Blog No. 255. Reopening the Economy: The Uncertain Way Forward and Questions that Must Be Answered

While the death toll continues to rise, and the COVID-19 crisis is far from over, some encouraging data have brought attention to the question of when and how the economy might reopen. The current federal guidelines are due to expire on April 30 and it is widely expected that they will be modified, either modestly or radically. President Trump reportedly spent Easter weekend pondering the matter, receiving conflicting advice from business interests and investors who seek an early easing of restrictions, and public health experts who are gravely apprehensive of a premature attempt to return to anything approaching normal.

When Trump was asked on Friday whether he will heed the advice of his health team if they tell him May 1 is an unrealistic date on which to reopen the country, he replied “I will certainly listen. Two sides, remember. I understand the other side of the argument very well.” Pressed later what metrics he would use, Trump simply pointed to his head and said, “That’s my metrics. I’m going to have to make a decision and I only hope to God that it’s the right decision. But I would say without question it’s the biggest decision I’ve ever had to make.”

The “metrics” of the Trumpian brain are unlikely to bring comfort to many. In fact, numerous observers pointed out–correctly–that Trump’s “biggest decision” was not really his to make. The federal guidelines are only guidelines; the legally enforceable requirements of social distancing have been imposed by states and localities, and only they can ease or lift them. That view, however, did not sit well in the parallel universe of the President. Early on Monday morning, he tweeted:

For the purpose of creating conflict and confusion, some in the Fake News Media are saying that it is the Governors decision to open up the states, not that of the President of the United States & the Federal Government. Let it be fully understood that this is incorrect…. It is the decision of the President, and for many good reasons. With that being said, the Administration and I are working closely with the Governors, and this will continue. A decision by me, in conjunction with the Governors and input from others, will be made shortly!

Back in the real world, however, it was announced later on Monday that seven northeastern states (Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island) had entered into an agreement to act jointly in developing plans to reopen. A similar compact was agreed to by three western states (California, Oregon and Washington).

Still later on Monday, at Trump’s afternoon press briefing, the President doubled down. As summarized by NBC News:

“I’m going to put it very simply: the president of the United States has the authority to do what the president has the authority to do, which is very powerful. The president of the United States calls the shots,” Trump said Monday evening, pressed on his claim during a news briefing at the White House.

He asserted that “numerous provisions” of the U.S. Constitution give him the power to potentially overrule governors who have issued stay-at-home orders for their states, telling one reporter that he would provide a “legal brief” to prove it.

He continued: “When somebody’s the president of the U.S., the authority is total, and that’s the way it’s gotta be.”

I am unaware of any legal authority or opinion that would support Trump’s outlandish and deeply disturbing claim. The man in Washington with the most severe headache on Monday night must have been Attorney General Bill Barr as he pondered how he might extract from his nimble and compliant Office of Legal Counsel the “legal brief” the President promised.

Trump’s strident claim of total authority stood in striking and ironic contrast to his headlong flight from anything approaching total responsibility. Throughout the crisis, Trump has conspicuously failed to exercise effective leadership by, for example, using the Defense Procurement Act and centralizing the acquisition and delivery of testing devices, ventilators and Personal Protection Equipment. While the federal government has provided useful, and sometimes vital, assistance in fits and starts, governors have largely been left to scramble on their own, competing with each other and even with the federal government. The lack of an overall strategy—assessment of needs and deployment of resources—has been, to put it mildly, deplorable.

Then, on Tuesday afternoon, Trump suddenly adopted a more conciliatory tone toward governors, saying he would not pressure them to reopen before they were comfortable doing so. Perhaps the Attorney General had gotten a word to Trump, or perhaps Trump’s retreat was simply the frequent reaction of a bully who backs down when confronted by firm resistance. In any case, even with the closure of that chapter of the White House psychodrama, the way ahead is far from clear.

If the federal government can finally cooperate effectively with the states in developing detailed and feasible plans for reopening, it will be a welcome development. The likelihood of that, however, remains dubious. The President read off a long list of business and labor leaders with whom he intends to consult, but it is highly questionable how many of those leaders have a serious grasp of the various health constraints, let alone a sense of how to balance them with business operations.

Indeed, it is not clear that anyone at the federal or state level has the data to formulate realistic plans or the resources to carry them out. The basic elements are well known, but the details remain shrouded in mystery and questions abound.

Testing. It is widely agreed that more and better testing is required, but testing equipment and personnel remain in short supply. Up until now, we have focused on testing persons who appear to have symptoms of COVID-19. Presumably, however, a reopening strategy will require testing of persons who are asymptomatic, either by antibody tests (which show when the virus has come and gone) or by diagnostic tests (which discover the current presence or absence of the disease). Who and how many will get which kind of test? And how many people are we capable of testing, and how quickly?

Social Distancing at Work. Is it possible to adopt social distancing in stores, offices and factories? What about in the trains, buses and car pools that get people to work? How practical is it to monitor and enforce social distancing requirements at work?

Masks at Work. The attitude of federal state and local governments toward masks has shifted. Initially it was indicated that only medical personnel needed to wear masks but now the CDC recommends wearing cloth face masks in public settings where social distancing is difficult to maintain. My own city of Ojai has issued an order requiring masks for both employees and customers of groceries and pharmacies (other non-essential establishments already having closed). Should masks be required not only in stores (and malls) but in offices and factories? Sports arenas? Modes of transportation? Should commercial masks be required or should homemade versions, or bandanas, suffice.

Contact Tracing. Contact tracing involves interviews with persons who test positive to determine those with whom they have been in close contact very recently, then locating the contacts and, if appropriate, instituting quarantines. Many believe that contact tracing may be crucial to reopening, but it is highly labor-intensive, and relatively little has been done to date. There are currently 2,200 contact tracers across the country, according to the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials, and Massachusetts alone is setting out to hire 1,000 more. But that is only a beginning. The CDC head, Dr. Robert Redfield has indicated that nationally as many 100,000 contract tracers might be needed. Where will they come from? Who will pay for them?

The foregoing questions are ones to which I believe the public must demand answers. If readers agree, I would urge them to forward this blog to their governors, senators and congressional representatives. Writing letters to the media would also help. Perhaps we will learn more of the many crucial unknowns in the days ahead, but at the moment nothing is more certain than the path forward is uncertain and fraught with danger.