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

How Oklahoma Can Be Number One in Covid Policy

South Dakota, that sound you hear behind you is footsteps. Oklahoma can be Number One in the policy response to Covid-19. We’ve done fairly well to this point compared to other states, but to take us to the top, our leaders will need good, accurate information, must ignore hyperbole (often outright falsehoods) from the media-politico controversy machine, and should trust individual Oklahomans to do what is best for themselves and their families. Oh, and it would help to have some courage in the face of criticism (or ear plugs to tune out the whining). Fortunately, 1889 Institute has compiled a very helpful webpage containing the cold, hard facts about SARS-CoV-2. Based on these facts, not hysteria and virtue signaling, we recommend some straightforward policy responses. The page is here for anyone who wants to arm themselves with knowledge, rather than bask in the newly virtuous habit of broadcasting how afraid and ignorant one is. For example, did you know that the evidence for wid...
Read more

Corporate Welfare is not OK

Largely buried under the constant barrage of COVID-19 news and the baffling decision by the Supreme Court to declare half of Oklahoma "Indian Country," was Oklahoma’s and Tulsa’s attempt to bribe Tesla to locate a new facility in that city. Tesla chose Austin, Texas instead, a decision Tesla likely made months ago, but for the opportunity Oklahoma's bid provided for milking as much as possible in concessions (bribery) from Austin. Thus, it may well be a blessing in disguise that Tesla chose Austin over Tulsa. After all, Oklahomans aren't on the hook to pay off a big corporation that is perfectly capable of financially taking care of itself. What's more, consider what might have happened if the deal had been made and ground had been broken before the McGirt decision. Tesla likely would have had to pull out of the deal, and might well have sued the state for bad faith negotiating, which have reflected poorly on Tulsa and Oklahoma.   One study estimates corporations...
Read more

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

Undo 802

Why is it that when conservatives suffer a major loss, they give up, accept the new status quo, and fall back to the next retreat position? When progressives suffer a major loss, they regroup and try again. And again. Until they finally wheedle the American public into giving in. I propose a change in strategy. The Oklahoma Legislature should make undoing State Question 802 its top legislative priority for 2021. This will not be an easy task (legislators seem to prefer avoiding difficult tasks) but it is a critical one. The normal legislative process, with all its pitfalls and traps for the unwary, will only bring the topic to another vote of the people. So why spend so much political capital and effort if the same result is possible? Three reasons.   First is the disastrous consequences of the policy. Forget that it enriches already-rich hospital and pharmaceutical executives. Forget that it gives the state incentives to prioritize the nearly-poor covered by expansion over the...
Read more