Rabbi Zecharia Wallerstein
Category: Corona Chizuk Date: 2020-6-3 Language: English
Sub-Cat: Length: 1:03:15
MP3 Audio: Download
From Torah Anytime, here.
The conversation about the lockdowns when the COVID-19 crisis started was centered on saving lives at the cost of the economy. This makes sense, since many of those making decisions were epidemiologists and we cannot expect them to fully understand the lockdowns’ impact on the economy and human lives. The problem is that even many economists argued the same thing and completely ignored the harm that the lockdowns would create.
These economists have fallen prey to what Frédéric Bastiat called the “unseen” consequences of a policy. Frédéric Bastiat argued that an “act, a habit, an institution, a law, gives birth not only to an effect but to a series of effects. Of these effects, the first only is immediate; it manifests itself simultaneously with its cause—it is seen. The others unfold in succession—they are not seen: it is well for us, if they are foreseen.” Applied to lockdowns this means that it is easier to see the deaths caused by COVID-19 than to see the deaths caused by lockdowns. In what follows, I provide three arguments on how the economic lockdowns are costing us human lives and will continue to do so long after they end.
A recent study finds that we could have up to seventy-five thousand more deaths of despair over the next ten years. Deaths of despair refer to suicides and deaths from abuse of alcohol and drugs. The study argues that these deaths will primarily be caused by increased unemployment, fear, and isolation. Unemployment is the main factor and the analysis is based on the projected unemployment rate between 2020 and 2029. The authors estimate that in the best case scenario (lowest unemployment) we will have about twenty-eight thousand more people die deaths of despair and in the worst-case scenario (highest unemployment) we could see up to one hundred fifty-four thousand more people die. A recent study showing that unemployment will remain high for a prolonged period of time means that we can expect the number to be higher than seventy-five thousand.
This is not the only study that argues that unemployment is directly related to deaths of despair. Consider, for instance, a NBER study that found an increase of 3.6 percent in the opioid death rate for each 1 percent increase in unemployment. Based on this, we could see another twenty-nine thousand more deaths because of opioids annually. One may argue that these are only predictions, but sadly the indications we have so far show support for these studies. For instance, a doctor in the Bay Area told a local ABC7 reporter “I mean, we’ve seen a year’s worth of suicide attempts in the last four weeks.” This is not an isolated case. The Washington Examiner has reported recently that “More people died of suicide in a single Tennessee county last week than of the coronavirus across the entire state, according to one local official.” Hence, either directly through isolation or indirectly through unemployment, the lockdowns are costing us many human lives.
In a recent interview for Fox News, Dr. Scott Atlas, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, argued that “the cure is bigger than the disease at this point.” He argued that in the US every month one hundred and fifty thousand people are diagnosed with cancer, but the numbers are now much lower. Unfortunately, this will lead to higher death rates for this group of people. Add to this the people who are not receiving their chemotherapy as they should and we start to see a clearer picture of how the lockdowns are harming the lives of those with cancer. These are only two examples, but if we consider the many more preventive care visits that are not happening it becomes clear that we will see increased deaths because of a lack of preventive care.
This has become such a big concern for doctors that many of them are speaking out against this and hopefully we will see a policy response soon. As a Forbes article reports, at least six hundred doctors around the country are calling for an end to lockdowns, and their reasoning is in line with that of Dr. Scott. As Dr. Marilyn Singleton argued, “Ending the lockdowns are not about Wall Street or disregard for people’s lives; it about saving lives.”
When the lockdowns started, many argued that it was worth giving up some economic growth in order to save lives. Unfortunately these people miss the point—that economic growth is what saves millions of lives around the globe every single year. We know that as economic conditions get worse many people around the world will struggle to meet their basic nutritional needs, which will lead to more deaths. In the New York Times, Abdi Latif Dahir argues 265 million people will experience acute hunger in 2020. That will be nearly double the number of the year before. To put this in perspective, let us consider that poverty had been in decline since 1998. One may ask, Isn’t the economic downturn because of the COVID-19 crisis? As Ryan McMaken has noted, in previous similar pandemics we did not have the economic downturn we are experiencing now, so the answer is no. The downturn is due to the economic lockdowns, not the COVID-19 pandemic.
