Skip to main content

The Truth About COVID-19: Better Than You Think


As the media turns its attention back to COVID-19, there is a renewed push to shut down the economy. Some states have even begun to scale back reopening plans for their economies; others continue to delay opening. It is essential to look past their catastrophizing and focus on the facts of COVID-19.

One fact to consider: while testing has risen 23%, the rate of positive results has only risen 1.3 percentage points to 6.2%. Even as alarmists point to the rise in cases, they still admit that the boost in testing has played a role in the rise in the total number of known cases. Therefore, the total number of positive cases is not of much use in this case, as it only paints a partial picture. The rate of increase in total positive cases is a more meaningful measure, and it has barely increased. Even more important is who is getting infected. The data show that recent cases are primarily younger people. But that’s a good thing; these are precisely the people that are key to building herd immunity, which is the only long-term solution for fighting COVID-19 and is inevitable anyway.

While the news readers reporting “surges” of people testing positive for coronavirus renew calls for lockdowns, they neglect to tell the whole truth, which is that the numbers surrounding COVID-19 inspire optimism. According to the COVID Tracking Project, the average weekly deaths from COVID-19 has been in steady decline nationally since April. Oklahoma has followed this trend. The primary justification for lockdowns has been to prevent deaths from COVID-19, but if deaths are falling, then that rationale largely evaporates.

There is also reason to believe that total death numbers are overstated. States have been caught claiming COVID-19 for deaths that were blatantly not COVID-19 related. In May, the Washington State Department of Health confirmed a report that revealed they were recording non-COVID deaths, such as those due to gunshots, as COVID-19 deaths. Part of the reason for this was negligence on the part of the Washington State Department of Health, but part of it is how hospitals over report COVID-19 on death certificates. This over-reporting is to be expected when hospitals are given a 20% premium for COVID-19 Medicare patients from the CARES Act. This extra money incentivizes hospitals to record COVID-19 among the causes of death even when it was unlikely it contributed at all. In their June 24th update of COVID-19 data, the CDC made the following statement on comorbidities, “For 7% of the deaths, COVID-19 was the only cause mentioned. For deaths with conditions or causes in addition to COVID-19, on average, there were 2.5 additional conditions or causes per death.” 

Despite these encouraging numbers, Tulsa mayor GT Bynum is considering issuing an executive order mandating mask wearing and restricting indoor gatherings. Other cities and states have already implemented a mandatory policy of wearing masks in public. Presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden has also gone on the record, stating he would use executive powers to mandate wearing masks in public. Some states have even begun to roll back their plans for reopening the economy, forcing bars to close once again. This is a step in the wrong direction. New York Governor Cuomo recently threatened to shut down New York City again. The City has pushed back, issuing this statement, “These businesses are allowed to be open per the Governor’s guidelines and we don’t believe imprisoning people or taking away their livelihood is the answer.” Cuomo is also delaying the fourth phase of New York’s reopening, keeping malls and movie theaters closed. It is already clear that the lockdowns were not as effective as claimed. States that did not issue lockdown orders suffered less job loss and fewer deaths per million than those that did.  

The American people must not let themselves be alarmed into a second economic shutdown. Even as the media pundits and political class push for more restrictions and shutdowns, the numbers do not support such measures. We have made substantial strides in recovering from the recent debacle of shutdowns; don't let that progress be erased because of the fear of a few "very smart" people.


Spencer Cadavero is a Research Associate at 1889 institute and can be reached at scadavero@1889institute.org.

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

Is Education No Longer the Primary Mission of Our Public Schools?

Did you know that the state of Oklahoma is currently experiencing not one, but two pandemics? Until yesterday, neither did I. According to the Oklahoma City School District, the state is currently experiencing the “dual pandemics of COVID-19 and Systemic Racism,” and has decided to spend valuable time and resources to ensure that their teachers learn how to “practice alternative ways of relating to…[their]students.” In the meantime, teachers are supposed to conduct their classes online   into November. Unfortunately, if the District doesn’t adequately prepare their teachers to use the available online learning platforms, it won’t matter how woke they are, they won’t be interacting with their students at all.   At this point, we really have no idea what the school year will look like, and school districts have given little basis for optimism that students will actually learn anything. Oklahoma City public schools closed in March and “went online.” However, due to lack of suffi...

Protecting Your Rights: Interpreting Law by Its Plain Meaning

When deciding whether people have broken laws, should judges consider the intent of the legislators who wrote the law? Or simply consider the plain language of the law as written? Legal scholars have debated this question for decades. However, there is only one answer that protects We The People. The Declaration of Independence states, “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” This means, among other things, that only laws actually voted on by the people (or their validly elected representatives) can be legitimately enforced. Any purpose not written into the law was not voted on, and so should not be imposed. What does this have to do with interpreting laws? In the republican form of government, the citizens speak through their elected representatives. These representatives pass laws collectively, almost always through two legislative bodies (House and Senate) and an executive (President or...

What’s So Bad About Occupational Licensing?

Why does accepting payment for a service make an otherwise-benign activity suddenly illegal? Accepting money is what distinguishes cutting a friend’s hair for free from a criminal mastermind who takes money for illegally performing cosmetology or barbering without a license. Have you ever paid for a bad haircut? Did the cosmetology license prevent it?  Have you ever had a bad meal in a restaurant (which is, by law, highly regulated)? Have you ever had an outstanding home cooked meal prepared by someone without a license? So how much do licensing and regulation do to ensure high standards?  Occupational licensing is something of a pet peeve for us here at the 1889 Institute. We devote a whole section of our website to it. Why do we care so much?  The Institute for Justice estimates that occupational licensing costs consumes an average of $203 billion per year nationally.  Licensing undeniably hurts the economy through deadweight loss - when the labor market...

The Problem of Diffuse Costs and Concentrated Benefits

Do you ever find yourself observing a seemingly illogical government program , spending decision, or other strange practice and ask “how is it that no one has fixed that?” If you are like me, you encounter this phenomenon regularly. This often takes the form of a curious headline (Save Federal Funding for the Cowboy Poets!) that most people see and can’t believe is real. I would like to suggest that this phenomenon often results from the problem of diffuse costs and concentrated benefits. To understand this concept, consider a hypothetical law that assessed a $1 tax on everyone in the United States with the proceeds to be given to one individual for unrestricted use as he sees fit. The people harmed by such a law—the individual taxpayers—will not be very motivated to spend the time and effort to convince Congress to change the law. They might resent the dollar taken from them for a silly cause they don’t support, but the lost dollar isn’t worth the trouble of doing something about i...