Politics & Policy
Trump’s Coronavirus ‘Orders’ Are Just Suggestions
Why isn’t the president using the full power of his office to fight Covid-19?
President Donald Trump’s decision not to renew the federal stay-at-home advisory is the perfect symbol of his approach to the Covid-19 pandemic: Once again, Trump is operating by signal and sign and suggestion, not concrete directives or orders.
It’s not so much that the president is not leading at all. It’s that his leadership operates as a kind of shadow play, not as a practical reality.
The federal advisory was never anything more than a nonbinding suggestion to the states. Declining to renew it is also nothing but a nonbinding hint that perhaps some states should be able to reopen. Neither has any formal consequences. Both amount to atmospherics.
It’s important to remember that the president of the United States does have the power to lead by action, not suggestion.
True, existing federal law most probably didn’t authorize Trump to order a nationwide lockdown. But consider what Trump could have done via regulation. He could have directed every agency in the executive branch to devise and issue Covid-19 regulations binding the industries that those agencies regulate. That would have enabled him to shut down large parts of the economy in order to achieve safety and health results.
Trump could have invoked the emergency powers of the Defense Production Act more quickly and more completely to focus resources on protective equipment and tests. Trump has used the DPA to target a few individual firms (some of which were already producing the necessary equipment). But the Act gives him the power to marshal entire sectors of the economy, to nationalize the distribution of key resources, and to designate single a federal agency to coordinate all of this activity. So far, he hasn’t used those powers.
And of course he could have asked Congress to grant him more extensive powers to fight against the virus. The Democrats would certainly have demanded concessions in return, but it seems likely that they would have had to acquiesce rather than be seen as soft on fighting pandemic.
Trump’s executive order designating the meat and poultry packing industry as critical infrastructure is an interesting case study both of what Trump could have done and of what he has declined to do.
On its face, the order is actually surprisingly minimal. It finds that meat and poultry in the food supply chain count as “scarce and critical material essential to the national defense” under the relevant provision of the DPA. It also finds under the same law that there is no other way to meet national defense requirements than to take the step of invoking the act without creating “appreciable hardship.”
Then the executive order gives the Secretary of Agriculture power to “take all appropriate action … to ensure that meat and poultry processors continue operations consistent with the guidance for their operations jointly issued by the CDC and OSHA.”
Now it’s not entirely clear to me that it makes sense to define meat and poultry production as national critical infrastructure. It’s true that the DPA isn’t restricted narrowly to national defense in the ordinary sense of the term. It does define critical infrastructure to include assets whose loss would affect “national public health or safety.”
So by defining the meatpacking industry as critical infrastructure, Trump was taking some sort of action — of the kind he could have taken in a wide range of other domains, but has not.
Yet the same time, the executive order doesn’t by its terms order the plants to stay open. That is something the secretary of agriculture could potentially do under the order, to be sure. But it presumably will not be necessary, because the plant owners seem to want to stay open in order to keep making money.
What’s more, the order doesn’t, on its own terms, bar states from making their own policies or judgments about whether to close plants, as some states have done. The order probably enables the secretary of agriculture to countermand state policies if he chooses to do so; but the order itself is functioning more like a signal to the states than like a directive.
One possible real-world effect of the order is to help the meatpacking plants avoid legal liability they might potentially face if employees get sick. Section 707 of the DPA says that no one can be held legally liable for damages resulting from compliance with a government order issued under the DPA.
Without entering too deeply into the subtle legal question of whether the order would, in practice, actually confer liability protection, it’s worth noticing that the order says that any federal directives will have to be consistent with CDC and OSHA guidance. That means the order doesn’t present itself as contradicting the federal guidance already provided to the meatpacking industry. It may well mean that a plant that violated the CDC and OSHA guidance wouldn’t be immune from liability.
The upshot is that, even when issuing an executive order that makes headlines, Trump is in fact continuing to lead by hints and suggestions, not commands.
Believe me, I’m not advocating for this president to become more autocratic. Strong executive action is only a good thing when that strong executive is making good decisions. Trump’s weak executive approach may ultimately be a blessing when considered in the light of the alternatives.
What’s crucial is for us to be aware of what our president is actually doing to fight this crisis — and what he is not.
This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
To contact the editor responsible for this story:
Sarah Green Carmichael at sgreencarmic@bloomberg.net
Sarah Green Carmichael at sgreencarmic@bloomberg.net
Politics & Policy
No, Sweden Isn’t a Miracle Coronavirus Model
The country’s lockdown model is being lauded by the WHO, but it’s a unique case whose death rate is much worse than those of its neighbors.
The World Health Organization has been generous with its praise throughout this pandemic. China, Singapore and Ireland have all received plaudits for their handling of the coronavirus crisis. Now that a new turning point is in sight, with the infection’s spread slowing and draconian lockdown measures being gradually lifted, the WHO is promoting the Swedish way of doing things. “Sweden represents a future model… if we wish to get back to a society in which we don’t have lockdowns,” the WHO’s Mike Ryan said, praising the way Swedes are trusted to “self-regulate.”
Sweden’s hands-off approach to lockdown has certainly been different to that of other countries, from France and Italy to the U.S. and China. Large public gatherings are banned but restaurants, bars and schools have stayed open, and social distancing is encouraged rather than enforced by police. Trust in the public is high, and so is the public’s trust in the strategy. Swedes seem happy with the global attention. “Many countries are starting to come around to the Swedish way,” Anders Tegnell, the country’s chief epidemiologist, told USA Today.
But like so many stories of national exceptionalism in this crisis — the U.K. at one point was convinced it could avoid strict closures, painting them as unscientific, before eventually doing a U-turn — this one is debatable and premature.
U.S. President Donald Trump, no doubt annoyed at stories in the American media heaping praise on the Swedes, tweeted one obvious riposte this week, noting the high price that Swedes have had to pay in terms of Covid-19 fatalities. Sweden’s 2,586 deaths compare poorly with Denmark’s 452, and Norway’s 207. Taking population into account, Sweden has suffered more deaths per million people than the U.S. (although deaths aren't always counted in the same way).
When looking at all-cause mortality — which is probably a better gauge of the real level of coronavirus deaths — Sweden has been hit with “very high” excess deaths since the start of the year, according to the European body monitoring these statistics. In Denmark, they’ve been “low.”
Sweden’s No Covid Haven
Mortality above normal levels has been very high in Sweden this year
Source: EuroMOMO
Note: Shows the highest level of excess deaths through the first 17 weeks in 2020. Level is a z-score, which allows for cross-country comparisons and measures deviation from a baseline. U.K. is England and Germany is Berlin.
The counterargument is that Sweden has accepted more deaths in exchange for trying to achieve group immunity more quickly and protecting its economy from lasting collapse. Several big countries in Europe with stricter lockdowns have suffered more excess deaths and greater economic damage than Sweden while being more aggressive about halting infections. But they felt they had no other way to relieve their overrun hospitals, a problem that Sweden doesn’t have.
We don’t know what other nations might have gone through if they’d followed the Swedish model — France estimates its own lockdown saved 60,000 lives. We also don’t know how much immunity has been acquired by the Swedes. An official report estimating that a third of Stockholm’s population would develop antibodies to the virus by May 1 was withdrawn after an error.
We do know that Sweden’s Covid-19 journey hasn’t been exceptional. Like other countries, it has experienced a surge in deaths in care homes, where about one in three virus deaths is estimated to have taken place. Visiting relatives and staff are expected to “self-regulate” but, according to reports, they don’t always do so. The Swedes have also had a lack of systematic testing and equipment shortages.
Things might have been even worse without the Swedes’ demographic and cultural defenses. This is a population that does social distancing already in many ways. More than half of the country lives in single-person households, working from home is common and access to fast broadband is everywhere. But Swedes are becoming increasingly unconcerned about keeping their distance as time goes on, as images of packed restaurants indicate. Public-health officials have warned about their behavior. In Stockholm they’ve threatened to shut bars and restaurants.
At the same time, migrant workers in the country are being infected disproportionately, according to a recent national survey. The hyper-individualist expectation to “self-regulate” looks too complacent for immigrant communities who lack access to information.
Sweden may very well turn out to be a relative winner of sorts, especially economically. It will probably experience a shorter and less severe slowdown than its European neighbors, says Torbjorn Isaksson, an analyst at Nordea Bank. That will cheer the lockdown critics such as Swedish industrialist Jacob Wallenberg, who in March warned of the long-term damage of putting economies in deep freeze. Whether that’s much of a win for an economy where trade accounts for 89% of GDP is doubtful. Leapfrogging European Union trading partners in a single market that’s been paralyzed by the virus scare can’t be that meaningful. And it probably won’t be fondly remembered.
Given that we haven’t reached the end of this pandemic, more circumspection might be in order. Danish philosopher Soren Kierkegaard once said: “Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards.” As we approach a turning point in the crisis, it’s tempting to look back and single out winners as the model to follow. But we don’t know what’s going to happen next. None of us has lived through it yet. And that includes Sweden.
Elaine He contributed graphics to this piece.
This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
No comments:
Post a Comment