What is more, this is not a problem that only poor countries will face. Even though poor countries will be hit the hardest, we are seeing the consequences here in the US already. Consider, for instance, that “a survey…found 37% of unemployed Americans ran out of food in the past month and 46% said they worried about running out.” Although deaths directly caused by hunger may not be high in the US, we must keep in mind that malnourishment also harms our health and leads to more deaths in the long run.
The careful and concerned reader may argue that although it may be true that lockdowns cost human lives, COVID-19 does as well, so we had to implement the lockdowns. This is a good point, and it is not the purpose of this article to diminish the danger that COVID-19 poses to certain groups of people or downplay the hundreds of thousands of lives that have been lost. The point is that we must still consider the tradeoffs carefully, since both COVID-19 and lockdowns cost human lives. So, the answer is not as simple as it is sometimes presented by officials who are so eager to shut everything down.
If we do not correctly take into account the opportunity cost, in terms of lives that can be lost from lockdowns, then we will most likely continue to make bad decisions in the future. We need to look for alternatives, and instead of locking down the whole economy we should protect those who are the most vulnerable. But, even when we consider this solution we should keep in mind that centralized solutions hardly ever work for such complex issues and large countries like the US.
by Jonathan Rosenblum
Mishpacha Magazine
May 13, 2020
Much of what is called “science” today does not fit the definition
Some years back, I wrote a column responding to a question posed by my oldest son: “The issue of global warming would seem to be an empirical one. So why does the belief in anthropogenic global warming correlate so strongly to political party?”
In late March, syndicated columnist and talk show host Dennis Prager asked the same question with respect to preferred responses to the SARS-CoV-2 virus: The virus does not distinguish according to political affiliation, so why shouldn’t there be more agreement on the proper response?
That there is such a political divide is uncontestable. A recent Rasmussen poll found that 67 percent of Republicans, but only 24 percent of Democrats, agree with the statement, “It’s time for America to get back to work.”
A congeries of factors goes into the explanation — sociological, ideological, political, and perhaps even theological. Let’s start with the sociological. While the coronavirus does not distinguish according to political affiliation, the rate of infection has been far greater in urban areas. And the Democratic Party is increasingly the party of the more densely populated coasts.
And where the Democratic Party was once the party of the “working man” and the Republican Party that of “big business,” today the former has become the party of the rich and credentialed elites. The rich, who do not live from paycheck to paycheck, are simply better able to weather a prolonged economic lockdown. As a friend at a major national law firm told me recently, “We lawyers will come out fine. They’ll still need us for all the post-coronavirus reorganizations.” Moreover, the more educated segment of the workforce, as opposed to those tied to the service sector, is more likely to be able to work from home during a lockdown.
In terms of ideology, there is a certain strain of anti-capitalist sentiment conjoined with an obsession with global warming on the left wing of the Democratic Party. The drastic reduction in carbon emissions due to reduced vehicular and air travel has been celebrated in some circles as an instance of the planet healing itself.
More tentatively, I suspect that there is also a theological dimension. The Republican Party is increasingly the party of religious believers, while the left is increasingly dismissive or even hostile to religion. The lack of religious belief makes leftists more inclined to catastrophic predictions, of which those surrounding a global pandemic are only one form. Malthusian predictions that various natural resources will soon be exhausted or the planet overrun with too many people are others. Warnings renewed every decade that we have only ten years to doomsday are a feature of modern life.
Those who believe in a beneficent G-d, Who created the world for a purpose, approach the future with more optimism and confidence that the “Hand of G-d” will not prove incapable of supplying humanity’s needs and that He has imbued human beings with the ability to adapt to changing circumstances.
Finally, there is a political dimension to the different stances of the two parties. Though Donald Trump’s persona has not captivated most Americans, at the time the coronavirus struck, he was presiding over a booming economy, with unemployment rates at near historic lows, and a bullish stock market. His reelection seemed likely.
The more distant memories of those first three years of economic boom are from voters’ minds in November, the weaker Trump’s electoral prospects. A prolonged lockdown virtually guarantees a deep recession at minimum.
