The Cost Of Our Coronavirus Insanity

The author and his family in Ethiopia, 2019

My mother was a philosopher whose life work could be boiled down to one sentence: prioritizing only one good inevitably leads to great evil. 

While my mother passed away before the arrival of the Wuhan Respiratory Syndrome, it is not hard to imagine how she’d react to today’s reality.

Earlier this year a locust swarm spread from Yemen to a massive part of East Africa. An area larger than Syria was stripped of its crops. This swarm was engendered by wet weather and wars that prevented the spraying of pesticides. The Wuhan Respiratory Syndrome had nothing to do with it. Now, the locusts have multiplied. The new wave is 20 times larger than the first. The UN is warning that it could consume 2 million square miles of pastureland – about half the size of Western Europe.

130 million East Africans face starvation.

Unlike the first swarm, these deaths were entirely preventable. East African nations were asking for $70 million in emergency assistance to stop this swarm. They needed helicopters and pesticide. In the end, they got neither. Because of the COVID-19 shutdowns, the supply chain needed to support their battle just wasn’t there.

130 million East Africans face starvation. Our laser focus on saving several hundred thousand Western lives has led directly to this.

There are other predictable side-effects. Much of the third world depends, directly or indirectly, on wealthy nations’ consumption of raw materials. In West Africa 4 million people and their families live on less than $3 a day. They are cocoa farmers. The trade in their product has vanished. They aren’t watching Netflix (NFLX) and hoping the crisis will pass. While we lack reporting, it is not difficult to imagine that they are facing mass starvation. Their children are dying as you read this.

Unlike the normal African catastrophe, these deaths aren’t caused by their some regional war, or systemic governance issues. These deaths are being caused by our lockdowns.

Globally, the World Food Organization is reporting that the economic effects of our shutdowns could leave over 130 million additional people facing starvation by the end of 2020.

Together with the locust infestations that is over a quarter of a billion people facing preventable starvation.

Prioritizing only one good inevitably leads to great evil.

The sad irony of this is that our efforts to sacrifice in the face of the Wuhan Respiratory Syndrome might not actually save many lives. While those in the developing world can’t survive a month without work, Western economies can’t survive a year. We won’t have a vaccine by next March. Nonetheless, we will be forced to reopen. And the virus, which will never leave the third world, will come back to every country that can’t completely seal its borders. 

In the end the cost of our efforts won’t just be borne by faraway Africans. The bill will come to us as well. Our shutdowns will lead to healthcare systems that will be unable to deal with the regular cadence of illness. Over 12 million Europeans and Americans die annually – of causes other than the Wuhan Respiratory Syndrome. Many more become seriously ill. Our economic collapse will prevent us from affording the same level of care. And our supply chain issues will mean that even money won’t be able to buy the supplies and equipment needed to save lives. This year, we failed to deliver pesticides to save millions in East Africa. Next year, we may well fail to deliver the vast array of products necessary to sustain a modern hospital.

This is a marathon. Winning the first 100 meters might actually hurt your chances of coming out ahead in the long term.

What can we do now?

First, we should stop acting as if those calling for an end to the lockdowns are somehow immoral or callous. We should argue about the impacts of our options, but not brand those we disagree with as immoral people. These seems like a lesson today's US needs more than ever before. 

Fundamentally, our choices have to be considered without the hysteria and moral opprobrium that has dominated this crisis. This is a complex and evolving situation with many unknowns - we all need to be a bit more humble.

Second, we should call on our leaders to help with problems other than the corona virus. I live in Israel. Israel has 14 Air Tractor firefighting aircraft. We should engineer whatever pesticide we can and fly it and these aircraft to Ethiopia. We should spray as many locusts as possible. We can’t stop the infestation at this point, but an intense effort by one little country could easily save as many lives as Italy has lost in the entire corona outbreak.

We cannot serve just one good. Even the preservation of life has its limits. It is time for us to open our eyes and focus on doing the best we can, across a wide range of priorities.

No matter how good the intentions, prioritizing only one good will inevitably lead to great evil. 

How did you like this article? Let us know so we can better customize your reading experience.

Comments

Leave a comment to automatically be entered into our contest to win a free Echo Show.
Anne Barry 3 years ago Member's comment

Just keep getting worse for some...

edition.cnn.com/.../index.html

Susan Miller 3 years ago Member's comment

Saw this news out of Israel about bringing some good out of locust swarms and thought of you Joseph:

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=347378106274123

Joseph Cox 3 years ago Contributor's comment

Crunch all you want... we'll make more!

Gary Anderson 3 years ago Contributor's comment

So thanks to no masks, Joseph, meds including my meds is delayed. This is serious for some seniors. Anti mask is a sure ticket to an explosion of cases as Fall is right around the corner. talkmarkets.com/.../trade-wars-are-killing-pandemic-cooperation

Joseph Cox 3 years ago Contributor's comment

Seasonality seems to have had little impact. Hot areas that didn't have previous spikes spiked just in the summer. I doubt fall will be any worse than the present.

