COVID-19 Is Killing Us (But Not in the Way You Think)

The True Costs to Relationships and Mental Health May Not Be Known for Years. Here’s How We Restore What Was Lost.

The True Costs to Relationships and Mental Health May Not Be Known for Years. Here’s How We Restore What Was Lost.

In January, well before the beginning of the COVID-19 outbreak in the United States, I was following the progression of the virus throughout China. I was not incredibly surprised at its fast spread, as respiratory illnesses are notoriously difficult to contain and can easily spread across the globe in a matter of days. But I was surprised by the drastic measures that were taken in Wuhan and other cities — measures that, to borrow a term that has been worn out during these past few months, were genuinely unprecedented. Images from Wuhan in early February revealed how this city of 11 million people had been completely locked down: businesses shuttered, roads emptied, and residents confined to their homes. What happened in Wuhan quickly spread to other cities and provinces, with more than a half billion Chinese citizens being placed under some form of lockdown by February 23rd. As an assistant professor of criminal justice and legal studies at a small private university, I was alarmed at the authoritarian measures that were implemented by the Chinese government. Even though the Chinese do not have the same constitutional protections that citizens of the United States enjoy (or formerly enjoyed), I was still astonished at the incredible restrictions on freedom of movement and other liberties. But in any case, the measures taken by the Chinese government made one thing very clear: this virus was different.

In the weeks that followed the Chinese lockdowns, I shared countless articles and videos with my criminal justice students to encourage thoughtful discussion about government restrictions on liberty in times of emergency. We asked, repeatedly and provocatively, if any of the measures imposed by China could be implemented in the United States. Opinions varied among my students: some said such measures could be imposed if it would stop the spread of the virus and save lives; others said these measures could not be imposed because they would trample our constitutional rights. Little did we know in late February that the hypotheticals we were discussing would become a reality just a few short weeks later, as our university made the move to online instruction by the middle of March. We continued to discuss the threat posed by the virus and evaluated different government responses even as we met remotely, but as the weeks went by, the sheer volume of information on COVID-19 became overwhelming. More than that, it became increasingly difficult to distinguish information that was false or slanted from information that was trustworthy and reliable. Consequently, I set out to conduct as much research as I could, hoping to learn what was true and what was false about COVID-19 and the corresponding government responses and to provide my family, friends, and students with as much well-sourced information as possible on the virus and all of the associated risks.

Relying on my training from law school and the police academy, I approached my research as an investigator, seeking to follow the evidence wherever it led. What I found during my research (approximately 100-hours worth) took me by surprise. Before beginning my research in earnest, I had assumed that the virus was many times more deadly than seasonal influenza, as the government lockdowns and public health measures that have been put in place in recent months would only be justified if this were the case. Indeed, because of this assumption, my wife and I took steps early on to protect our family, storing up food, toilet paper, and other supplies well before the lockdowns were initiated in the United States. But then I came across this article in the New England Journal of Medicine that was coauthored by Dr. Anthony Fauci, Director of the NIAID, and Dr. Robert Redfield, Director of the CDC. Here’s what they wrote on March 26th:

“If one assumes that the number of asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic cases is several times as high as the number of reported cases, the case fatality rate may be considerably less than 1%. This suggests that the overall clinical consequences of Covid-19 may ultimately be more akin to those of a severe seasonal influenza (which has a case fatality rate of approximately 0.1%).”

When I read those words from Drs. Fauci and Redfield, I began to question my assumptions about the pandemic. Specifically, I had been operating on the belief that COVID-19 killed roughly 3.4% of those infected based on early statements made by the World Health Organization and countless articles that reiterated this assumption (not to mention the worldometers site that tracks the number of confirmed cases and deaths). If 3.4% of those infected with COVID-19 died, then this virus would be FAR worse than anything most people could imagine. Even if “only” 1% of those infected died, the number of deaths from COVID-19 could have easily surpassed 2 million in the United States alone. But what if there were many more asymptomatic infections that had not been counted? Could the “overall clinical consequences” be more like seasonal flu, as Drs. Fauci and Redfield suggested? I shared this quote, along with several articles on the prevalence of asymptomatic cases, with family, friends, and students a few weeks ago. Since that time, much more evidence has come to light related to the severity of the virus as well as the effectiveness of many of the recommended measures to slow the spread of COVID-19 (e.g., stay-at-home orders, social distancing, face masks, etc.). Moreover, the effects of such measures on personal relationships, mental health, emotional stability, and even physical health are becoming more widely known. Consequently, I decided to write a letter cataloguing and curating all the information I found in the hope that my family and friends would have reliable data and scientific evidence on which to base their decisions in the coming days, weeks, and months. Below is what I sent them, along with a few more pieces of evidence that have emerged in recent days.

The Cost of Fear

The fear of the virus that has reigned over our world for the past two months has been debilitating for millions of people. It has undoubtedly led to increased levels of stress and anxiety unlike anything many have seen in their lifetimes (probably the closest event in my memory is the fear of terrorism after 9/11). Add to the stress and anxiety caused by the fear of contracting the virus the corresponding stress of being separated from family, friends, and loved ones, and you have a level of stress and anxiety that is not only devastating to the mental health of many individuals but also extremely harmful to their physical health as well (more on this harm below). If you add to these stressors the further stress of losing a job (layoffs “increase annual mortality rates by 10.3%”), not being able to pay bills (increased debt leads to “higher perceived stress and depression, worse self-reported general health, and higher diastolic blood pressure”), and not being able to find food (which is becoming a reality for many people in the United States and across the globe), many people will come to (and already have come to) a breaking point, both physically and mentally.

If the fear of the virus were justified because of a death rate that is much higher than seasonal flu, then we as a society may understandably be forced to endure the physical and emotional toll of the nationwide and statewide lockdowns. Even then, though, reasonable arguments can be made that the “cure” has been worse than the disease, as the emotional and economic toll of the lockdowns has been catastrophic and has led (and will continue to lead) to countless additional deaths from other causes (links below). But if the virus is in reality no worse than a severe seasonal flu, as Drs. Fauci and Redfield suggested could be the case, then the ongoing lockdowns, mandated mask-wearing, and enforced social distancing can no longer be justified. More than that, these measures should be ended immediately in the hope that the lives of countless more people will not be further damaged or destroyed.

Concerning the quote by Drs. Fauci and Redfield, some have stated that this article does not reflect Dr. Fauci’s current beliefs because it was written nearly two months ago. To be sure, Dr. Fauci has maintained a more serious tone throughout this crisis, and he is also very well spoken and seems to bring a sense of reasonableness to the Trump administration. But as to the substance of the article from March 26th, the fact that the article was now written 59 days ago is extremely relevant, as even more evidence has arisen that would seem to confirm what Fauci said. For context once more, here is the quote from Fauci and Redfield:

“If one assumes that the number of asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic cases is several times as high as the number of reported cases, the case fatality rate may be considerably less than 1%. This suggests that the overall clinical consequences of Covid-19 may ultimately be more akin to those of a severe seasonal influenza (which has a case fatality rate of approximately 0.1%)” (emphasis added).

I cannot account for Fauci’s tone in recent weeks or why he continues to call for policies that would indicate that COVID-19 is much more serious than the flu; however, the actual evidence that is emerging — and more data is coming out every day — increasingly points to the fact that there are many more asymptomatic cases than there are reported cases. As Fauci and Redfield said, if “the number of asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic cases is several times as high as the number of reported cases, the case fatality rate may be considerably less than 1%” (and more like a severe seasonal flu). The reason I keep returning to this is because the actual evidence (not just model-based projections) indicates that asymptomatic cases are many times higher than the symptomatic cases. When Fauci and Redfield made this statement, it was not yet clearly known just how many asymptomatic cases there were. Fauci reiterated in an April 5th White House Press Briefing that the only way to know how many asymptomatic cases there were (and in turn how widespread the virus is) was to wait for antibody testing. Fauci explained: “You know when we’ll get the scientific data? When we get those antibody tests out there and we really know what the penetrance is, then we can answer the questions in a scientifically sound way” (begin the video around the 01:30 minute mark). The data below seems to provide this scientifically sound information. This matters greatly because the recommendations for the lockdowns, social distancing, et al. were based on the belief that the virus was much more lethal than flu. But now the data is coming in and seems to indicate that the virus is indeed much more widespread than originally thought (and is in turn much less lethal).