The mainstream media has taken the lead in promoting the most alarmist predictions concerning ending the lockdown. At one level, the media always has an alarmist bias: Bad news sells.
But there is a political motivation as well. The overwhelmingly Democratic mainstream media is fully mobilized to push Trump from office. Martin Tolchin, a 40-year Timesman and the founder of two D.C. insider publications, The Hill and Politico, spoke for many in the media in a letter to the Times arguing against any investigation into charges that Joe Biden harassed a female former staffer: “I don’t want an investigation… I don’t want justice… I want the removal of Donald Trump from office and Mr. Biden is our best chance.”
IN TRUTH, both my son’s and Prager’s questions are based on a false premise, namely that “science” or “data” can, by themselves, dictate an objectively appropriate policy.
Yes, good policy necessitates the input of the best available information and clear thinking. But calls for letting the “experts” decide are generally synonyms for a larger, more intrusive, centralized government, and a shift from democratic governance and market mechanisms to a government dominated by unelected administrative agencies. That is what White House chief of staff Rahm Emmanuel meant when he declared with respect to the 2008 financial crisis, “No crisis should ever go to waste.” To wit, every crisis — and the bigger the better — should be used to expand the writ of the central government.
In the same vein, Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden said the other day that the current pandemic provides a “wonderful opportunity to transform our society.” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi tried to do precisely that when she attached to the $1.8 trillion rescue plan for desperate workers and businesses a host of riders requiring corporate boards to meet racial and gender quotas, airlines to reduce carbon emissions by 50 percent, additional wind and solar tax credits, and extraordinary new collective bargaining power for public employee unions.
The issue between the parties is not, as Democrats would have it, respect for scientific knowledge or its opposite. If there is one issue, for instance, on which there is a consensus among mainstream economists, it is that dramatic increases in the minimal wage will, absent an extreme labor shortage, lead to increased unemployment, spur automation, and reduce the overall wages of workers due to a decline in hours. Yet raising the minimum wage is a mainstay of every Democratic platform.
As great as the contribution science has to make reducing the threat of the COVID-19 virus, it remains crucial not to lose sight of its limitations as well. That means not exaggerating the level of scientific knowledge or the degree of consensus. Dr. John Ionnidis, Professor of Medicine, Epidemiology, Population Health, and Bio-Medical Data Science at Stanford, has written that only about ten percent of published scientific findings turn out to be reproducible.
Anyone who follows nutrition science knows how constantly shifting are the verdicts on the benefits and harms of various foods — e.g., eggs, dietary fat, coffee, red wine. In the current plague, information about face masks has similarly fluctuated greatly.
Much of what is called “science” today does not fit the definition, in particular the mathematical modeling to predict the future. That modeling inevitably depends on multiple assumptions or approximations and often relies on data that is itself highly suspect. A full picture of climate systems depends on knowledge of 20 or more sub-specialties, and no modeler possesses that. Not surprisingly, neither the global warming models nor those developed during the current plague have proven to have much predictive value.
But even if all the facts were known and the impact of different policy choices capable of being predicted, they would not dictate the choices to be made. The experts do not possess any calipers to weigh the economic suffering of tens of millions versus lives saved.
They cannot tell policymakers how to balance greater protection for vulnerable populations against the lives of millions around the globe who will be thrust into starvation by the breakdown of global food chains. Remember how the ethanol mandate caused the world prices of grain to rise sharply and led to rampant nutrition insufficiency in many poorer countries. (Not to mention that the production of ethanol released carbon emissions equal to any saved.)
Issues such as to what degree of infringements on personal privacy are justified in pursuit of public health, or to what extent individuals should be allowed to accept risk upon themselves — e.g., grandparents who want to see their grandchildren — are ultimately value questions. And on those, scientists have nothing more to say than you and I.
From Jewish Media Resources, here.
Since destroying the economy will end up harming Israel’s ability to win wars by robbing Israel of the funding needed to produce or buy new weapons to face potential threats, we have to reject the demands of those that demand Corona Virus lockdowns without any limits. Real Jewish morality demands we put a limit on how far we allow Corona safety precautions to go before we put our foot down and say, No More!
Even for the sake of an Optional War, the Torah recognizes there might be war casualties as part of the price of victory.
