President Trump’s Tariffs are now the Republican Congress’s Tariffs

That President Trump likes tariffs should come as no surprise. He implemented them during his first term and, during his candidacy for his current term, he promised to implement more. Two things have surprised most people: the size of his proposed tariffs and the policy flip-flops in implementing the tariffs.

When it comes to tariffs, I am neither a hawk nor a dove. They can be a legitimate component of any country’s trade and strategic policies. Because they increase the cost of goods imported into a country, the immediate effect is a direct tax on the company that imports the goods. In the short term, a company may swallow some of the tariff cost, but after time, they will increase prices to cover their added costs. Thus, consumers bear the final cost of tariffs, not corporations, and certainly not the countries where the goods first came from.

Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution says, “Congress shall have the Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, . . .but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States. The constitution clearly states that Congress has this power, not the Judicial or Executive branches of government. How, then, can President Trump (or any president) unilaterally make tariff decisions?

Congress delegated that power to the President under certain circumstances. One of those circumstances is a national emergency, as set forth in the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA). A Democratic Congress passed the legislation, and Jimmy Carter signed it into law. Its intent was to clarify and restrict presidential power during times of national emergency.

President Trump, in his first term, used IEEPA eleven times to invoke national emergency declarations. In 2019, President Trump used for the first time a national emergency declaration to invoke tariffs. President Biden invoked IEEPA after Russia invaded Ukraine in order to impose sanctions on Russian individuals and entities. President Trump has again invoked IEEPA to justify tariffs on almost all imports.

I cannot imagine what a business that imports goods has been going through these last few weeks as President Trump announces tariffs, changes what goods they apply to, pauses them, brings them back on, develops an additional set of tariffs that seem almost random in their country specifics, lets those go into effect, and thirteen hours later pauses them for ninety days. No manager can make rational long-term decisions with so much chaos, and so they must make short-term decisions they hope will limit their financial exposure. We will never know how much damage President Trump’s feckless yo-yoing tariffs have already done to our economy. The net decline in stock values suggests it has been large.

Congress has a remedy available that can monitor and modify any president’s use of IEEPA to justify tariffs. They can change the law. They can restrict what this president and any future president can do when they claim a national emergency. Congress can require any tariff enacted under IEEPA becomes void if not approved by Congress within (say) sixty days. They can require that Congress must approve ahead of implementation any tariff enacted under IEEPA in order for it to go into effect.

One such approach is the bipartisan “Trade Review Act of 2025” introduced in both the House and Senate. It does not go as far as I would like in limiting presidential power, but it does require Congressional approval of unilateral tariffs (or increases) proposed by the executive branch. The president must notify Congress within 48 hours of any proposed tariffs or increases, explain why they are necessary, and assess the tariff’s impact on consumers and businesses. Congress has sixty days to approve the tariff or it must end. Congress can also vote to end the tariff early.

This proposed law is a reasonable first step in clawing back power from the presidency that was intended to belong to Congress. While it made sense to give presidents flexibility to respond to genuine emergencies, the executive branch has abused emergency declarations to unilaterally impose actions without Congressional approval.

Over the last month, we have seen the chaos and costs of allowing national-emergency declarations to justify the whims of one person. What President Trump is doing now will only be expanded upon by future presidents, regardless of party. The time to stop these practices is now.

President Trump will surely veto the bill, which means it will require a two-thirds vote from each house of Congress to override the veto. Democrats and a few Republicans cannot do this on their own. It requires the Republican leadership to push the bill through.

And because this bipartisan bill is now offered, and Republican leadership combined with Democrats can put a stop to the madness, Republicans now own all of President Trump’s tariff decisions. Because they can curtail President Trump's tariff powers, a decision to not rein him in is a tacit approval of his tariffs. We need to remind every representative and senator, Republican and Democrat, that not making a change means approving of the current situation.