Evidence that COVID-19 is more widespread (and much less lethal)

From the Associated Press on April 20th:

“A flood of new research suggests that far more people have had the coronavirus without any symptoms, fueling hope that it will turn out to be much less lethal than originally feared.”

And here are just a few specific examples of this flood of new research:

(1) From the San Francisco Chronicle on April 17th:

“It has long been assumed by medical experts that the United States is drastically underreporting the actual number of COVID-19 infections across the country due to limited testing and a high number of asymptomatic cases. Large-scale antibody tests are expected to give researchers an idea of just how widespread the outbreak is, and preliminary results from the first such test in Santa Clara County suggest we are underreporting cases by at least a factor of 50.”

If the cases were underreported by at least a factor of 50, this means that there are 50 times more cases than what has been reported, which means that the death rate could be up to 50 times lower than what was assumed without the asymptomatic cases. The World Health Organization estimated early on that the fatality rate was around 3.4%. Following that early estimate by the WHO, Dr. Fauci stated on March 11th that COVID-19 is ten times more deadly than the flu (for a death rate of 1% compared to seasonal flu’s average of .1%). But if this study is even remotely accurate, it would mean that the death rate from COVID-19 could potentially be less than seasonal flu, but at the very least certainly no worse (Note: the article later suggests there could be up to 85 times more cases, not just 50).

(2) From the Wall Street Journal on March 24th (article written by two professors of medicine at Stanford):

“If it’s true that the novel coronavirus would kill millions without shelter-in-place orders and quarantines, then the extraordinary measures being carried out in cities and states around the country are surely justified. But there’s little evidence to confirm that premise — and projections of the death toll could plausibly be orders of magnitude too high. Fear of Covid-19 is based on its high estimated case fatality rate — 2% to 4% of people with confirmed Covid-19 have died, according to the World Health Organization and others. So if 100 million Americans ultimately get the disease, two million to four million could die. We believe that estimate is deeply flawed.

The true fatality rate is the portion of those infected who die, not the deaths from identified positive cases. . . . U.S. cases included a person who traveled from Wuhan on Jan. 15, and it is likely that the virus entered before that: Tens of thousands of people traveled from Wuhan to the U.S. in December. Existing evidence suggests that the virus is highly transmissible and that the number of infections doubles roughly every three days. An epidemic seed on Jan. 1 implies that by March 9 about six million people in the U.S. would have been infected. As of March 23, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there were 499 Covid-19 deaths in the U.S. If our surmise of six million cases is accurate, that’s a mortality rate of 0.01%, assuming a two week lag between infection and death. This is one-tenth of the flu mortality rate of 0.1%. Such a low death rate would be cause for optimism.” (emphasis added)

(3) From the New York Times on April 17th:

“To know the fatality rate you need to know how many people are infected and how many people died from the disease,” said Ali H. Mokdad, a professor of health metrics sciences at the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation. “We know how many people are dying, but we don’t know how many people are infected.” . . .

But the missing data on deaths in the deaths-to-infections ratio is still almost certain to be dwarfed by the expected increase in the denominator when the total number of infections is better understood, epidemiologists say. The statistic typically cited by mayors and governors at Covid-19 news conferences relies on a data set that includes mostly people whose symptoms were severe enough to be tested.” (emphasis added)

Presumably, the lockdowns, social distancing, and other government responses to COVID-19 were put in place because the fatality rate was thought to be much higher than seasonal flu. But as this article from the New York Times contends, we are most likely drastically undercounting the true number of infections. And while there may be some deaths that have as yet been unconfirmed as caused by COVID-19, the number of deaths has not been underestimated by orders of magnitude, unlike the infections that have not been included in the official statistics. Here’s a quick illustration:

As noted above, Dr. Fauci and others estimated early on that the fatality rate of COVID-19 was around 1% (or ten times higher than the flu’s average of .1%). Expressed as a fraction, Dr. Fauci’s estimate would look like this:

In Fauci’s estimate, for every 100 cases of COVID-19, 1 person would die. Case Fatality Rates in other states (and in other nations) have varied widely, and there are many reasons for this (e.g., age and underlying health of those diagnosed with COVID, air pollution, health infrastructure, and more). But related to the discussion of how many people have actually been infected with COVID-19 — not just those who have tested positive — what happens if the true number of infections is orders of magnitude higher than what has been confirmed? If the denominator (the bottom number of the fraction — the number of actual cases) is increased, this means that the actual infection fatality rate (the IFR) is drastically lower than the estimates made by public health officials, including Dr. Fauci. For example, if there were actually 1,000 people infected for every death, this would mean the fatality rate is not 1% but .1% — right at the level of seasonal flu.

And if the antibody studies are at all indicative of how widespread the virus is and how many people have already been infected, then it is at the very least irresponsible for the media and public health officials to continue to show only the number of confirmed deaths and confirmed infections and then use those figures to build the case that the virus is much more lethal than the flu (thus justifying the lockdowns, social distancing, etc.). And to be fair, while it is true that no one knows exactly how many unconfirmed infections there are, more and more studies continue to indicate the virus is much more widespread than the confirmed cases show. See just one more example from Florida:

(4) From CNN on April 25th (cases in Miami-Dade County, Florida):

“The data showed 6% of the people in the study tested positive for Covid-19 antibodies, which extrapolates to around 165,000 residents, Gimenez said. In comparison, the Florida Department of Health says 10,701 people have tested positive in Miami-Dade County. That means that the actual number of Covid-19 cases in Miami-Dade County is about 16.5 times the number reported by the state, Gimenez said. . . . According to Gimenez, the study’s researchers are 95% certain that the true number of people infected in Miami-Dade County is between 4.4% and 7.9%, or between 123,000 and 221,000 people.” (emphasis added)

(5) There are also many international antibody studies that show significantly larger portions of the population have been infected with COVID-19 but have not been counted in official statistics. Like the studies in the United States, these indicate that the virus is much more widespread and much less lethal than originally feared.

What if the antibody tests are wrong?

Some have cautioned that the antibody tests cannot be trusted because they can yield both false negatives and false positives. This is an understandable concern, but the possibility of both false negatives and false positives is equally true for many of the actual COVID tests that are being used to confirm whether or not someone is actively sick with the virus. If we were to discount the antibody tests on the basis of inaccurate results, we should also heavily discount the accuracy of COVID testing in general. However, these tests (particularly the “confirmed positives”) have been used to justify the lockdowns and other measures in most jurisdictions. If policymakers can make decisions based on the results of one kind of imperfect test (not to mention grossly inaccurate models), why should they not make or revise policies based on another type of imperfect test? Moreover, even if the antibody studies that have been conducted in many jurisdictions yielded 50% false positives (which is nowhere close to the concerns outlined by critics), the virus would still be MUCH more widespread than the confirmed cases indicate. For example, in the Santa Clara study that indicated that there had been 50 to 85 times more cases than those that had been confirmed, if we assumed that 50% were false positives, then there would still be at least 25 times more cases than the confirmed cases show, which would indicate that the virus is 25 times less lethal than originally thought (still placing the fatality rate within the range of seasonal flu, as Drs. Fauci and Redfield suggested).

