There are two things to consider about the current May reopening wave, one nefarious the other, not so much. The more innocent one is that people are itchy to get out and desperate to make money, which our governments recognize. Can’t blame them for that, but when people protest with guns and act irresponsibly to possibly infect others, they cross the line. Given that not one reopening state has satisfied even the first federal criterion for reopening (14 days of declining cases), they all have crossed the line. Given that travesty, it’s not even necessary to examine the failure of other criteria, such as sufficient testing and contact tracing.
Which brings us to the nefarious reason for premature reopening, one that is related to the economy. The economic driver for reopening is twofold – rekindling commerce and reducing unemployment payments. Rekindling commerce is a perfectly valid and necessary objective, when the time is right. But doing it at the expense of lives poses both a moral and an economic challenge. The moral question is how much death is worth a resumption of commerce? There is no question that the feds and the governors agree that some death is worth it, especially when the reopening death increment will unlikely be measurable. The economic challenge is whether reopening will cause so much death that the economy will eventually be worse off. That is Trump’s gamble, given that it is doubtful he cares about the reopening death increment, especially if he can remain unaccountable.
But perhaps the more nefarious economic reason for premature reopening is to reduce unemployment payments. Most states face an absolute budget crisis – they need to reduce expenses because of reduced tax revenues, given their balanced budget laws. (Unlike the feds who are free to deficit spend.) If states can reduce unemployment payments, they might avert other cuts, such as important services (e.g., state police). Reopening offers governors two ways to reduce unemployment payments – people returning to work and people dying, neither of which will collect future unemployment payments. Just because a governor says it is ok to reopen doesn’t mean it is safe to do so. In most states, letting people go back to work will put the biggest burden on the poor who are unlikely to be telecommuting (poor internet) and are mostly in service jobs that will be difficult to insulate against infection. Thus, a governor’s nod to reopen prematurely is an acknowledgement that poor people will die. Is this two-birds-with-one-stone with a racial kicker? Dead poor can’t collect unemployment, dead poor can’t collect poverty assistance, and dead poor are often non-white, particularly in states like Georgia, which has spearheaded reopening.
Note that the issue here is not reopening, but is premature reopening. Reopening without meeting the first gating criterion (14 days of declining cases), without sufficient PPE for all involved, without sufficient testing, and without a plan for contract tracing along with effective isolation of cases and carriers is the definition of premature reopening. Although premature reopening is a gamble that might possibly pay off economically (time will tell), it is certainly immoral.