that make it onto the ballot are known as State Questions.   Recently, there have been calls to make it more difficult to amend the constitution. At least two proposals are being discussed. One would diversify the signature requirement by demanding that a proportional amount of signatures come from each region of the state. The other would require a sixty percent majority to adopt a constitutional amendment rather than the fifty percent plus one currently in place. ...
Read more

What if Legislators Were Licensed? Well, Just to Make a Point...

1889 Institute, as a general matter, objects to occupational licensing. We have written about it more than any other subject. The scant benefits simply do not outweigh the enormous costs to consumers and entrepreneurs, and  the  burdens that disproportionately impact the poor.   It must be noted that the remainder of this post is a work of satire. This should be obvious to anyone who has read even one of our papers, but each of the proposals below has an analogous provision in Oklahoma licensing laws. To those supportive of government-created cartels, these proposals might sound almost reasonable.  A material threat to the public safety and welfare has for too long gone entirely unregulated, unrestrained and unchecked. This menace has the power to corrode not only mere industries, but to corrupt the entire state economy. It’s no overstatement to say that the practitioners of this perilous profession hold the power to destroy democracy as we know it. After a...
Read more

Muddy, Shallow Thinking Versus Clarity in Education Reform

Monopolies are the best! If we are to gain maximum efficiency and create the greatest value for people, monopoly is the way to go. Competition creates administrative inefficiency since instead of one set of managers, there are as many as there are companies, and all of them cost money. Competitive companies make products that do the same basic things, but waste resources by making products with different features. Standardized products would save money. Were research and development under one roof, instead of many competitive ones, researchers could coordinate more closely, saving money and ultimately being even more innovative. Monopolies would therefore benefit everyone. Everything in the first paragraph is, of course, balderdash . Monopolies, especially those created by government, stifle innovation, develop bloated management, produce too little at low quality, and charge too much. Why? Because they can. They’re monopolists. Without competition and with nearly guaranteed ...
Read more

If Data Is Supposed to Be Our Guide, the Great Coronavirus Shutdown of 2020 Should End

According to the most widely cited model projecting the course of the coronavirus outbreak, today is supposed to be Oklahoma’s peak in daily deaths. Now is a good time to go back to the beginning of the Great Coronavirus Shutdown of 2020, review the goal of our policy, and assess our current status. If our policy should be “data-driven,” as we are constantly told, then let’s actually look at the data and determine our next policy steps accordingly. Spoiler alert: according to the terms set out by those advocating for the shutdown policy, the policy’s continuance is no longer justified. The stated goal of the shutdown policy was to “flatten the curve” so as to prevent hospitals from becoming overwhelmed with COVID patients. The fear was that the virus would spread so fast that at its peak, the number of cases would exceed the overall capacity of the healthcare system. If that peak could be stretched out over a longer period of time, lives would be saved. This concept was il...
Read more