But let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that the antibody tests should be completely rejected. Could the lockdowns and social distancing measures still be justified because we are unsure of how lethal the virus is?

The ineffectiveness of lockdowns and social distancing

Despite claims by Dr. Fauci and other government officials that the lockdowns and social distancing are required to slow the spread of the virus, some studies early on showed that lockdowns and social distancing were ineffective in reducing virus-related deaths. Further evidence has emerged over the past several weeks that indicates the lockdowns and enforced social distancing have done little to stop or even slow the spread of the virus. Take the example of long-term care facilities. As virtually everyone knows, long-term care facilities have imposed incredibly strict lockdowns throughout the duration of the outbreak, forbidding family members to visit their loved ones, often including those who are close to death. One needs only to Google the countless instances of family members standing outside the windows of these long-term care facilities to see (or sing to) loved ones they are prohibited from visiting. But what has been the result of these lockdowns? Have they prohibited the spread of COVID-19 within these facilities and thus preserved the lives of these residents? Here’s what NPR reported on May 9th:

“[F]atalities in long-term care facilities have surpassed a grim threshold in much of the country, accounting for at least a third of the deaths in 26 states and more than half in 14 of those” (emphasis added).

This data shows at least two things: (1) lockdown measures cannot truly stop (and arguably do little to slow) the spread of the virus and (2) a significant number of those who die from COVID-19 are aged and/or in poor health (the median age of death from COVID-19 in the United States is 78–80).

But it’s not just nursing homes.

New York City has imposed some of the tightest restrictions on its population from the beginning, which is more understandable in light of the population density of the city. But have the lockdowns really prevented the spread of COVID-19 and slowed hospitalizations and deaths? From CNBC on May 6th:

“Most new Covid-19 hospitalizations in New York state are from people who were staying home and not venturing much outside, a “shocking” finding, Gov. Andrew Cuomo said Wednesday.

The preliminary data was from 100 New York hospitals involving about 1,000 patients, Cuomo said at his daily briefing.

It shows that 66% of new admissions were from people who had largely been sheltering at home. The next highest source of admissions was from nursing homes, 18%.

“If you notice, 18% of the people came from nursing homes, less than 1% came from jail or prison, 2% came from the homeless population, 2% from other congregate facilities, but 66% of the people were at home, which is shocking to us,” Cuomo said.

“This is a surprise: Overwhelmingly, the people were at home,” he added. “We thought maybe they were taking public transportation, and we’ve taken special precautions on public transportation, but actually no, because these people were literally at home.”

Cuomo said nearly 84% of the hospitalized cases were people who were not commuting to work through car services, personal cars, public transit or walking. He said a majority of those people were either retired or unemployed” (emphasis added).

While the data from the antibody studies shows that the virus is significantly less lethal than first projected, it also shows that COVID-19 is a highly transmissible virus. This is confirmed not only by its rapid spread across the world and throughout the United States before many lockdowns were implemented but also by the inability of lockdowns to contain it. To be sure, people should continue to wash their hands and do whatever they can to boost their immune systems to fight off COVID-19 and other viral illnesses, but keeping people locked down is clearly not slowing the spread of the virus. One recent article from The Lancet reached the following conclusions:

“Everyone will be exposed to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, and most people will become infected. COVID-19 is spreading like wildfire in all countries, but we do not see it — it almost always spreads from younger people with no or weak symptoms to other people who will also have mild symptoms. This is the real pandemic, but it goes on beneath the surface, and is probably at its peak now in many European countries. There is very little we can do to prevent this spread: a lockdown might delay severe cases for a while, but once restrictions are eased, cases will reappear. I expect that when we count the number of deaths from COVID-19 in each country in 1 year from now, the figures will be similar, regardless of measures taken.” (emphasis added)

Two months ago, the stated purpose for imposing the lockdowns and social distancing was to “flatten the curve” in an effort to prevent hospitals from being overrun. However, many government officials are continuing lockdowns despite the fact that most hospitals were never close to being overwhelmed. But while the lockdowns seemed to have achieved little as far as slowing the spread and reducing deaths, they have without question resulted in incalculable harm to people’s lives, livelihoods, and freedoms (more on this harm below).

What about Social Distancing?

Some argue that even when formal lockdowns like shelter-in-place and stay-at-home orders are lifted, individuals must still maintain adequate social distancing in order to slow the spread of the virus. Maintaining some measure of social distancing is part of the “new normal” that many say will go on indefinitely. A few points on this mandated social distancing are worth noting:

First, there is no agreement on what amount of social distancing actually slows or prevents the spread of COVID-19 or other respiratory illnesses. For example, while the CDC has recommended that individuals remain at least 6 feet apart from one another, the WHO recommends that individuals maintain at least one meter (a little over 3 feet) of distance. Which organization is correct? Officials in the United States have argued that greater distancing would reduce transmission, which is certainly a reasonable assumption, but viral particles have been known to travel much farther than 6 feet (up to 23 or even 27 feet!) and can remain airborne for hours. So while the 3 and 6-foot guidelines may seem to be helpful, they are to some degree arbitrary, as studies (and corresponding recommendations) differ widely. Why not 4 feet? Or 7? Why not 20? I think we can all understand that we should be careful when it comes to viral illnesses and that we should all practice proper hygiene, but at what point do these social distancing limitations become more “health theater” that provide a feeling of being protected from the virus but that do not actually reduce its spread?

If viral particles can spread much farther than 6 feet and can remain suspended in the air long enough for many people to inhale them, what kinds of social distancing could realistically be imposed? Is the answer to indefinitely prohibit gatherings like weddings, sporting events, and church services such that we never return to normal life? Again, if the virus were as severe as initially claimed, such social distancing could perhaps be understandable, at least for a time. But if the virus is no more lethal than the flu (which the data above seems to show), are we to continue with this type of social distancing to guard against seasonal flu and other illnesses? Is that a tradeoff worth making?

Finally, while many have written about the effects of the lockdowns on both mental and physical health, fewer have written on the effects of mandated social distancing on our emotional and physical well-being. This article catalogues more than a dozen studies that show how social distancing (and the accompanying social isolation) has a seriously negative effect on both mental and physical health. This article from the New York Times further highlights these risks:

“The Health Resources and Services Administration cautions that loneliness can be as damaging to health as smoking 15 cigarettes a day. Feelings of isolation and loneliness can increase the likelihood of depression, high blood pressure, and death from heart disease. They can also affect the immune system’s ability to fight infection — a fact that’s especially relevant during a pandemic. Studies have shown that loneliness can activate our fight-or-flight function, causing chronic inflammation and reducing the body’s ability to defend itself from viruses.”

Social distancing may also have serious consequences for children, as prolonged social isolation (and social distancing when schools reopen) not only contributes to short-term anxiety and depression (which carry their own consequences for physical well-being) but can negatively affect kids’ long-term social development as well.

Finally, this study from The Lancet strongly argues that the consequences of forcible quarantines and social distancing must be weighed against the perceived benefits of these policies:

“Separation from loved ones, the loss of freedom, uncertainty over disease status, and boredom can, on occasion, create dramatic effects. Suicide has been reported, substantial anger generated, and lawsuits brought following the imposition of quarantine in previous outbreaks. The potential benefits of mandatory mass quarantine need to be weighed carefully against the possible psychological costs.”

As stated earlier, if the lethality of COVID-19 was truly that much greater than seasonal flu, then the tremendous harm caused by the lockdowns and social distancing might be a sort of necessary evil. But if COVID-19 is not significantly more lethal than the flu, as the evidence increasingly suggests, then the harms caused by these government measures FAR outweigh any perceived benefit (assuming that lockdowns and social distancing actually reduced the spread of COVID-19, which the data above shows is questionable at best).

What about masks?

