Illinoisans now face new restrictions designed to combat the spread of COVID-19. In addition to these pandemic mitigations, Gov. J.B. Pritzker is threatening another statewide lockdown and potential stay-at-home order.
As cases rise, it’s clear we’re at a critical juncture in Illinois. But we also need to be honest about something else: COVID-19 isn’t equally dangerous to all. Older people, particularly those over the age of 70, are especially vulnerable to the virus, as are those with other underlying health problems. By contrast, young, healthy children are generally at a lower risk.
Did you know that this year more children have died from the seasonal flu than from COVID-19? It’s true, by a factor of two or three. Additionally, there’s no compelling evidence that having children in the classroom leads to meaningful increases in infections in the community. But this news hasn’t dominated headlines in recent weeks.
Likewise, people in their teens, 20s, 30s and 40s are at low risk of dying from COVID-19 and generally will make a full recovery within a week or two (if they even experience symptoms at all). In Illinois, more than 85% of those who have died of COVID-19 are age 60 or older.
We didn’t know all of this in March when the state locked down for the first time. But we know it now, and this should be taken into account when setting public policies to combat the spread of the virus.
Unfortunately, so far Pritzker and other public officials have enacted restrictions that don’t differentiate between the at-risk and the not-at-risk. Schools have been closed to in-person learning, despite the fact that children are at the lowest risk and it’s possible to protect teachers and staff. High school sports have been canceled. Entire industries and sectors of the state economy have been forced to operate at drastically reduced capacity even though a vast majority of consumers and the workforce are not at risk.
The result: Pritzker failed to prevent a new surge of the virus but unleashed economic destruction. Countless businesses are struggling to survive or have gone out of business permanently. Retail and service industry employees have been laid off. Individuals have been deprived of meaningful work. Families have become dependent on unemployment checks from the government. Women, particularly Black and Hispanic women, have been hardest hit by the economic impact.
Those who have opposed lockdowns have been called irresponsible and heartless, myself included.
But lockdowns have to be weighed against other human needs and the negative consequences that result from locking down entire populations and economies. The World Health Organization, for example, says lockdowns have “a profound negative impact on individuals, communities, and societies by bringing social and economic life to a near stop.” Similarly, the United Nations warned early on in the pandemic that by locking down entire nations, more people could die from the economic impact of COVID-19 than from the virus itself. And both the WHO and the U.N. warn that lockdowns disproportionately affect the poor and working classes.
Full lockdowns aren’t associated with decreased mortality, and locking down the state again won’t stop the virus from spreading. But it will lead to additional suffering.
Take a moment to answer these questions for yourself: Have you or a loved one put off a medical appointment or a recommended cancer screening or treatment because you were afraid of COVID-19? Have you skipped one of your child’s scheduled immunizations? Do you know a teenager or young adult dealing with COVID-19-related anxiety or depression? Have you seen alcohol abuse, drug use or suicides increase in your community?
Pritzker and public health officials need to take a different approach. They should look to the Great Barrington Declaration, which was authored by three highly regarded epidemiologists and has been signed by more than 12,000 medical and public health scientists and more than 35,000 medical practitioners. The declaration states that the most compassionate approach is to “allow those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally” while “protecting those who are at highest risk.”
Pritzker has thus far done a poor job balancing public health with the social and economic needs of Illinoisans. But it’s not too late for him to take a new approach.
He can end his arbitrary mitigation efforts. He can avoid the temptation to implement another statewide lockdown. He can focus on protecting the vulnerable, particularly the elderly. He can and should encourage Illinoisans to continue to practice basic public health and hygiene measures. He can allow individuals and families to assess their specific situations in order to decide what is safest and best for their own unique circumstances.
In the meantime, schoolchildren should return to the classroom, sports should resume, businesses should reopen and Illinoisans should be allowed to live their lives as they see fit.
Jared D. Carl is president of the Illinois Business Alliance.
Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@chicagotribune.com.
Get our latest editorials, commentaries and columns, delivered twice a week in our Fighting Words newsletter. Sign up here.