The House Budget Resolution won’t solve the debt problem

When the House Republicans passed their 2025 Budget Resolution[i], only one Republican voted against it, Thomas Massie (R-KY). His post on X stated: The GOP budget extends the 5 yr. tax holiday we’ve been enjoying, but because it doesn’t cut spending much, it increases the deficit by over $300 billion/yr. compared to letting tax cuts expire. Over 10 years, this budget will add $20 trillion to US debt.[ii]

I might choose to argue whether the cuts in spending are “much” or not, but the House Budget Resolution, if implemented, will indeed add an estimated $20 trillion to the US debt. The policy statement included with the budget resolution includes as its first and third findings:

(1) The United States faces a significant debt crisis, with the national debt currently exceeding $36 trillion, or 123% of GDP (Ed. note: Gross Domestic Product, the total market value of all goods and services produced during the year)

(3) This debt poses a significant risk to the country’s long-term fiscal sustainability, with implications for future generations.

I agree that we are in a crisis of our own making and using the ratio of national debt to GDP is a fair approach of viewing the situation. Not solving this issue will have not only severe consequences for future generations, but it will have severe consequences for current generations, as well.

And yet, the budget resolution increases the accumulated debt to $56 trillion by 2034. That is an increase of over 50% in ten years’ time, about 4.4% compounded each year.

During the 21^st century, GDP grew faster than 4.4% in only one year[iii]. In 2021, it grew 5.8%; however, that followed the 2.21% decline in 2020. Combined, those two years averaged just 1.7% (compounded) growth.

To assume we will magically find our way (while decreasing immigration) to increase our GDP by more than a compounded 4.4% a year is unrealistic.

Therefore, Republicans identified the number one concern that debt was 123% of GDP, and after ten years, their proposed budgets will leave us with debt significantly greater than 123% of GDP.

How much greater? That depends on how fast GDP actually grows. The average compound growth rate for the 21^st century has been slightly under 2.5%. If we assume that continues, in ten years, the ratio of debt to GDP climbs to 187%. If GDP increased at 3% per year, the ratio is “only” 142%.

With this expected explosion of increased debt, the budget resolution proposed to increase the statutory debt limit by only $4 trillion, covering only two of the ten years. While I think having a debt limit is counterproductive at best and insane at worst, if Republicans want to propose budgets that will increase US debt by $20 trillion, then they should be transparent and raise the debt limit to cover it.

In a future post, I’ll provide my thoughts on how the budget resolution allocates cuts and where it provides for increased spending.

---

[i] House Budget Resolution 2025 https://docs.house.gov/meetings/BU/BU00/20250213/117894/BILLS-119NAih.pdf

[ii] Massie X post https://www.newsweek.com/republican-breaks-gop-budget-plan-vote-2036282

[iii] US Annual GDP Growth https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/USA/united-states/gdp-growth-rate

 

An Open Letter to My Congressman, Jack Bergman

 Congressman Bergman:

Where did your heart and mind turn so wrong? When you entered Congress, your three priorities were to get Congress working together instead of focusing on partisan divides, utilize the Constitution, and balance the budget.

After the abhorrent shooting at the practice for the annual charity softball game, you said you abhorred the hateful rhetoric that serves no purpose. I applauded that remark. You’ve tweeted your concern when Speaker Pelosi called President Trump and Republican Congressmen who supported him “domestic enemies” because of actions taken she believes suppressed legitimate votes in the upcoming election. [8/24/20].

Yet I can find no record of you speaking out against any of the hate-filled tweets issued by President Trump. No railing against chants of “Lock her up.” Why?

During your first three years as Congressman—a great economic expansion and prior to any spending related to the novel coronavirus recession—the annual budget deficits were $665 billion, $779 billion, and $984 billion. Yet you voted for the Trump tax cuts that drove a large percentage of these increasing deficits with no offsetting revenue or equivalent cut in expenses.