As I’ve been typing these notes, I’m sitting in my minivan in the Target parking lot (because the restaurants and coffee shops where I would normally work are closed). In the hours I’ve been sitting here, I have watched people come and go, some wearing masks (and a few wearing gloves), but most people are walking in and out of the store as if it were a normal day (the parking lot is full, as is the store). Of the minority who are wearing masks, a handful are wearing them correctly, but some fail to cover their nose. Others have constantly readjusted their masks several times before walking inside, some even after retrieving a shopping cart that had not been sanitized. I’ve also seen several people with masks return to their cars and immediately pull their masks off before washing their hands or using hand sanitizer (one young lady pulled her mask off (touching her face) and then used hand sanitizer). One other gentleman wore blue latex gloves into the store and, after returning to his vehicle about 30 minutes later, proceeded to use these same gloves to adjust the radio and back out of his parking space. Instances like this are repeated day in and day out.

On another occasion, I observed numerous people with masks as I waited in a return line at Costco. Roughly 20 to 25% of the people I saw walking by were wearing masks that were only covering their mouths. At least half of the people I saw touched their faces to readjust their masks or were talking on their phones (with their hands on or near their faces), and this was only in the brief time while people were walking out of Costco. Still more were wearing masks and gloves but proceeded to retrieve their phones and keys from their pockets and then placed their now-contaminated items back into their pockets. Finally, for many couples who presumably arrived at Costco in the same vehicle and were certainly not social distancing from one another, one person wore a mask but the other did not. Even if masks were 100% effective in filtering viral particles (they are not), unless everyone you live with or spend time with is also wearing a mask when they go out, the effectiveness of your own efforts at using a mask are greatly reduced (if not nullified), as these loved ones could then spread the virus to you at home.

These examples, particularly the increased risk of touching one’s face, are part of the reason Dr. Fauci recommended against wearing masks in a March interview with 60 Minutes. And even though Dr. Fauci and other government officials have recommended (and in some cases mandated) the use of masks since that time, this does not change the underlying reasons Dr. Fauci and others counseled against using them. At best at this point, the evidence is mixed on whether or not masks are effective in reducing the spread of COVID-19 (this article from Time summarizes the debate; this article shows the inconsistent recommendations even between the CDC and WHO). In any case, cloth or surgical masks certainly do not filter out all viral particles, so mask-wearing is by no means failsafe. More than that, though, one study from the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy (CIDRAP) claims that the recommendation that the general public wear masks is not based on sound data. Finally, even if wearing masks could reduce the likelihood of transmission, an article from the British Medical Journal makes clear that there are significant risks associated with wearing masks that could outweigh any perceived benefit.

Despite the many studies that show that masks are ultimately ineffective, some public health officials (and many in the media) have pointed to a study that claims “universal masking is urgent in the COVID-19 pandemic.” This study is based on two models that seek to “predict[] the impact of universal face mask wearing upon the spread of the SARS-CoV-2.” To implement this strategy at this point would be ineffective for at least two reasons.

First, the study argues that there will be a “significant impact [on COVID-19 transmission] when universal masking is adopted early, by Day 50 of a regional out-break, versus minimal impact when universal masking is adopted late” (emphasis added). I am composing this article on May 24th, well after the CDC reported the first instances of community spread in the United States in late February. Moreover, it is possible (increasingly probable) that the virus was circulating in the United States much sooner than initially believed, as the first deaths in the United States came weeks earlier than scientists thought (two deaths in California, one from February 6th). Furthermore, scientists at University College London’s Genetics Institute recently concluded that “[p]hylogenetic estimates support that the COVID-2 pandemic started sometime around Oct. 6, 2019 to Dec. 11, 2019,” which “suggests SARS-CoV-2 was being transmitted extensively around the world from early on in the epidemic.” Thus, for universal masking to have been effective, the policy would have needed to be implemented many weeks ago.

The second reason that universal masking would be ineffective, even if it had been adopted early on, is because the models in the study relied on assumptions about the effectiveness of masks when arriving at their conclusions. Here’s what the study claims:

“Masks indisputably protect individuals against airborne transmission of respiratory diseases. A recent Cochrane meta-analysis found that masking, handwashing, and using gowns and/or gloves can reduce the spread of respiratory viruses, although evidence for any individual one of these measures is still of low certainty (Burch and Bunt, 2020).” (emphasis added)

Contrary to the study’s claim, masks do not “indisputably” protect individuals from airborne transmission; indeed, the study itself acknowledges that “evidence for any individual one of these measures is still of low certainty.” In fact, the studies cited above show both the ineffectiveness of mask-wearing as well as the risks of wearing masks. But not only are masks ultimately ineffective at filtering viral particles; studies show they may actually increase the risk of infection due to “[m]oisture retention, reuse of cloth masks, and poor filtration.” Additional studies on both the risks and ineffectiveness of wearing masks can be found here.

Why is all this evidence and data not being considered when it comes to the lockdowns and other government policies?

One thing that has been personally frustrating to me is that many in the media — and many government officials — have either downplayed or ignored the mounting evidence that indicates the virus is more widespread and less severe. They have also minimized (if not completely ignored) the detrimental effects on mental and physical health that have been caused by the lockdowns and social distancing, accepting these policies as inevitable and imposing them without question. To be fair, most in the media and many government officials were doing the best they could with the limited data they had at the beginning of the crisis. However, the evidence that was relied upon initially to impose lockdowns and mandate social distancing has proven to be incorrect, as it was based on very early estimates of the death rate and corresponding inaccurate models that relied upon this very early and incorrect estimate. Nevertheless, we should seek to judge our public health officials and government leaders as charitably as possible, knowing that locking down cities, states, and countries was at least understandable when the projected death rate was orders of magnitude higher than seasonal flu. Although there is no historical precedent (at least not that I am aware of) for imposing quarantines preventively on those who are healthy, perhaps one could argue that desperate times called for desperate measures. But while the initial response of governments across the world and throughout the United States was perhaps understandable (though constitutionally questionable), many governments have continued to rely on models that have been revised, updated, and revised again after they were repeatedly proven to be grossly inaccurate. This leads to an honest and urgent question: Why do government officials continue to rely on this outdated and incorrect information? New evidence is emerging daily that shows that confirmed cases and confirmed fatalities do not provide an accurate picture of how deadly the virus is. Why not take this extremely relevant information into account?

It is unquestionable that the lockdowns have taken a catastrophic toll across the globe (links below). Knowing this cost, if there is evidence that would indicate that the lockdowns were not effective and in fact can no longer be justified by the alleged severity of the virus, why are the lockdowns being continued? Unless we plan on keeping our country locked down in perpetuity, why continue the current lockdowns and mandated social distancing when we have never done this for seasonal influenza? The only rational conclusion that I can come to is that there is more at stake than the alleged purpose of saving lives. Is it power? Money? Control? Something else? Many have put forward possible reasons, but I do not write to offer any specific explanations. However, I fully believe that people in power will do many things to further their own interests, whatever those interests may be. And as a Christian, I recognize that all people are sinners, and apart from being changed by the grace of God, all people will act in their own selfish interests, often at the expense of others. Indeed, unconscionable evils have been committed throughout history to achieve ends that government officials believed were good and right (remember the holocaust, the gulags in the Soviet Union, and forced medical experiments in Nazi Germany, just to name a few). And many evils have been and continue to be committed in our own nation and have been condoned at the highest levels of government (slavery, lynching, systemic racism, and abortion, just to name a few). So while I don’t know all the specific reasons why the lockdowns and social distancing would continue to be promoted, I think we can all be reasonably certain that many government officials do not always have the best interests of the people in mind.

