Skip to main content

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 widespread masking limiting disease-spread is, at best, mixed? The World Health Organization notes (see page 14 of this report) that there is no scientifically-verified evidence that masks slow the spread of influenza virus, which is some 50 times larger than the coronavirus that causes Covid, meaning masks are likely even less effective at trapping or blocking SARS-CoV-2 than they are influenza. WHO only recommends masks due to “mechanistic plausibility” (this jargon essentially means it seems plausible that masks would block spread of droplets, even if there is no evidence, so mask use is only recommended on a faint hope it might make a difference).


Likewise, a May 2020 CDC publication notes: “Although mechanistic studies support the potential effect of hand hygiene or face masks, evidence from 14 randomized controlled trials of these measures did not support a substantial effect on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza.” 


Our page contains other salient facts, which in a rational world would inform policymaking. Children are at vanishingly small risk from the virus, not just for death but for becoming infected, spreading the virus to others, and in the severity of symptoms if they contract it. You would think this would inform our school re-opening policy, particularly given the host of negative, documented maladies we know children suffer when the schools are closed and they are kept from social interaction with peers. Not to mention the imposition visited on working parents and their employers by school closures.


On the other hand, individuals with comorbidities (much more naturally prevalent in elderly folks) are at comparatively great risk (it should be noted, though, that approximately 90 percent of even the most at-risk demographic, those older than 90, still survive Covid, and around three-quarters of those 90-plus have mild or no symptoms). This relatively greater risk should also inform policymaking when it comes to how the government prioritizes resources and educates the public about risk. A sensible policy would seek to protect those in nursing homes (which are particularly vulnerable, accounting for more than half of Covid fatalities in 30 or so states) through frequent testing and worker screening as well as N95 mask wearing. Our state government went to extraordinary lengths to acquire testing supplies and PPE; it should deploy those resources where they can actually make a difference.


These examples just scratch the surface. Our leaders will have to cut through much clutter to land on verified science when making policy. 1889’s page is our effort at making such data-informed policymaking easier.


But it’s not just elected leaders. The public has a responsibility to inform itself, too. How else will you judge whether your leaders are pursuing policies that will actually make a difference or whether they are simply engaging in hygiene theatre?


You likely would not know the things highlighted on 1889’s page if you rely on media personalities whose livelihood is more profitable if you are kept afraid. And it’s not like these talking heads are founts of scientific knowledge. A friend recently remarked to me that there is a reason the people we see on TV got journalism and communications degrees instead of STEM degrees, and it usually doesn’t have to do with their being bored by the ease with which they cruised through their survey Stats class. As a business major and lawyer, I was only mildly offended at the implication of his comment.


Degree-snobbery aside, I haven’t subjected myself to more than an airport lounge layover’s worth of cable news in several years, but I see enough clips passed around to have a pretty good idea of the ill-health such a news diet produces. Do you really trust Brian Stelter or Don Lemon to fully grasp any technical situation more scientifically rigorous than a modestly challenging Lego set? Then why do you get your pandemic information from their ilk?


Stop imbibing the apocalyptic mania. Empower yourself to rationally evaluate the situation. If you do, I suspect you will reach the same or similar policy conclusions as we recommend. To wit:


  • Do not lock down again, under any circumstances.
  • Keep schools open.
  • If need-be, furlough vulnerable public education employees, perhaps with partial pay, for a month after school restarts.
  • Publicize what makes one vulnerable (comorbidities/age) and encourage them to shelter.
  • Frequently test those in nursing homes and screen workers interacting with vulnerable populations. 
  • Encourage N95 mask-wearing for vulnerable populations and caregivers.
  • Encourage social distancing but reduce the distance consistent with WHO guidelines (3 feet, not the 6 feet that has incomprehensibly become the standard).
  • Encourage frequent hand washing.
  • Publicize facts about risks and let individuals decide for themselves whether to wear a mask. Let businesses set their own policies on whether to require patrons to wear masks.
  • Mask mandates should be avoided except, perhaps, where social distancing is not possible, such as on public transportation.
  • Encourage anyone showing any symptoms at all, including lost sense of smell, unexplained fatigue, or anything like a cold to simply stay home until they can receive a doctor’s advice that they are no longer contagious (it makes little sense to impose blanket 14-day quarantines for the infected, since some are contagious for a shorter period, and some longer). If being out is necessary (such as to see a doctor), wear a mask and stay away from large groups in small areas. Older people should be especially avoided.
  • Encourage caregivers for the vulnerable to shelter as much as possible and take special precautions. Only N95 masks are likely to provide protection.


These uncomplicated policies would make Oklahoma not just Top Ten, but Number One in Covid policy.


Benjamin Lepak is Legal Fellow at the 1889 Institute. He can be reached at blepak@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

Even If Pandemic Models Were Right, Were Covid Lockdowns Wrong?

1889 has been quite critical of pandemic modeling that government officials have relied on for their Covid-19 response. We have also criticized shutdown orders in light of flaws in the models. But let’s assume for a moment that the worst predictions really would have come true if nothing was done. Even in those worst case scenarios, it’s fair to ask if our governments did the right thing. Were involuntary shutdowns justified, or would people have found a way to both limit the contagion and maintain some level of productivity? Was putting healthy citizens under house arrest acceptable even if they were willing to risk infection?   While large groups of people are often compared to herd animals, we are not sheep. We don’t behave like animals. We can, have, and will step up when our communities are in danger. When government and journalists give incomplete or false information, people will act irrationally. Depending on the situation, some will blindly follow the first aut...
Read more

A Reminder of the Ineffectiveness of Covid-19 Lockdowns

Since the beginning of this pandemic, the 1889 Institute has argued against lockdowns even as “experts” advocated for them. Now, months after the weeks-long lockdowns were supposed to end, there are still states in various levels of lockdown. State and local governments have devastated their economies with shutdowns in the name of public health. Yet some politicians, including presidential candidate Joe Biden, have stated a willingness to lockdown the economy again on a national scale to eliminate COVID-19, in a "virus first, economy later" approach. Even as some lawmakers in Oklahoma urge governor Stitt to take more extreme action, it is essential to remember that lockdowns are not very effective. A group of epidemiologists have released a declaration denoting the harmful effects of lockdowns. These include; lower childhood vaccination rates, worsening cardiovascular disease outcomes, fewer cancer screenings, and deteriorating mental health. These consequences are more ...
Read more

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 ...
Read more

Top-Ten in Low Taxes, But Oklahoma Still Has Much Room for Improvement

In a comparison of states’ total taxes as well as spending in certain broad categories that the 1889 Institute has just published ( Oklahoma Government Revenues and Spending in Perspective – Update ), some interesting facts arise. Using federal data, we compared states by looking at the percentage of personal income collected in state and local government revenues. We also looked at the percentage of personal income spent in six broad spending categories: higher education, public education, public welfare, hospitals, highways, and corrections. The data shows that in 2017 Oklahoma’s state and local governments: Extract 13.2 percent of Oklahomans’ personal income in taxes and fees, moving Oklahoma into the Top Ten lowest-taxing states, ahead of Texas.   Spend 12.38 percent of personal income on the six featured spending areas (which include federal dollars), only a little below the national average of 12.7 percent. While 9th overall (least spent being first), Oklahoma is n...
Read more