You said President Obama exceeded his constitutional authority by imposing DACA. Only congress, you said, has the authority to create legislation, not the executive branch. We could debate that claim, but I find no record of you criticizing President Trump for any of the nearly 200 executive actions he has taken in less than four years. Nor do I find any indication you believe any of these actions have overstepped executive branch authority. Nor have you objected to any of the myriad claims of executive privilege to withhold information and testimony by executive branch employees requested by Congress. Yet DACA is different.

And yesterday, you signed your name to an attempted political coup. Not a traditional coup involving armed soldiers or citizens—although some of your fellow congressional representatives seem to condone such acts—a coup committed by partisan lawyers and their followers. This is your dark vision of what it means to use our constitution: Of the fifty states, the only four sued are those in which voters chose Biden over your preferred candidate. All four states have Republican-dominated legislatures, who this suit proposes should overrule the will of the voters and choose electors committed to keeping Trump as president. The suit claims that the executive and judiciary branches of these four states overstepped their constitutional authority by making it easier for their citizens to vote using methods that bypassed their respective legislative processes.

Given the lack of any other states named in the suit, I take it you must believe there are no similar constitutional issues related to any executive or judicial ruling in the other forty-six states. Not Alabama’s emergency declaration signed by its Secretary of State. Not Arkansas’ Secretary of State who determined fear of COVID-19 was sufficient reason to request an absentee ballot.

Why was this suit filed so late in the process? The “grave constitutional issues” arose before the election, often months before the election. Yet only now, after fifty other legal challenges to the election results have failed to provide Trump the victory he claims, after all fifty states have certified their election results based on their state laws, has the Attorney General of Texas taken this extraordinary step, and only now, have you found the votes cast for and against you in the state of Michigan to be constitutionally invalid.

The executive orders and judicial decisions were not executed under a cloak of darkness and only recently brought to light. They are public documents you can find online. They had to be transparent so those charged at local levels with running the election could implement them. Many of these orders occurred in the summer of 2020, three or four months prior to the election. And yet, you and your cohorts found no egregious constitutional issues to challenge when there would have been time for states and voters to find other ways to exercise their right to vote.

Look in your heart, Congressman Bergman. This isn’t upholding the constitution. This is an attempt to disenfranchise just enough voters to overthrow the presidential election. Designed to keep Republican power after the people have voted some of it out of office, this is an attempted political coup. Your support stains your prior service in the marines; it stains the oaths you have taken to uphold the constitution; it stains our precious and now precarious democracy.

Admitting errors is never easy, especially when President Trump, the leader of your political party, excoriates any who displease him. Yet, if you do not want your legacy to include traitor to your country, you must repudiate your support of this political coup.

James M. Jackson

Amasa, Michigan

COVID-19 Status in the U.S - beginning of June, 2020

A few weeks ago, I published a series of blogs regarding COVID-19 infections and deaths in the U.S. correctly suggesting that the projections the federal government used to inform the public were optimistic about the number of expected deaths. [i]

A chart I have found helpful compares the growth of U.S. cases to Spain, Italy, and Germany, adjusting for population size and recognizing that Italy started about two weeks before us and Germany and Spain a week after that.

[Note: the horizontal axis is time, with Italy showing ninety-eight days of data; the U.S. has eighty-three]

Whereas the other three countries experienced a significant flattening of their rates of reported infection, the U.S. has seen only a modest reduction in case rates.

Stay-at-home orders

The primary objective of the stay-at-home orders was to prevent hospital systems from becoming overwhelmed by COVID-19 cases at a time when PPE (Personal Protection Equipment) was not readily available and in some areas the infection spread was accelerating. Hospitals weathered the rising tide of cases and by now supplies of PPE have significantly increased. If those were the only metrics to consider, it makes sense to open the country for business.

Other considerations

Overwhelming hospitals is not the only consideration. This disease is a killer. As I write this blog, The U.S. has recorded over 108,000 deaths from COVID-19. Most experts believe that number is understated because during the early weeks of the U.S. pandemic, many non-hospital deaths weren’t tested for the disease.

The deaths toll continues with nearly 7,500 deaths in the last seven days.