Recognizing that people will often act in their own self-interests, some have proposed that the virus and corresponding lockdowns are a grand conspiracy. However, it could also be as simple as government officials not wanting to admit that the lockdowns were the incorrect policy, as this could jeopardize their hopes of reelection in November. Regardless of the reasons, though, all I hope to show is that the lockdowns and other policies that have been imposed because of COVID-19 can no longer be justified by the threat of the actual virus, anymore than these measures could be justified by the threat of seasonal influenza.

Media Inaccuracies and Dishonest Reporting

In the same way that many government officials continue lockdowns and mandated social distancing on the basis of inaccurate models and outdated evidence, many in the media also continue to rely on incorrect data and likely inflated statistics (more on that below) to support these policies. As a result, many media outlets publish articles that continue to stoke fear among the public that simply is not warranted by the evidence, often using deceitful headlines to draw people in. Consider the following article from CNN on May 7th. Here’s the headline:

“Coronavirus is deadlier in the US than the seasonal flu, new study finds.”

Here are the first two paragraphs:

“A new estimate of the US infection fatality rate from the novel coronavirus puts it at 1.3%, making it deadlier than the seasonal flu, which in a typical season has a 0.1% infection fatality rate.

Anirban Basu, a professor in the department of pharmacy at the University of Washington in Seattle, used publicly available data on infection numbers and deaths from the novel coronavirus through April 20.”

When I read these statements, it seems pretty conclusive that the death rate is 13 times higher than the seasonal flu (which, again, would be horrible). But here’s what the article states in its last two paragraphs:

“Some context: These are just preliminary figures, Basu said. The case fatality rate is based on the reported number of confirmed cases and confirmed Covid-19-related deaths.

Since it is still unclear how many people have actually been infected, the rate is probably not that high, although the authors did create a model that tried to account for some of the unknowns. The model doesn’t account for the number of asymptomatic cases. The numbers will be clearer when there is more testing, Basu said.” (emphasis added)

There are many words that could describe the headline and opening paragraphs of this article: dishonest, misleading, deceptive, et al. No doubt many people will only see the headline and conclude that the virus is much more deadly than the flu; many others will read the opening two paragraphs and believe that the virus is 13 times deadlier than the flu. But even for those who read to the end, the title and opening paragraphs of the article condition the reader to believe that the virus is very severe and that the “some context” paragraphs are just an afterthought. The evidence on the number of asymptomatic cases had been mounting for weeks prior to this article’s release. It is thus irresponsible — and frankly dishonest — to mislead the public concerning the true threat of the virus. Indeed, it is this type of reporting and the government policies that rely upon it that has kept many people in fear and willing to accept the lockdowns and social distancing as an inevitable part of life.

But what about all the deaths attributed to COVID-19? Does this not justify the lockdowns and social distancing?

If all the deaths that have been attributed to COVID-19, both in the United States and around the world, were truly caused by the virus, then these figures would certainly be cause for concern. Indeed, every death should be mourned, as every life is precious. However, even if the death toll presented in the media is accurate, this would not necessarily justify the lockdowns and other government responses, as these policies have resulted in an avalanche of unintended consequences that have also led (and will continue to lead) to tremendous suffering and death. But what if the true death toll has been misrepresented, intentionally or unintentionally? This should give even more pause before implementing or continuing lockdowns and social distancing. Below is some evidence to consider:

First, if we look at how COVID-19 deaths are actually being counted, it is highly likely that these figures are substantially overstated. Many people may have heard arguments about whether people are dying from COVID or with COVID. If someone actually dies from COVID, this means that the virus actually caused or contributed to the individual’s death. Such deaths should rightly be attributed to the virus and should be counted in the official COVID-19 death toll. However, a substantial number of recorded COVID deaths were not caused by COVID at all but were nevertheless counted in the death toll, leading to an overestimation of how deadly the virus actually is. Here are a few examples:

From Dr. Ngozi Ezike, Director of the Illinois Department of Public Health:

“I just want to be clear in terms of the definition of ‘people dying of COVID.’ The case definition is very simplistic. It means, at the time of death, it was a COVID positive diagnosis. So that means that if you were in hospice and had already been given a few weeks to live, and then you also were found to have COVID, that would be counted as a COVID death. It means, that, technically, even if you died of clear alternative cause, but you had COVID at the same time, it’s still listed as a COVID death. So, everyone who is listed as a COVID death doesn’t mean that was the cause of the death but they had COVID at the time of death.” (emphasis added)

And from Michigan:

“In Macomb County, Chief Medical Examiner Daniel Spitz had a recent case in which an individual died by suicide.

Because they had a family member in the hospital suffering from COVID-19, Spitz had a postmortem test done and found that the individual who died at home was positive for COVID-19. The virus wasn’t their cause of death, but the individual is counted as a COVID-19 death.” (emphasis added)

These examples from Michigan and Illinois are not isolated; in fact, Dr. Deborah Birx, a member of the Trump Administration’s coronavirus task force (along with Dr. Fauci), said on April 7th:

“So, I think in this country we’ve taken a very liberal approach to mortality. . . . if someone dies with COVID-19, we are counting that as a COVID-19 death.”

This “liberal approach to mortality” and counting all who die with COVID-19 as “COVID-19 deaths” has made it incredibly difficult to understand just how many people actually die from COVID-19. The results of this kind of accounting are significant. For example, on April 14th, New York “added more than 3,700 additional people who were presumed to have died of the coronavirus but had never tested positive.” While it is certainly possible that some of these presumed cases could have tested positive for COVID-19 if testing were to be conducted, it is also possible that many of these deaths could be attributed to RSV, the flu, or many other illnesses. Because they are simply presumed cases, no one knows for sure what illness or condition led to death. But in any case, it seems unreasonable to assume that all 3,700 of these presumed cases resulted from COVID-19, just as it would be unreasonable to assume that all 3,700 deaths did not result from COVID-19 but instead were attributed to flu or something else. In short, though, the inclusion of so many “presumed” cases in the official death toll almost assuredly means that the number of people who have died of COVID-19 in New York (and in turn the United States) has been overstated — the question is by how much. Which leads us to Colorado:

“Within a week, local Montezuma County Coroner George Deavers determined Yellow had died of acute alcohol poisoning, his blood alcohol measured at .55, nearly twice the lethal limit.”

“It was almost double what the minimum lethal amount was in the state”, said Deavers, during an interview with CBS4.

But Deavers said that before he even signed the death certificate, the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment had already categorized Yellow’s death as being due to COVID-19 and it was tabulated that way on the state’s website.

“I can see no reason for this”, said Deavers.

Yellow’s death is the latest in Colorado raising eyebrows over the way the CDPHE is reclassifying deaths that runs contrary to what doctors and coroners initially ruled.

Last month, a CBS4 Investigation revealed the state health department reclassified three deaths at a Centennial nursing home as COVID-19 deaths, despite the fact attending physicians ruled all three were not related to coronavirus.

In each case, the residents had tested positive for COVID-19, but in each case, on-scene doctors ruled the deaths were not related to the virus. Still, in their official tally, the state increased the number of coronavirus deaths at the Someren Glen facility from four to seven, based on the disputed deaths.” (emphasis added)

In response to instances like this, the Colorado Department of Public Health recently changed the way it counts COVID deaths, which resulted in the state’s official count being reduced by nearly a quarter — from 1150 to 878. This is close to 300 deaths in one U.S. state being improperly attributed to COVID-19.

And one more — consider the following headline from a case in Louisiana:

“Coronavirus: One-day-old baby dies of Covid-19 complications in Louisiana, coroner says.”

Judging by this headline, one would assume that the baby contracted COVID-19 and then died as a result. The first paragraph would seem to make that crystal clear: “A one-day-old baby in Louisiana has died following complications from coronavirus, according to East Baton Rouge coroner Beau Clark.” However, here’s what the article goes on to explain in the fourth paragraph:

“Dr Clark said the mother [who had COVID] ‘went into pre-term labour and ultimately delivered the baby prematurely, and in doing so, the baby, because of the extreme prematurity, did not survive.’” (emphasis added).

