Skip to main content

Follow the Science: Eliminate Social Distancing and Focus Resources to Protect the Vulnerable

As the country entered into an election year, COVID-19 reared its head and became an unusual campaign issue. Exposed to extreme politization, facts were buried in an abundance of misinformation perpetuated by the invocation of “science.” With the overly polarized rhetoric of stump speeches mercifully behind us, it is time to return to the rigor and integrity in research that public policy deserves. Now that the polls have closed, let’s move on, dig into the facts, and, indeed, follow the science. 

Upon the outbreak of the novel coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2 and the COVID-19 illness, little was known about it. Symptomatically, it was even difficult to tell whether or not one had the disease given that the list of symptoms seemed to expand continually. Despite what little information existed, there was no lack of self-proclaimed experts claiming the knowledge necessary to contain the disease. With the state's presumptive authority and dubious expertise, numerous state and local governments began imposing extreme measures to “flatten the curve” and maybe even eradicate COVID-19. Meanwhile, bona fide experts started preparing for the worst while also recognizing that our understanding of the disease was limited. As knowledge about the virus grows, we should take advantage of legitimate expertise to inform responsive public policies.

For example, consider the mandatory policies related to social distancing. Quarantines and lockdowns, limited gatherings in private homes and churches, universal mask mandates, and business closures are just some of the ways governments have attempted to contain COVID-19 through public policy. However, such policies are not necessarily following the science. In fact, tens of thousands of public health scientists and medical practitioners recently signed a declaration recognizing the significant, negative impact these policies have had on people’s health, safety, and welfare. The Great Barrington Declaration is authored by experts in epidemiology, immunology, and public health from places you may have heard of, like Harvard, Oxford, and Stanford. While condemning current lockdown policies, these epidemiologists advocate for a targeted approach to address the virus, a practice they call “Focused Protection.” This approach allows low-risk individuals to live their lives as usual, developing herd immunity while simultaneously protecting society's most vulnerable. 

While such a focused approach may seem to be common sense, it has yet to be commonly implemented by state and local governments across the country. Instead, governments have pursued public policies that impose universal restrictions without due consideration for actual risk. 

In the military, reliable intelligence is a critical component of reducing risk in engagement. It is valuable to know as much about the enemy as possible in order to minimize casualties and collateral damage. Knowledge reduces risk and increases the likelihood of victory. The same can be applied to the fight against COVID-19. Governments must be agile, willing to change their course of action as knowledge about the virus increases. 

Over the last several months, our knowledge about the coronavirus has grown. Initial policies, arising from swift action, must now yield to better strategies that follow knowledge founded on reliable science. We now know of one crucial attribute of COVID-19 – it has an asymmetric fatality rate. That is, the virus is particularly dangerous for the aged and individuals with specific pre-existing adverse health conditions while the risk to life is almost nonexistent for the young. What’s more, we can identify who those people are. 

With this knowledge, we can and must mount a more strategic defense that reduces numerous risk factors and increases the likelihood of a successful campaign. Specifically, we know how and where to allocate limited resources to defend against the disease. We can provide greater protection to those who need it most, shore up our weaknesses, and capitalize on our strengths. We can be focused, strategic, and targeted in reducing risk and defending against COVID-19.

Steve Trost, Associate Director of the Institute for the Study of Free Enterprise at Oklahoma State University, in a recent 1889 Institute publication, proposes such an approach. It is a sensible, targeted public policy that gives due deference to expert knowledge and that is founded on the science behind COVID-19. His proposal strikes a balance between liberty and safety. His recommendation will “aggressively shield the vulnerable” while allowing the more resilient to engage socially and economically. Under such a policy, those that need, or even want, protection get it. Those that would like to get back to life as usual are free to do so. The dichotomy between individual liberty and our health, safety, and welfare can be eliminated – we can achieve both. Specifically, “state, local, and governmental-institution policy-makers” need to create a framework for focused protection by taking specific actions, such as:

  • Repealing all current, universally applied, social distancing mandates;
  • Making N95 respirators (or their equivalents) available to all vulnerable individuals;
  • Encouraging self-quarantine only for individuals manifesting symptoms; 
  • Establishing and enforcing policies that “protect vulnerable members of the population who rely upon non-family support, such as those in assisted living facilities”; and 
  • Facilitating innovation among community organizations to assist those who must be isolated. 

As Trost notes in his research, “This approach simultaneously reduces the level of COVID health harm to the vulnerable and reduces the level of overall health and economic harm to the non-vulnerable.” He goes on to recognize that approaching COVID-19 by targeting known risks, we can begin “increasing the economic, mental, and spiritual well-being of all members of society.”

Every state and local government should take note. A population that is suffering economically, mentally, or spiritually is also a population at risk – risks that can be broader and less defined than COVID-19. Current policies are creating greater risk by forcing us to misallocate resources on multiple fronts, some of which exist unnecessarily. Combatting the virus in this way reduces our overall efficacy. Many people are suffering from a remedy that causes greater harm to low-risk populations than the disease itself. A balanced, thoughtful approach allows people to thrive while continuing to protect those who are most vulnerable to the effects of the coronavirus. 

Governments can simultaneously support and grow their economies and strategically allocate resources to better protect the vulnerable. Now is the time to repeal ineffective, universal policies that cause more harm than good and do more to protect those in harm’s way.  

Brad Galbraith is the Land Use Fellow at 1889 Institute. He can be reached at

Popular posts from this blog

Dear GT Bynum, Let the Children Play

I live close to a large City of Tulsa park that has a golf course, walking trail, green spaces, and a couple of playgrounds. My (almost) three-year old son loves the playgrounds, and often begs us during walks in our neighborhood to detour to “for-chun” (LaFortune Park). This seemingly innocent request can become a hassle when we don’t really have time, but we indulge him as much as possible. It’s good for kids to play outside, especially with other kids they might not otherwise come into contact with. But sometimes we have to contend with an upset toddler who doesn’t understand why we can’t go to the playground right this minute. I’m not complaining, every parent of young kids deals with similar stuff. But during the COVID lockdown, we’ve had to contend with an altogether different LaFortune Park situation with our son. As part of the mayor’s shelter-in-place overkill, all city-owned playgrounds were closed “ indefinitely .” This wasn’t a guideline or suggestion, the city meant busine

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 episod

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

The High Duty of Elected Officials and Ways They Fall Short

With an election just completed (the alleged voting, anyway), a legislative session coming up, constant talk of spending to offset the impacts of COVID-19, and elected officials trying to mandate our way out of a disease, the duty of elected officials in their official positions is worth considering. The 1889 Institute recently published a booklet for state lawmakers that discusses various issues and possible solutions. Included in that booklet is a short discussion of the central duty of elected officials, which is expanded here. What is the central, over-arching duty of an individual after having been elected to public office? Public oaths of office give a strong hint, and the Oklahoma Constitution is a good place to start. Article XV includes the oath of office, which states that an Oklahoma public official swears to “support, obey, and defend” the constitutions of the nation and the state, that the official will not take bribes, and that the official will discharge duties as best