COVID-19: Another Policy Option?

Can we all agree about four things we now know about COVID-19?

1 — 90% of deaths (and probably those needing an ICU or a ventilator) are older than age 55, or have at least one known underlying health or behavioral risk factor, or both.

2 — If you have had COVID-19 before you are less likely to get it again in the next six months.

3 — We are not likely to have a mass produced, viable treatment for severe COVID-19 cases or a vaccine within six months from today.

4 — The current state of the shut-down and the US economy, if continued for six months, will lead to an economic depression, perhaps rivaling the 1930s.

These do not seem like controversial statements.

What if, instead of a $2T bailout of the broader economy, which may only last two or three months (until a new one is needed), we did the following:

a) $1T bailout support program of at-risk people that lasts indefinitely. The bailout support program will end when health authorities declare the COVID-19 crisis to be over.

b) Every US resident may enter a database or is surveyed as to whether they feel they are at-risk (defined by age group and existence of an underlying health condition). A resident may change their response at any time.

c) If a resident enters the database, then they must self quarantine but they become eligible for bailout support. If they do not self quarantine during certain designated times, and this is discovered, they can lose their bailout support.

d) Bailout support includes:

-Guarantees against employment termination or failing grades in school.

-Guarantees against eviction or mortgage default.

-Guarantees for work and school work from home.

-Potential income replacement, depending on employment circumstances.

-Healthful grocery and basic supply delivery guarantees.

-Designated times for escorted nature walks and at-home fitness.

-Free treatment to aide quitting smoking, drug or alcohol use.

e) Bailout conditions could be enforced by random audits, similar to how the IRS audits tax returns. For example, if someone is not following the bailout criteria or is found to be misrepresenting themselves as “at-risk”, they will be assessed a fine, payable sometime after the conclusion of the COVID-19 crisis (similar to an IRS fine).

f) If you did not indicate you’re at-risk, then you’re free to resume normal functioning in the economy and society. Society reopens, maybe gradually, or with the exception of large gatherings, at first.

We have databases like this for healthcare, State and Federal taxes, voter registration and the Census. We could deploy the National Guard, if necessary, to help implement the bailout support program. It is a feasible solution and much cheaper than iterating $2T bailouts. It is much less costly than completely destroying our economy and way of life. And if a majority of at-risk people are quarantined and supported, they may be less likely to end up in the ICU and to die, than they would be in the current shut-down strategy. So epidemiological outcomes may just end up being better, or at least not significantly worse, in terms of death rates, than the current haphazard shut-down strategy.