This death is tragic, but the article makes clear that the baby was born three months premature. Nevertheless, the article continues:

“The coroner said the child has not tested positive for Covid-19 but doctors and the state’s epidemiologist agreed that the death can be ruled a coronavirus-related death.” (emphasis added)

If the COVID-19 death toll is going to provide an accurate picture of how deadly the virus is, it cannot include deaths of people who either died with COVID-19 or died because they were related to someone who had COVID-19. Such accounting skews the actual fatality rate of the disease. In addition to undercounting the number of actual cases (the denominator in the fractions discussed earlier), if public health officials are also over-counting the number of COVID deaths (the numerator in the earlier fractions), then the fatality rate is doubly skewed. Nevertheless, some have argued that the death count from COVID-19 has actually been under-counted, claiming that the “excess deaths” tracked by the CDC are most likely people who have died from COVID-19; however, in the absence of testing and a known cause of death, at best this is reasonable speculation. While some excess deaths could have resulted directly from COVID-19, excess deaths could be attributed to any number of causes, not the least of which are the government-imposed lockdowns that have resulted in increased suicides, drug overdoses, domestic violence, and not seeking care for other conditions, to name only a few.

The Incalculable Cost of the Lockdowns

Even if COVID-19 were as deadly as was first assumed, governments cannot enact policies based solely on the recommendations of epidemiologists and medical professionals (many of whom have disagreed from the beginning on the best course of action to mitigate the effects of the virus — See Sweden). To be clear, medical professionals certainly have a role to play when it comes to combatting the virus; indeed, the wisdom of well-respected physicians and epidemiologists is invaluable. Nevertheless, it must be remembered that even the best medical professionals do not have all the answers and will make imperfect recommendations. Moreover, it is not as straightforward as simply relying on “science” to chart the best course through the COVID-19 crisis, as many scientists disagree on what the proper response to the outbreak should be, what the best treatments are, how serious the virus is, and more. Consequently, government officials and members of the media would do well to remember that science does not take sides; rather, ongoing scientific inquiry should take into account all evidence and data to come to the best and most scientific conclusions possible. Moreover, statements that “experts recommend” or “science indicates” should always be evaluated to ensure that there is actual scientific evidence to support the recommendations. Often times, politicians and others will use terms like “experts” and “science” to support their policies and to shield them from scrutiny, but careful evaluation of the evidence may show that these policies are actually not supported by science (or that there are at least divergent opinions on where the science should lead).

But even if all the medical experts and scientists did agree that lockdowns and social distancing were the best actions we could take to reduce the spread of the virus, they see only one part of the bigger picture. Encouraging or mandating that people stay home, that businesses close, and that schools move online have had myriad unintended (but foreseeable) consequences. Indeed, shutting down economies and separating people from their loved ones, even with the best of intentions of controlling an outbreak, can be (and have been) nothing short of catastrophic. Here are just a few examples:

75,000 “deaths of despair” (from suicide, drug overdoses, and more) may result from the lockdowns in the United States (some estimates put this number at 150,000) .

The lockdowns may also result in millions of tuberculosis cases around the world (and tens of thousands of deaths).

Because of the lockdowns (and the overstated threat of the virus), many people will die (and have died) from failing to seek care for other conditions, including heart attacks, strokes, and cancer.

Significantly more American children are going hungry, and millions around the world will be on the brink of starvation by year’s end.

For the sake of time I won’t discuss how privacy and constitutional rights have also been severely (and in some cases irreparably) damaged as a result of the government response to COVID-19. I also won’t discuss the over 36 million jobs that have been lost in the United States over the past two months (that’s a number we really can’t wrap our heads around). But the cost in lives and livelihoods, to say nothing of the cost to individual liberty that so many have fought and died for throughout our nation’s history, has also been incalculable. Had these costs been incurred as the result of a seriously deadly virus that could have killed millions and millions of people, these costs would have been more understandable, though many would argue that there are some things (e.g., freedom, faith, seeing family, etc.) that are worth more than the risk of death. But to impose these costs because of a virus that a growing body of evidence indicates is no worse than the flu is simply unconscionable.

Driven by Emotions Instead of Evidence

In light of all the evidence outlined above, why do many government officials, along with countless Americans, continue to believe that lockdowns and social distancing are the only available options to survive COVID-19? One major reason is our tendency — and by “our” I mean mine as well — to rely not simply on data and evidence but on emotions and fear. How does this happen? In addition to misleading headlines and inaccurate statistics, many media outlets continue to induce fear by publishing articles that appeal more to people’s emotions than the actual data on how serious the virus is. To be clear, I am not making a claim as to whether or not the intent of the media is to cause fear; rather, I simply mean to show that many articles and stories inevitably induce fear by appealing to people’s emotions. Below is one example from Canada on May 10th, 2020. Here’s the headline:

“‘I would do anything for a do-over’: Calgary church hopes others learn from their tragic COVID-19 experience”

And here is the relevant (and tragic) information:

“‘I had the opportunity recently to talk to a faith leader whose faith community gathered together in mid-March before many of our public health measures were in place,’ Dr Deena Hinshaw said Thursday. ‘The congregation had a worship service and then gathered together for a celebratory social event. There were only 41 people present, and they were careful to observe two meter distancing and good hand hygiene. They followed all the rules and did nothing wrong.’

Despite that, 24 of the 41 people at the party ended up infected. Two of them died.” (emphasis added)

The article goes on to explain that one of the people who died was 81. Information about the second person who passed away was not made available.

This story hits close to home for me, as I serve as a lay pastor of a small church in a small town. I can’t imagine losing even one of our church members, much less two. But the fact that two people died from one local church does not change the overall fatality rate of COVID-19; it also does not automatically mean that COVID-19 is more dangerous than the flu or other illnesses. Moreover, this tragic story does not change the antibody studies that show the virus is much more widespread and less severe. But this article does appeal to my emotions, and if I am not careful, I can begin to base my beliefs and corresponding decisions about the threat of the virus not on evidence and data but on emotions and fear. Similar articles can have the same effect:

“Mom of 6 who survived breast cancer dies from coronavirus.”

EVERETT, Wash. — A best friend of an Everett mother of six, who was recovering from breast cancer surgery and treatments, says she died this week at an Everett hospital from COVID-19.

Jessica Harris says Sundee Rutter, 42, wasn’t feeling well on March 3 and thought she might have coronavirus.

“And (doctors) told her she didn’t have it and she went and self-quarantined herself at home for four days,” Harris said.

Rutter’s condition worsened to where she was having difficulty breathing, and she had her son take her to the hospital on the 7th.

“And she passed away on the 16th,” Harris said.

Harris says she couldn’t believe it was true. She says she’d been thinking like many others all the panic over the virus was overblown.

“And then when I got the news of her, I was like ‘Oh my God, this is not something to play with, this is serious’ and now my outlook is different.” (emphasis added)

Like the two deaths at the small Calgary church, this mother’s death is tragic. No one can ever understand the depth of loss her children and friends feel, but this story at least helps honor her memory and enables the community to grieve. Sharing this story also creates empathy and compassion and hopefully even elicits tangible help for these children who are now without a mother. But while this article can accomplish good purposes in creating empathy and even warning others to take COVID-19 seriously, it can also cause people to overestimate the danger of COVID-19 relative to other risks. Like the first article about the Calgary church, this mother’s tragic death does not change the overall fatality rate of COVID-19, and it does not mean that COVID-19 is more dangerous than the flu. In fact, the same kind of emotional appeals that address the severity of COVID-19 are also made about seasonal influenza. Consider the following articles:

(1) “2 Utah Military Academy cadets die from flu-related complications” (January 25th, 2020).

