The second wave of the coronavirus is here. Or maybe the first wave never really left. As many cities and states have begun to relax their stay-at-home orders, new coronavirus cases have spiked. This shouldn’t come as a surprise. But unless the virus can be controlled and eventually eradicated, it may result in new shutdowns. In Houston, because of the rapid increase in new cases, the city council is considering imposing another shutdown order if the curve isn’t flattened. In Beijing, a new outbreak has forced the city to shut down again.
New shutdown orders in U.S. cities and states are likely to be met with resistance from the people and the federal government because of the negative effect on the economy and the massive drain on government resources. Also, a group of people would rather exercise their first amendment right to protest, go to church, go to the beach, or to the playground. And because of the low likelihood of becoming seriously ill, I suspect most of those people are willing to risk getting infected and likely not care if they infect others.
Can the virus be controlled? Eventually, I think it will be. But the current environment will make it difficult. I suspect that many Americans are not taking the coronavirus as seriously as they should. This is evidenced by recent protests. Also, Americans are misinformed about the virus.
Since the shutdown orders began, numerous protests have been held throughout the country. The protestors come mainly from two groups of people. There is a third group, but they are a fringe group of racists, opportunistic criminals, or just plain crazy, and they are not worth acknowledging.
The first group comes from those that have been directly and negatively affected by the shutdown orders — mostly businesses and religious organizations. They are arguing that the shutdown orders somehow have violated their constitutional rights. With the unlikelihood of another stimulus package from the government, a second shutdown order will be the possible death knell for many small businesses. They are already suffering from reduced income because of the outbreak and the first shutdown order. The group does not have a central leadership although they seem to get their inspiration and talking points from conservative groups and President Donald Trump.
The second group is those who are protesting the disproportionate police brutality inflicted against African-Americans. Most of these protestors are affiliated with Black Lives Matter. An attempt to donate to Black Lives Matter will direct you to a site run by actblue.com, a platform used to fund Democratic candidates for public office.
The causes and principles these groups stand for are not incompatible. One can be against both the police using excessive force and unreasonable government shutdown orders. But this is an election year, so the two groups’ politics and the general dislike of each group for the other prevents them from meaningfully working together.
The one common ground they have is that protesting takes priority over the pandemic. If they get infected as a result, then so be it. However, I think most of the people that think this way are relying on the low chances that they will get infected and the lower chances that they will develop severe complications as a result of the coronavirus. I doubt they are less motivated by the principles. To put it another way, I doubt I would see a lot of similar protests if there was an anthrax or Ebola outbreak as both having high fatality rates.
Another problem that makes recover difficult is the misinformation about how to treat the virus. This was clearly demonstrated when it came to the use and effectiveness of facial masks.
In the early days of the coronavirus epidemic, many health experts advised people to wear facial masks when going out in order to minimize the spread. The problem was that this resulted in a shortage of masks, mainly due to hoarding and panic buying. Healthcare professionals complained that they could not get them from their usual sources.
So a new narrative was released. This one said that people should not buy masks because they don’t work. Facial masks, even the highly effective N95 masks do not provide absolute protection against the virus. But healthcare professionals needed them because they don’t want to spread their germs in a sterile environment, like an operating room. This claim was questionable at best. Even if masks were not 100% effective, they provide some protection. And if everyone wore masks, the chances of spreading the virus would be minimal, even if people did not practice proper personal hygiene.
What should have been told was that facial masks provide significant protection from the coronavirus but due to a shortage, healthcare professionals should be the first people to have them for everyone’s safety.
There is still lots of strange information out there. Every week seems to bring the announcement of a new “wonder drug” that disappears after a week or two. If the wonder drug is so great, why aren’t news outlets covering the development? This makes me wonder if some companies are trying to pull another Theranos on unsuspecting, dim-witted investors. I’m sure the SEC will eventually want to know as well.
Finally, and returning to the topic of protests, there seems to be a split among the medical community about the protests and the risk of spreading the virus. When the reopen protestors hit the scene, almost the entire medical community denounced them, saying that their presence will certainly spread the virus.
But when it came to the Black Lives Matter protests, they said something different. Many medical professionals supported it but mainly because of the social justice value of the protests. They tried to point out that most of the protestors practiced social distancing and wore masks — although whether they did it mostly to hide their identities is not clear. Others simply said that the risk of contracting the virus was worth it.
Morally, it is their right to support or denounce whatever protest they wish. But it creates a few complications when it comes to full transparency, which has been one of the key goals when it came to managing the virus. If there was an increase in coronavirus cases due to the protestors, it will provide ammunition to their political opponents. On that note, would the protestors be willing to accurately report the number of those infected with COVID-19 if it will hurt “the cause”? In New York City, the “test and trace” campaign has been instructed by Mayor Bill de Blasio not to ask anyone who has been tested positive for COVID-19 whether they have attended a protest.
And the problem with large protests — particularly politically motivated ones — will attract trolls, in this case, dangerous ones. What’s stopping an infected anarchist from secretly attending the protest? A few months ago, Susan Daniel, a lawyer, tweeted that if she was infected with the coronavirus, she would “attend every MAGA rally she can,” presumably attended by Republicans.
In the final analysis, if the American people want to control the spread of the coronavirus, they will temporarily have to put their differences aside so they can take the virus seriously. Unfortunately, with this being the final stretch of the presidential elections, this may not happen for another few months. In the meantime, wear a mask until a vaccine is available.
Steven Chung is a tax attorney in Los Angeles, California. He helps people with basic tax planning and resolve tax disputes. He is also sympathetic to people with large student loans. He can be reached via email at sachimalbe@excite.com. Or you can connect with him on Twitter (@stevenchung) and connect with him on LinkedIn.