As the Covid-19 pandemic continues, the question is: should the government start allowing businesses to open or should they remain closed? This is not quite the black-or-white yes-or-no question it appears to be, since there are multiple types of businesses that pose different degrees of risk for increasing the spread of the disease. Moreover, the prevalence of the disease varies from location to location.
The President has deferred this question to each state to decide. As a result, the governors of the various states are making their own decisions for their states.
It appears that Democratic governors are more inclined to put a tight rein on opening up, whereas Republican governors are more likely to open up more quickly. I wish this life-or-death question were not politicized but I suppose it’s inevitable that it is.
Why is this even controversial at all? The problem is that many businesses, including almost all sellers of consumer products, have been closed by this pandemic. This has had a major impact on those business owners, plus their employers and suppliers, and thus the entire world economy is hovering on the brink of recession. It seems likely that many small businesses (such as local restaurants) will fail if this goes on much longer. Some have already. And even some large businesses, such as department-store chains, have filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy because of the economic impact of the pandemic. (Chapter 11 allows a business to restructure their debt without having the business completely fail; this form of bankruptcy is only available to companies, not individuals.)
The health experts, of course, recommend caution in opening up too fast. I don’t blame them for that: it’s their job. They all make dire predictions of a “second wave” if we open too fast. (This concept comes from the Spanish Flu pandemic in 1918; that disease had a “second wave” in 1920, two years after the initial outbreak. 1920: Exactly 100 years ago. Ironic isn’t it?)
The economists also make dire predictions about the future of the world economy. They are not, however, making recommendations that we open faster. If I were in their shoes I would not want to be proposing actions that will very likely cause additional people to die.
So it is a genuine dilemma: open too fast, and too many people die: open too soon and too many businesses fail. If this only meant Jeff Bezos or Warren Buffet to lose a few of their billions, I wouldn’t feel too bad. (Actually Bezos is probably making more money than usual because Amazon is an on-line company and is getting more business than ever. The effect of on-line vs. “brick-and-morter” businesses is a whole discussion in itself.
No, I’m sure the billionaires will be just fine. It’s the family-owned restaurant (and the family that owns it) that has my sympathy. These small business owners generally worker harder than I ever had. Losing a business that took every dime they had and countless hours of labor is a tragedy.
Of course, dying or losing a loved-one from Covid-19 is a tragedy as well. I don’t envy any of the governors of whatever political stripe for the challenge they face every day of this crisis.
Some have questioned whether this “lock down” (forcing people to stay at home and forcing businesses to close) is even legal. It is certainly legal under California law. The Santa Clara County health order clearly cites state law as giving them the authority for their actions. One could challenge whether such laws are themselves constitutional. Such questions are settled by the courts, and there are a few cases pending at this time. But historically the courts have not overturned health orders, even if draconian, on the grounds that they are for the public good. The states’ ability to quarantine was directly addressed by the Supreme Court in 186 U.S. 380 (1902). It held that quarantine was a legitimate use of police powers. So far as I know, the broader question of forcing businesses to close en masse has not been addressed, since, to my knowledge, this has never been done so broadly before.
To be sure, there are people who just don’t like the government telling them what to do. But unless they can come up with a legal argument, they really have no recourse.
Everything I’ve said up to now was meant to be a preface to a discussion of what my family and I will do once the opening happens. However this has gone on long enough, that I think I’ll take up the latter topic in an additional post.
Anyone reading this in the near future will probably find its points well-known and obvious. So, I guess I’m writing this for a more future audience. Eventually the pandemic will be over and its memory will begin to fade.