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

Lies We Tell in Government, and Our Debts to Truth

HBO’s mini-series,  Chernobyl ,  is a drama depicting  the disastrous  1986  explosion ,  and  hero ic efforts to control the  resulting  meltdown ,  of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in Ukraine  (then part of the Soviet Union ).  A flawed man, but true hero,  Valery  Alexeyvich   Legasov , worked tirelessly to ameliorate the disaster’s consequences and  chiefly  investigated its cause. He was  Deputy Director of the  Kurchatov  Institute of Atomic Energ y , a Soviet elite, who  is portrayed at the end of  the  series making a dramatic speech at a trial about how the nuclear reactor exploded, when  such an explosion in that type of reactor  should not have been possible. In the course of the series, the audience  learns  that the reactor had a design flaw that had been covered up by the Soviet State (true).  The audience also learns  that...
Read more

When It Comes to the Cox Center, “What if I Get to Meet a Movie Star?” Isn’t Good Enough

In a recent   post , 1889 Institute expounded on the fiduciary duty of elected officials “to act in the best interest of the people of the state as a whole,” a “high duty, executed as a public trust … wherein one puts the people’s interest above one’s own.” This fiduciary duty must not stop with elected officials. Once an elected body or an elected official – the legislature, a city council, the governor, or a mayor – has taken final action, the faithful implementation of each enacted law, policy, or program falls to an army of bureaucrats. Thus, a fiduciary duty to execute laws and policies with diligence and integrity, tantamount to that of elected officials, must extend to government employees. Recently, I had a few moments to sit down and watch a show with my children. Unsurprisingly, my son picked a series entitled “The Stinky and Dirty Show.” I was naturally skeptical that the show would yield any real value. However, as I watched, I found myself pleasantly surprised. Each ep...
Read more

AG Hunter Lowers Boom on Barrier to Entry; Legislature Should Follow His Lead

Even as the Oklahoma Supreme Court  struck down  a recent alcohol distribution law, the Attorney General paved the way for the state’s Alcoholic Beverage Law Enforcement Commission (ABLE) to remove an obstacle from the expansion of liquor store competition - finding that Oklahoma’s five-year in-state residency requirement before one can own a liquor store likely runs afoul of the U.S. Constitution and recent U.S. Supreme Court precedent.  The AG’s  opinion , issued at the end of December, informs the state’s alcohol commission that portions of the state constitution (Article 28A, Section 4(A) & (B)) are unenforceable. These provisions require that ABLE issue a Retail Spirits License or Wine and Spirits Wholesaler License only to someone who has been a resident of Oklahoma for the previous five years. Presumably ABLE, who requested the opinion, will now begin issuing licenses to otherwise qualified applicants regardless of how long they have lived in Okl...
Read more

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...
Read more