Before the pandemic, the US spent almost 18% of GDP on healthcare. The economy has since shrunk 8+%. This implies that if healthcare spending remained constant (it hasn't) we'd be spending 19.5% on healthcare. If we keep going and achieve the 33% annualized contraction we'll be looking at 26% of GDP being spent on healthcare.

At what point does out capability for delivering healthcare being to recede due to economic contraction?

At one point the goal of shutdowns was to "eradicate" the virus. When that wasn't possible, we went to "bend the curve" so that the healthcare system had enough capacity. We bent the curve. If we keep trying to push it with overwhelming economic constraints, we'll find that our *healthcare* capacity will drop below what was needed before the pandemic.

Then we'll be in serious trouble.

Gary Anderson 3 years ago Contributor's comment

Just take it from the military or from those who benefited at the top with tax breaks. Take it from the Fed who says they have a big balance sheet capacity.

Joseph Cox 3 years ago Contributor's comment

I never said no masks.

Gary Anderson 3 years ago Contributor's comment

I agree. But the problem I see with opening too soon is that the social distancing and will to wear masks erodes. You have called for an opening of society. People just don't want to wear masks if they think things are not bad enough to lock down!

Danny Straus 3 years ago Member's comment

Saw this article and thought of you @[Joseph Cox](user:127658). hadn't even known this was an issue before I read your post:

www.jpost.com/.../israeli-innovation-for-a-better-world-634074

Joseph Cox 3 years ago Contributor's comment

Thanks!

Joseph Cox 3 years ago Contributor's comment

More from the WSJ on the costs of our reaction. This just makes me want to cry...

www.wsj.com/.../coronavirus-global-food-crisis-shortages-11589385615

Weed Investor 3 years ago Member's comment

Are the locusts seasonal? Will they be going away soon?

Joseph Cox 3 years ago Contributor's comment

They typically die out in July when the moisture levels drop. I think we have another one or two generations to go.

Joseph Cox 3 years ago Contributor's comment

I wrote a more generalized article about the the costs of shutdowns on a structural economic level. The locusts are really a particular example of the wider problem I explored in the other piece... talkmarkets.com/.../some-of-my-best-friends-are-economists

Gary Anderson 3 years ago Contributor's comment

Actually you made a case for increasing efforts against the Coronavirus as the African nations did not do against the locusts. Yet you made the west be guilty of fighting the virus instead? What makes you think that the locusts would have been dealt with if we didn't have the Covid-19?

Joseph Cox 3 years ago Contributor's comment

Supply chain breakdowns prevented the locusts from being sprayed. Our response to the Wuhan Respiratory Syndrome is responsible for supply chain breakdowns.

The corollary is this: If the Chinese had actually dealt with the virus in its infancy (in Wuhan) instead of arresting doctors and those who reported the problem then the virus would have been killed before it spread. That time has long since passed. In most countries the virus exists in the community and while we can slow the spread we will not prevent it altogether. Even if the US, for example, were to eradicate it, it would continue to come from Central and South America. We are far past the 'spray the locusts where they reproduce' stage of Coronavirus.

Gary Anderson 3 years ago Contributor's comment

So didn't Trump's trade war also hurt supply chains? As for slowing the virus, we won't know until society is partially opened. If people try to protect themselves fewer people will be subject to the virus.

Joseph Cox 3 years ago Contributor's comment

Trump's trade war may well have raised prices and thrown some industries into some confusion, but people could still get everything.

Michelle Bell 4 years ago Member's comment

Why will the virus never leave the the third world country and then bring it back to the US. I would think that if the virus ravishes those countries, every one will be infected and they will either die or recover and then become immune. Problem solved.

Angry Old Lady 4 years ago Member's comment

"Third world" is now considered to be derogatory. Better to be PC and say "developing country."

Joseph Cox 3 years ago Contributor's comment

Except maybe they aren't developing? Perhaps, like Haiti, they are just stuck. Do we thus need a new more accurate term? Or do I risk entering Trump territory?

Ayelet Wolf 4 years ago Member's comment

What can we do to help? Are any non-profits raising money to benefit those in need?

Joseph Cox 4 years ago Contributor's comment

Money isn't the problem. A broken supply chain is.

Ayelet Wolf 4 years ago Member's comment

While nothing to do specifically with Africa, I've read about lots of governments and organizations sponsoring chartered flights to help with various COVID-19 related issues. Perhaps something like this could be done.

Joseph Cox 4 years ago Contributor's comment

Goes back to the laser focus on Corona - and everything that gets lost.

Texan Hunter 4 years ago Member's comment

Not to sound like an ass, but how can they be starving? Locusts are considered a delicacy in Africa and eaten with relish. I've seen the locust swarm pictures and they are every where! People can literally scoop them up in their hands and chow down like manna from heaven. I realize that may be gross to many here in the suburbs, but not in Africa.

Joseph Cox 4 years ago Contributor's comment

And without refrigeration I imagine even locusts go bad. Plus, you can't plant them and grow new locusts the next year. Locusts are a short-term food, not a permanent one. Oh, and they fly away. You probably can't collect a year's worth to make up for lost crops.

Dick Kaplan 4 years ago Member's comment

Locusts are indeed edible. But they also destroy all the local crops. People can not survive on locusts alone.