More widely available testing means we are now recording COVID-19 cases that we would not have caught earlier. That’s useful because it allows asymptomatic people who test positive to quarantine, reducing the likelihood of infecting others. During the last seven days, over 155,000 new cases have been reported. That averages over 22,000 a day.

As this next chart shows, the U.S. death rate of those infected with COVID-19 continues to decline.

(It is also much lower than Italy’s rate. Understanding whether this is because Italy under-counted the number infected or their care was inferior to that received in the U.S. is beyond this blog’s scope.) We can expect a continued decline in death rates as we find more of our “lightly” infected individuals through increased testing. I estimate the percentage of recently discovered cases who will die is about 4.5%

That means I expect the past week’s 155,000 cases will produce another 7,000 deaths. That’s less than half of our highest weekly toll, but if that rate becomes “normalized,” it yields 365,000 deaths a year!

What’s next and what do we do?

Maybe we’ll be lucky and the disease will fade away of its own accord, as often happens to flu during the summer months. Unfortunately, we have seen the virus spread in a variety of hot climates, so we may not luck out.

We’ve learned COVID-19 spreads easily in closed environments where social distancing is not possible or not implemented. Many nursing homes, meat-packing plants, and prisons have developed into hot spots and unless these institutions take active protective precautions, we’ll see more of these hotspots develop.

Close social gatherings have acted as incubators and distribution agents for the disease. Weddings and funerals can be heartbreaking because of the family connections. Yet despite this knowledge, we have seen as states reopen that a significant portion of the U.S. population doesn’t give a rip about taking precautions to protect anyone else. Wisconsin bars were packed moments after the state supreme court struck down the governor’s stay-at-home order[ii]; pool parties were crowded in the Ozarks[iii]; many protesting the murder of George Floyd participate unmasked in large crowds (although other events demonstrate social distancing practices).

Face it, many people in the U.S. have a problem taking orders or following rules that benefit society if they interfere with their “right” to do whatever the hell they want to.

Which means the opening will be slower than it could be

Although I am healthy, I have one pre-existing condition about which I am happy: I’ve been alive for a lot of years. That means if the virus infects me, I have a higher risk of making an unscheduled visit to the crematorium, something I am not yet eager to do. I will take precautions to protect myself and others. To the extent others are not taking similar measures, I will cut back on my outings.

I recently visited LensCrafters and Menards in the Madison area. Customers are only served if they wear masks. Menards was structured with only one entrance and one exit, they had many reminders about keeping away from others, and they limited the number of people in the store (which was not a problem when I went mid day). I’m good with that. Limiting my trips to minimize potential exposure makes good sense, but I am willing to use stores employing these enforced precautions.

We’d enjoy going out to dinner again. I’d even be willing to pay more to reflect the restaurant’s increased cost of business. Unfortunately, I’ve passed by bars and restaurants where social distancing is not practiced and no one is masked. I will not be spending money at those facilities. Nor will I be hopping an airplane or train soon. Until the hotel industry demonstrates they practice deep cleaning of rooms between guests, (and can they afford to do that?), I won’t be staying at hotels. Road trips are out.

Nor can I see how it will be safe to attend mass events: sports, theater, music, bridge tournaments, and the like until the risk of infection is low.

I don’t think I am alone in this self-protection. It’s true the Baby Boomers are dying out. (It’s been happening ever since the last Boomer was born on December 31, 1964.) But plenty of Boomers still live, and as a group they have considerable income and wealth with the time and inclination to spend it. But only if they can do it safely. While the virus is still around and many others fail to practice behaviors that minimize the virus’s spread, the Boomers will not add all their spending power to reopening the economy.

At least that’s my take. What about yours?

---

[i] On April 2, I published a blog (here) analyzing available information to put into context the 100,000–240,000 U.S. COVID-19 deaths then being projected. On April 15, in this blog, I cast doubt on the reduction of government projections to “only” 60,000 deaths through August 4[i], suggesting that 100,000 deaths were more likely. And most recently, on April 30 in this blog, I suggested that “only” 100,000 deaths was optimistic.