“According to a Gofundme page set up by family friends, 13-year-old Braxton Graham passed away on Friday due to “flu, pneumonia and septic shock.” He first came down with symptoms on Jan. 17, according to the page. He was a cadet at the Utah Military Academy in Riverdale.

Weber-Morgan Health Department confirmed that two Utah students died due to flu-associated illnesses. 2News has confirmed the second student at the Utah Military Academy died from similar issues. His identity has not been released at this time.”

(2) “She got a flu shot — but Indiana youth pastor is ‘dancing with Jesus’ after virus” (January 23, 2020).

“A 36-year-old Indiana youth pastor who was called a “motherly type figure” by her church’s pastor died from a flu-related illness this week, according to Reddington Christian Church.

Allison Williams began feeling sick after attending the Tennessee Christian Teen Convention on the weekend of Jan. 12, according to The Seymour Tribune. A few days later, doctors told her she had the Type A flu — despite getting a flu shot earlier this season, the newspaper reported.

Her symptoms worsened and after arriving at the emergency room, she went into cardiac arrest, the church wrote on Facebook. She died a short time later, with the pastor of her church present, WLKY reported.”

(3) “Naples girl, 11, dies from flu complications” (February 9th, 2017).

“An 11-year-old child from Naples, Ontario County has died of complications from the flu, according to her family’s friend and pastor. This is the first pediatric death related to the flu in a decade in Ontario County, according to the Ontario County Health Director.

The state health department confirms this is the fifth child statewide to die of flu complications.

Family friends and a church pastor tell 13WHAM News that 11-year-old Madeline Barton hadn’t felt well, so her father took her to the doctor Monday and she was treated for an ear infection. Her condition worsened that night and she was rushed to the hospital. She died Wednesday night at Strong Memorial Hospital. Pastor Linda Shevlin told 13WHAM News Maddie died of influenza A and encephalitis.”

And a few more:

“Healthy Texas Mom Dies of Flu at 29, Leaves Three Kids.”

“Severe flu brings medicine shortages, packed ERs and a rising death toll in California.”

“Flu kills 34 more people, including a 1-year-old, in San Diego.”

“Flu blamed in deaths of 2 Guelph elementary school children.”

“Flu stomps the nation, overwhelming ERs and leaving 20 children dead.”

Is COVID-19 deadly and are any deaths associated with it tragic? Absolutely. But is the flu also deadly and are deaths associated with it also tragic? Absolutely. But these kinds of articles do not indicate the actual severity of either virus, nor should they be used as the basis for enacting policies to address them. According to the CDC, more than 80,000 people died during the winter of 2017–2018, including 186 children. But even during this relatively severe flu season, no states imposed lockdowns. No stay-at-home orders were issued. No businesses were shuttered. But despite the fact that evidence is increasingly showing that COVID-19 is not significantly more severe than the flu — again the evidence above indicates it is no more severe or possibly even less severe — extreme lockdowns have been implemented, with some states possibly extending these for weeks or even months longer. Moreover, some have called for social distancing to continue well beyond the lockdowns, perhaps even until 2022. But if antibody testing and other research continues to show that the virus is already much more widespread (and again much less severe), on what basis should these policies be continued? My concern is that these policies are being driven more by emotions and fear than science and evidence, and my hope is to point to the evidence so that our decisions, as individuals and as societies, are based on evidence and data. But even as I am urging others to make decisions based on the evidence and actual risks, I admit I am not immune to being driven by emotions and fear.

My Own Journey with Fear

I had a very good friend who was recently involved in a head-on collision that resulted in another woman’s death. This accident was tragic, and the loss to the woman’s loved ones was incalculable. Every life is precious, and we grieved this loss of life. Following the accident, my friend was understandably nervous about driving for quite some time. So were those who were passengers in his vehicle when the accident happened. And after personally observing the damage to the vehicles after arriving on scene, I also drove a bit more slowly on my way home that night and made doubly sure to fasten my seatbelt. What’s more, the media coverage of this tragic accident likely made many others a bit more cautious as they embarked on their daily commutes, even though the coverage of this accident was incredibly brief when compared to the coverage of COVID-19.

Here’s why this matters: If, prior to the accident, all of the parties affected would have looked at the statistical likelihood of dying in a car accident, the vast majority of people would not have given a second thought to driving or riding in a vehicle. This is true despite the fact that 36,560 people died in automobile accidents in the United States in 2018. But if the media engaged in blanket coverage of traffic fatalities — continually presenting images of crashes along with the names and faces of those who died — it is much more likely that many Americans would have a fear of driving that is inconsistent with the actual threat.

Consider also what happened after 9/11. I was a freshman in college when the planes crashed into the Twin Towers — I watched the second plane hit live. I remember exactly where I was, and I remember the dread and uncertainty that I felt — a dread that was shared by countless other Americans. I also remember watching those planes hit the buildings every day for the next several weeks, and with every video replay I became increasingly fearful. What if it happens again? What if it happens in my town? What if my family members are attacked? In the months that followed, I remember the color-coded terror threat levels issued by the Department of Homeland Security. There was never a time that I remember the threat dropping below “Elevated” — yellow — but I vividly remember times when the threat was raised to “High” or even “Severe.”

Left: The Homeland Security Advisory System (often referred to as the “terror alter level”); Right: The United Kingdom’s new COVID Alert System.

These threat levels were etched into the minds of Americans, and I and many others took seriously these color-coded bars, even avoiding travel or visiting crowded places (malls, theaters, etc.) when the threat levels were higher. But despite the fear that was perpetuated by the 9/11 attacks and the subsequent government policies and threat levels, the actual risk of dying in a terrorist attack was significantly less than the risk of death from countless other causes, including choking on food, drowning in a bathtub, and being struck by lightning. But terrorism felt much more deadly to me, and I feared it much more than any of these things. This is the power of personal experience and stories that appeal to our emotions.

Even more personally for me, though, I have feared sickness and death much more since my first daughter was born ten years ago. I know all of us have these fears to varying degrees, and I know that much of my fear is completely understandable, as the love that a father and husband has for his family should compel him to protect them as best he can. But my fear was dramatically heightened during the summer of 2011 when our best friends’ 15-month-old daughter tragically passed away. I will never forget the day she passed (or the phone call with my friend the night before). I will never forget her cute face, her beautiful smile, and her adorable laugh. And I will never, ever forget the sound of my friend’s neighbor’s voice who called me from my friend’s phone that dreadful morning — I knew she was gone before he finished his first sentence. And to this day, because of this precious little girl’s sudden passing, I am acutely aware of the risk that sickness poses to the most fragile among us, especially our children. Many nights (well, almost every night) I will check on our daughters before going to bed to make sure they are still breathing. And when our girls are sick, even if it’s just a cold, I will often set my alarm in the middle of the night to make sure they are ok. So when I hear stories of children becoming sick and dying of various illnesses — or when I hear of parents dying early and leaving behind young kids— it becomes very easy for me to be overtaken by fear. Like many others, I can be persuaded by stories that grip us emotionally. But if I am driven by fear and not by the reality of a threat, I often will not act in the best interests of my daughters, much less anyone else. I can become overprotective, overbearing, and irrational. And I can make decisions that, while well-intentioned to protect them from sickness, result in a greater amount of harm emotionally, relationally, and even spiritually. So for the good of all those I care for — my wife, my daughters, and my extended family; my friends, my church, and my students; my town, my state, and my nation — by God’s grace I must make decisions and take actions based on the best evidence available. This is hard, but if I can take a step back and evaluate the actual risks of any given threat, I will be better equipped to care for those I hold most dear.

