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

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

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

I Abstain: Why I Refuse to Vote in Judicial Retention Elections

Over a million Oklahomans voted in the recent November 3rd election. For most, the presidential race between Joe Biden and Donald Trump is what drove them to the polls. However, some were likely confused when they reached the bottom portion of their ballot marked “Judicial Retention Elections.” What are judicial retention elections? Every two years, certain judges are placed on the ballot for a simple yes/no retention vote. These elections stem from Oklahoma’s   judicial selection method , and ask voters whether they want to keep, or retain, certain judges. Elections are staggered so judges only face retention every six years. Many claim that the merit selection method is a more sophisticated, apolitical judicial selection method than the federal model or the partisan election model, but in reality it is   much worse   than either of the two. In essence, the retention vote was a patronizing attempt to make “merit” selection more palatable to   voters back in the...
Read more

COVID Inspires Tyranny for the "Good" of Its Victims

The Christian philosopher, C.S. Lewis, once said, "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies." The moral busybodies C.S Lewis warns of reminds me of those who would have Americans give up their liberty to combat COVID-19.   A recent Oklahoman op-ed compared COVID-19 to World War II, stating that the number of deaths from COVID-19 is approaching the number that died fighting for this country and the freedoms it protects. This comparison is, of course, nonsense. This suggests that a virus with a high survivability rate is an equivalent threat to the Nazi and Japanese regimes that brutally murdered millions. The piece uses wartime rationing of meat and cheese, a sacrifice necessary to ensure men on the front lines had adequate nutrition, to justify Americans accepting counterproductive lockdowns in exchange for additional stimulus c...
Read more