[ii] https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexandrasternlicht/2020/05/14/wisconsin-bars-packed-after-state-supreme-court-lifts-stay-at-home-orders/#17905fb24568

[iii] https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/24/us/ozarks-missouri-party/index.html

* * * * *

James M. Jackson authors the Seamus McCree series. Full of mystery and suspense, these thrillers explore financial crimes, family relationships, and what happens when they mix. Furthermore, a novella is the most recent addition to the series. You can sign up for his newsletter and find more information about Jim and his books at https://jamesmjackson.com.

Projecting Deaths from COVID-19 (another update)

On April 2, I published a blog (here) analyzing available information to put into context the 100,000–240,000 U.S. COVID-19 deaths then being projected. On April 15, in this blog, I cast doubt on the reduction of government projections to “only” 60,000 deaths through August 4[i], suggesting that 100,000 deaths were more likely. The official projection has now been increased several times and as of this writing sits at nearly 73,000. Once again, applying my naïve methodology, I think this number is too low.

A chart I have found helpful to visualize the path of U.S. COVID-19 cases is to compare us to Spain, Italy, and Germany, recognizing that Italy started about two weeks before us and Germany and Spain a week after that.

Note: the horizontal axis is time (Italy has 64 days, the other countries fewer.

The most recent two weeks have crushed any chance the U.S. curve would flatten faster than Italy’s. Instead, our path is not even flattening as much as Italy’s did at comparable points in time. We have set our own course and it appears it will remain above Italy’s level of infection.

Fortunately, the death rate experienced in the U.S. is considerably lower than Italy’s. Using the metric developed in earlier posts of dividing total reported deaths by total reported cases a week earlier (in order to reflect an average time between reporting and death, should it occur), the U.S. is now at 7.3%, less than half Italy’s rate. The chart below demonstrates that both rates have been declining very slowly for some time.

Before combining the data from these charts to project future deaths, we need to examine some assumptions.

Why Are U.S. cases as a percentage of population increasing faster than Italy?

Either (1) U.S. testing is more comprehensive than was the case in Italy, resulting in more “benign” cases per capita detected in the U.S. than in Italy. AND/OR

(2) Italy did a better job of controlling the spread of the virus through the strength of and/or compliance with stay-at-home orders, business closures, and similar precautions.

If U.S. testing had significantly increased, yielding many “benign” cases, we would expect mortality rates of those infected to decrease. Over the last two weeks there has been a slight decline in the U.S. from 7.5% to 7.3%. If the explanation for the decreased death rate were entirely due to increased testing, it would mean that about 22,000 of the 412,000 cases reported between one and three weeks ago resulted from increased testing. Adjusting U.S. reported cases by that amount only slightly decreases the slope of the U.S. curve displayed in the first graph.

If next week we see a significant decline in the death rate, we’ll know increased testing is driving the level of newly reported cases. That would be a good thing.

In the U.S., states have imposed various levels of business closings and stay-at-home orders, making it difficult to compare to Italy, which did have different rules for the northern and southern sections of that country. I don’t have data to know how well Italians complied with their government’s rules. Anecdotal evidence in the U.S. shows compliance has been spotty. Some churches remained open despite state rules against crowds larger than ten people Demonstrations occurred in several state capitals protesting the “unnecessary” sheltering in place. Beaches in some states remain busy, where other states have kept them closed.

My current projections

As I write this (the morning of April 30), the U.S. has reported 1,064,194 COVID-19 cases of whom 61,656 have died. If we had no additional cases and the death rate remained at its current level, we’d have 77,000 deaths (4,000 higher than the government’s projections that go out to a later date).