Closing Thoughts (I Was Afraid)

I hope these thoughts and links have been helpful. I know it’s been a lot, but I wanted to share it because I personally know the toll that the lockdowns and social distancing can have (and have already had) on our families. Early on, before all this data started coming in, my wife and I hunkered down with our three daughters and were extremely careful. I decontaminated my clothes and shoes in the garage the few times I went out in March and early April, showering for twice as long as normal before even seeing my girls even when they ran to the door to hug me and could not fully understand why I wouldn’t touch them. As to packages and mail that would come on a daily basis (we deliberately ordered more groceries and household supplies from Amazon and other online retailers to avoid going out), I would quarantine them in the garage for at least three days before opening them to ensure that no live virus could have remained. We even prohibited our girls from riding their bikes in the driveway in order to minimize interactions with neighbors. And early on we did not know how many weeks (or even months) it might be before we would be safe seeing family and friends, which absolutely killed my Mom (the girls’ Nana) and was incredibly difficult for us as well. I share these things because I want you to know that I understand what it is to take the virus seriously, and if the threat was still much more than the flu, we would undoubtedly still be taking significant precautions. But since we now believe (based on the evidence above) that it is no more of a threat than flu, we have sought to return to life as normal and have thankfully seen and hugged my Mom, Dad, and sister a lot these past few weeks. But even if the threat of the virus were still what Dr. Fauci and others warned it would be, I have honestly reflected quite a bit on what it means to live these very short lives that we have. How can we begin to restore all that’s been lost these past few months? Here are four places to start.

Examine the Evidence Carefully (and Reevaluate it Often)

I’ve recounted my early beliefs about the virus as well as the many steps our family took to remain safe. And if I had not continued to examine the evidence (especially the new evidence that has emerged in recent weeks), I would likely still be sheltering at home and encouraging others to do the same. More than that, because of how serious the threat seemed to be and how it is still presented by some, I would most likely be looking down on all those who were venturing outside as if they were ignorant, reckless, and selfish. Why would I do this? Because I have very strong feelings about COVID-19. And like many people who have strong opinions about COVID-19, I am tempted toward confirmation bias — the tendency to interpret new evidence through the lens of our assumptions. How do we combat this tendency?

First, look carefully at the actual evidence, and reevaluate it often. Don’t just rely on vague references to studies or give deference to the proclamations of experts, as different experts will often have vastly different opinions. Second, read beyond the headlines, looking at both arguments and counterarguments. If we consider all the evidence and not just the data that fits the narrative we already believe, we can make informed decisions that are based on facts and not fear. Third, don’t make the mistake that I did early on and build on assumptions, regardless how correct those assumptions seem. While it takes time to sort through the evidence, considering all the information is worth it, both for our own mental well-being and for the health and well-being of our friends and family.

Break Free from the Tyranny of Fear

While I know that as a Christian I am no longer enslaved to the fear of death (Hebrews 2:14-15), I am realizing more each day that fear of my wife or daughters getting sick has oftentimes ruled over me, leading me to make decisions that have kept us away from family and friends even before the spread of COVID-19. In some instances I think there has been wisdom in our decisions to guard our family from sickness, but in others I now realize I acted unwisely and in ways that were actually harmful to my family. Moreover, I realize that I have had an unhealthy desire to control whether or not my family gets sick and in turn have attempted to control how long they live, which is ultimately outside my control but fully and squarely in the control of a sovereign and loving God.

As I reflect on the fact that 66% of people recently hospitalized with COVID-19 in New York were sheltering at home, I am reminded of times when my wife and I did everything we could do to avoid our girls getting sick, yet they still became ill. We have even voluntarily kept them home for several weeks at a time during the winter when flu was running rampant in our community. But even though they never left the house, our girls still came down with high fevers and sickness. I went to work, washed my hands, and never became ill, but presumably I brought something home to them (perhaps I was an asymptomatic spreader). To be clear, I am not advocating throwing caution to the wind and intentionally exposing our girls or anyone else to sickness, but I am realizing that I have a lot less control over our family’s health than I would like to think. This realization has been immensely freeing and has enabled me to make informed decisions but not be paralyzed by fear.

Rejoice in the Day to Day

Because of all that’s happened these past two months, I think everyone is realizing how valuable normal human interaction is. God created us as relational beings, and the separation that has taken place as a result of COVID-19 and the accompanying lockdowns and social distancing has proven even more how we long for community.

For me personally, before the lockdown I was growing weary of a very busy school year, with many new classes that required a tremendous amount of time above and beyond my normal teaching load. I was tired and sleep-deprived, and early morning classes were difficult, to say the least. But after 6 weeks of online instruction, I would LOVE to be back on campus for an early morning class.

As to corporate worship with other believers, what could easily become routine (and perhaps even be viewed as an interference with other plans) is now revealed for what it truly is: a priceless jewel of incomparable worth. I think Christians in the United States and throughout the world now have a glimpse of the isolation many missionaries must feel as they serve Christ in places where corporate worship and the local gathering of the Church is much more difficult. And I believe that the distance we all feel from one another has caused us all to realize how magnificent is the hope of the new heavens and the new earth where we will forever be with our Lord and Savior and restored to our brothers and sisters.

As to being physically present in general, the lockdowns and social distancing have caused me to understand anew the value of in-person human interaction. This is not to say that digital communications through Zoom and other technologies are not a tremendous blessing, as they have enabled us to remain in contact with our friends and loved ones. But being digitally present with those we hold dear is a poor substitute for being physically and actually present with them. This is why long-distance relationships are notoriously difficult to maintain. And honestly, when I think about the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus — God coming near to us, taking on human flesh — my eyes begin to fill with tears. He did not remain far off but came near to us and even now draws us near.

Count the Cost

Finally, even if the threat posed by COVID-19 were much more severe, I would want to spend as much time with my family as possible. This is not out of a desire to be reckless but out of a recognition that none of us know how long we have to live. My Mom has had multiple health scares over the years, ranging from concerns over ovarian cancer, kidney disease, and non-alcoholic cirrhosis to the current threat of a brain tumor. In light of these health concerns, it is certainly possible that COVID-19 could be more than her body could handle and could result in hospitalization and even death. But the heartbreak and emotional distress of not seeing her children and grandchildren could (and most likely would) have affected her physical health in ways we could not imagine (see the articles cited above). As my Mom told me two weeks ago, even if she were to die of COVID-19, she would want to be with us and see us as much as possible. Knowing that none of us are guaranteed another day of life, my wife and I desire to be with her as much as we can as well.

There will always be risks when we get together that someone could be carrying a virus, but isolation and fear can have such a negative impact on health that, on balance, it seems like that risk is worth it. As the articles above showed, loneliness can exact a substantial physical toll on people; in contrast, seeing and being around loved ones can dramatically improve health and well-being. Knowing this, I have grieved these past two months as I have heard of so many people spending their last days alone, isolated from their families and the ones they love. To be sure, efforts at isolation and social distancing may have prevented infection in some cases, and I earnestly desire to protect the aged and immunocompromised, but the evidence clearly shows that lockdowns and social distancing have by no means inhibited the spread of COVID-19. As a result, I grieve for all those who have died alone these past two months as they were battling COVID-19 and other illness, and I want to advocate for families and friends to be reunited without social distancing because the evidence indicates that COVID-19 is not significantly more deadly than seasonal flu.

But even if COVID-19 were worse than the flu, I have personally needed to count the cost. Life is about more than not dying, and there are some things worse than death. Before giving up precious time with loved ones, relinquishing blood-bought liberties, sacrificing the livelihoods of millions, and contributing to deaths of despair, we must ask and truly consider this question: is it worth it? And if we really, honestly consider this question, and if we take a step back and examine the fallout of our efforts at fighting this virus, I believe that then—and only then—we can truly begin restoring what’s been lost.