Dvarim/Deuteronomy 20:7 ‘Is there any man among you who has betrothed a woman and not married her? Let him go home, so that he not die in war and have another man marry her.’
See also the book of Shoftim/Judges 20:39 as a backup to this concept.
From VilnaGaon.org, here.
“It’s a boy!” announced the doctor as he delivered the Jacobs’s first child.
“Baruch Hashem!” exclaimed Mr. Jacobs. “We get to do a bris and a pidyon haben!”
A week after the bris, Mr. Jacobs began arranging the pidyon haben. He bought five Silver Eagle U.S. dollars for the occasion, and arranged with his close neighbor, Mr. Cohen, to serve as the recipient Kohen.
During the course of the festive meal, Mr. Jacobs introduced Mr. Cohen to his brother-in-law and sister, who was holding a newborn.
“They also just had their first boy,” Mr. Jacobs said. “B’ezras Hashem, they will also be doing a pidyon in another two weeks!”
“How nice! Mazel tov!” exclaimed Mr. Cohen. “Do you live in the neighborhood?” he asked.
“Not at all,” laughed the brother-in-law. “We drove three hours to join in the simchah!”
“Indeed, a pidyon haben is a special simchah not frequently encountered,” commented Mr. Cohen. “It seems to run in your family, though.”
Mr. Cohen was also pleased to meet Rabbi Dayan, who attended the pidyon. They sat together at the head table, along with Mr. Jacobs and the grandparents. *
When the pidyon celebration was finishing, Mr. Cohen approached Mr. Jacobs. “I’d like to return the coins to you,” he said. “You can give them to your brother-in-law to use for his pidyon.”
“Thank you for the offer,” said Mr. Jacobs, “but how can you do that? If you return the money, my son won’t be redeemed anymore!”
Rabbi Dayan overheard the discussion. “What’s the issue?” he asked.
“I offered to return the coins to Mr. Jacobs,” Mr. Cohen said, “but he’s concerned that it would invalidate the redemption.”
“That’s not a problem,” replied Rabbi Dayan, “although it’s questionable whether it’s proper to return them on a regular basis.”
“I don’t understand” Mr. Jacobs wondered. “How is my son redeemed if Mr. Cohen returns the coins?”
“The Mishnah (Bechoros 51a) teaches that the Kohen is allowed to return the coins as a gift to the father,” answered Rabbi Dayan. “Once the Kohen receives them, they are his and the son is redeemed. The pidyon payment is not annulled when it is returned as a gift (C.M. 189:1; 245:10; Y.D. 305:8).
However, the Gemara relates an incident about Rabi Chanina, who would often return the money when the father lingered around, indicating his clear expectation to receive the money back. Rabi Chanina commented that this father did not give with full intention, so that the son would not be redeemed, because from the beginning the pidyon payment was never given sincerely, even for the moment (Taz and Shach, Y.D. 305:6).
Nonetheless, the Gemara (Kiddushin 6b) teaches that something given on condition to return (matanah al menas l’hachzir), is considered as having been given. For the duration of the giving, the intention is to grant full ownership. Thus, if the father explicitly stipulated with the Kohen that he is giving the coins on condition that he return them, the pidyon haben is valid. This is similar to the common practice of giving the lulav and esrog on the first day of Yom Tov as a matanah al menas l’hachzir (C.M. 241:6; Rashba, Responsa 1:198)
Shulchan Aruch writes, though, that the Kohen should not consistently return the money nor accept it with a stipulation to return it, so as not to cause a loss to other Kohanim. This can also lead to a situation that the father does not give with full intention or thinks that he only has to hand the money to the Kohen as a formality (Gra, Y.D. 305:13-14; Aruch Hashulchan 305:27).
“Some Acharonim recommend, nonetheless, that nowadays the Kohen should return the money,” concluded Rabbi Dayan, “since the priestly lineage has become weak, he could be withholding money not rightfully his. However, others refute this opinion” (Pischei Teshuvah, Y.D. 305:12).
Verdict: After the Kohen receives the coins as a sincere pidyon, he can return them as a gift to the father.
_______________________________
*Editor’s note: This was BCE: Before the Corona Epidemic