If we continue to track Italy’s path (but recognizing our current level is higher than theirs) we would experience another 290,000 cases, which would yield another 21,000 deaths for a total of 98,000 by May 15. However, I do suspect death rates will continue to decline as they have in Italy. Should they decrease in the U.S. to 7%, the expected deaths by May 15 becomes fewer than 95,000—still much higher than the government’s estimate of 73,000 by August 4.

Italy continues to report new cases, and so will the U.S. We don’t know the effect warmer weather will have on stopping or slowing the spread. It happens for flu, so we can hope. Offsetting that are whatever negative effects may result from states “reopening” their economies by relaxing the disease-preventing rules currently in place.

I’m starting to think 100,000 deaths might prove optimistic, but I continue to hope I’m wrong.

---

[i] https://www.npr.org/2020/04/09/830664814/fauci-says-u-s-coronavirus-deaths-may-be-more-like-60-000-antibody-tests-on-way

Projecting Deaths from COVID-19 (an update)

On April 2, I published a blog (here) analyzing available information to put in context the 100,000–240,000 U.S. deaths then being projected. More recently, the government has reduced projections to 60,000[i]. That’s a sizeable difference. What’s up?

The modification from the initial range resulted from two major components: how many would become infected in the U.S. and what percentage of those affected would die. Dr. Fauci, in announcing the reduction to 60,000 projected deaths, suggested the decrease came about because much of the country embraced the shelter-in-place and social distancing.

Flattening the Curve

In the previous blog, I compared the U.S. response to controlling the novel coronavirus to the efforts of Italy, Germany and Spain[ii]. Because of Germany’s massive early testing, the slope of their infection growth is the lowest. Spain is worst because they continued to allow massive public gatherings for a longer period than the other countries. Italy, which experienced infections earlier, was in the middle. The U.S., which experienced large numbers of infected two weeks after Italy and one week after Spain and Germany, continues to follow a path close to Italy, but slightly worse.

We’ve lost our opportunity to be like the Germans. Our infection rate per million population has already exceeded theirs, even though we are a week earlier in the curve. We are doing much better than Spain. The U.S. still has the potential to bend its curve so it will not experience the same infection levels as Italy.

One piece of (comparative) good news is that for several days the number of new cases in the U.S. has decreased from its worst day. This peak occurred a week earlier in the curve than the peak happened for Italy, suggesting our social distancing has helped. The tail, however, is long.

Italy’s worst day was March 21 when they reported 6,557 new cases. That gave them 53,578 total infected. Yesterday (April 14), their cases stood at 162,488. That means more that twice as many people were reported infected in Italy after their worst day than before it. Yesterday, Italy reported nearly 3,000 new cases. Their tail continues to lengthen.

German’s worst day was March 22 with 6,933 new cases. That gave them 57,695 total infected. Yesterday they stood at 132,210. With a significantly flatter curve than Italy, they experience a multiplying effect of 1.3 cases after the peak for every pre-peak case.

Spain reached their high a few days later. On March 26 they reported 8,271 new cases, totaling 57,786. Their total yesterday was 174,060. Matching Italy, they had more than twice as many people infected after their peak than before it.

The U.S. experienced its highest reported cases on April 4, with 34,196. At that date we had 311,413 total cases. Yesterday we had reached 613,886 (nearly double) with 26,945 new cases that day. We are not experiencing Germany’s tapering; we continue to track Italy’s experience. If that remains the case, we can expect another 300,000 infected in April, bringing us to over 900,000 by the end of the month.

What’s happening with death rates?

In the previous blog, I suggested a method to estimate the death rates of reported cases: take total deaths and divide by reported cases a week earlier. Excluding China (because of their likely under-reporting of deaths), I estimated on April 2 a ratio of 12.8%.

Updating that calculation to April 14, yields 123,259 total worldwide deaths (excluding China). Total reported infected on April 7 (excluding China) were 1,352,655. The ratio is 9.11%. This decline is welcome news. I suspect the reasons for the decline combines wider testing catching many more “light” cases and possibly better treatment.

Where are individual countries right now? Using total reported deaths and infections (not adjusting for the week delay between report and death), