ללא מחבר No Author

How the State Killed People via Lockdown

Three Ways Lockdowns Are Costing Human Lives

05/29/2020

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.

Deaths of Despair

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.

Deaths Due to Lack of Preventive Care

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.”

Deaths Because of Hunger and Malnourishment

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.

Conclusion

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.

Author:

Klajdi Bregu

Dr. Klajdi Bregu is an assistant professor of economics at IU South Bend’s Judd Leighton School of Business and Economics and a fellow at the Center for Market Education. Prior to his appointment to the Leighton School faculty, Dr. Bregu taught at the University of Arkansas. He has published research in the Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control and the Southern Economic Journal.

From Mises.org, here.

Making Aliyah Demands Emunah, But Making Aliyah GRANTS Us Emunah, Too

The Aliyah Mindset

by  | May 26, 2020

When a Jew starts looking into making aliyah, they can get completely overwhelmed by all the logistical issues that pop up. Our brains are flooded with questions like:

• What the heck is an apostille and how did I get to this age without ever hearing of it?
• How did I accumulate so much stuff and how am I going to decide what to take and what to leave behind?
• How can I choose a community that will be a good fit if I’ve never lived in Israel?
• How will I make a living?
• How do I transfer my money to Israel without losing a ton on the exchange rate?

These are important questions that have to be dealt with and they can overwhelm. My advice is to keep a master notebook or computer file with all the information on the many topics you’ll need to address. For example, when we made aliyah, I created a spreadsheet for all the companies we were doing business with and whether I needed to cancel service, change our address or take some other action.

All these are legitimate aspects of making aliyah, but there’s so much more to it. There’s a whole new mindset that happens when a Jew moves to Israel, and that’s what I really want to talk about here.

Aliyah requires a total paradigm shift. There are 6.7 million Jews living here, including a few hundred thousand olim from the US. It absolutely is possible to make it in Israel, if you adjust your expectations and don’t try to recreate your American life here.

I’ve identified four important paradigm shifts that are important for a successful klita. These aren’t meant to be all-encompassing, but rather to introduce prospective olim to the idea that you aren’t just changing addresses.

You’re being called upon to change your mindset.

The Certainty Mindset
In America, I made decisions with a certain degree of certainty about the outcome. In Israel, the spiritual reality is different. Here, I learned that there are an infinite number of variables that we can’t control. In Israel, I learned to dial down my sense of control, in a way for which life in America did not prepare me.

Living in Israel, one experiences hashgacha pratit in a much more open manner. Doors open. Seemingly serendipitous meetings end up being deeply significant. Opportunities present themselves when we are least prepared. If you ask them, many olim will tell you that life got a lot easier once they relaxed into the flow, let Hashem run the show and stopped trying to manage everything.

This in no way means that we are not obligated to do our hishtadlut. We absolutely are obligated. My point is that, for those whose eyes are open, life in Israel makes it abundantly clear Who is running the world.

The Spreadsheet Mindset
When considering making aliyah, it’s natural to wonder how you’re going to make a living. You may have tried to plan everything out on a spreadsheet.

It’s true that some things in Israel cost significantly more than they do in the US and, unless you’re a Member of Knesset or high-tech CEO, salaries are generally significantly lower here. It’s also true that some of the major expenses Orthodox Jews have in America, like tuition and health care, are negligible in Israel.

Many Israelis, especially those who live in a city, do not own a car and certainly very few outside of those in the wealthiest households, or those who live in very remote communities, have two cars.

Israel has a public transportation culture. People from every strata of society use public buses, light rails and trains. That’s a huge paradigm shift for those coming from suburban America.

If you’re going to try to plot everything out on a spreadsheet, you may feel discouraged about your ability to make it financially. There is absolutely a certain amount of emunah necessary to thrive in Israel. And it’s important to remember that the same Hashem Who provides your parnassa wherever you are now is also overseeing things here.

A combination of emuna, tefillah and hishtadlut go a long way toward making a successful life in Israel.

The Shopping Mindset
Life in Israel is, for most of us, materially simpler than it was in America. We live in smaller spaces. We own fewer things. We dress more casually. We put more of an emphasis on experiences over acquisitions.

One thing that struck me is that in Israel, there are hardly any billboards. Traveling on highways in America feels like a constant assault on your pocket – Eat here! Shop here! Stay here! Buy this! Those kinds of messages are virtually absent in Israel.

In addition, though we have IKEA, we don’t have WalMart and Target or other one-stop department stores. We have indoor malls, but overall, shopping definitely requires more effort here which, in my opinion, reduces the tendency to engage in recreational shopping.

After they’ve been here for a few years, many American olim will tell you that the two things they miss most about America are their families… and the ease of shopping. (I lied. We also miss decent kosher Chinese food.) Yet, we adapt and learn to shop differently.

The Eretz Yisrael Mindset
I became religious when I was in my 20s in America. To me, Jewish life was about me, Hashem, the Torah and only a little bit about what my community called klal Yisroel. After living in Israel for some time, I realized that my understanding of what it means to be a Torah Jew had been grossly deficient.

I had completely missed the entire nationhood part of being a Jew. It’s all over Tanach, but I didn’t experience it until I lived in Israel.

Many years ago, when I lived and worked in America, I came to the realization that my Catholic secretary got all her holidays off because they were Federal holidays. I took vacation days for all the chagim.

In Israel, we live within the Jewish calendar. There are public chometz burnings and the municipalities collect schach after Sukkot. The foods on display in the grocery stores and the bakeries match the upcoming holiday. The public buses and the bottles of Coke wish you a Chag Sameach.

Although, due to our many sins, we yet lack a Temple on Har HaBayit, life in Israel already operates on Jewish time. Olim are aware of being part of a national destiny, of a Biblical story.

In a few months, we will celebrate our tenth aliyahversary. I’m not suggesting that it has been smooth sailing every moment. We’ve had our challenges. Of course we have.

But once we made some of these paradigm shifts, once we accepted the reality that we live in the Middle East (“Toto, I’ve a feeling we’re not in Kansas anymore.”), the unbelievable richness of living a Jewish life in Israel began to accrue.

I wish nothing less for you.

From Bring Them Home, here.

Jonathan Rosenblum – Important Article on the Crucial Is-Ought Distinction

Science Can’t Tell Us What to Do

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.

UPDATE: How to Sacrifice One’s Children to Molech

Moloch Announces Forcing Your Kids To Become Transgender Is Acceptable Form Of Sacrifice

October 24th, 2019

WASHINGTON, D.C.— The ancient god Moloch has announced that in lieu of the actual blood sacrifice of your children, you can now simply force your kids to become transgender as an alternative.

“Honestly, I still prefer killing your kids in ritual sacrifice or aborting them,” he said at a press conference. “I guess I’m old-fashioned like that. But coercing your kids into undergoing harmful surgery and hormone treatments works just as well, I suppose. As long as you’re sacrificing your kid’s future to the progressive, humanistic agenda, it doesn’t matter one way or the other.”

Moloch said that parents who encourage their young children who haven’t hit puberty yet or started thinking about sexuality at all to think about changing genders will be under the protection and favor of his evilness. “I am appeased by such sacrifice. A child’s life is ruined so that a parent may appear woke in the eyes of her friends—truly a diabolical ritual that I wholly approve of.”

From Babylon Bee, here.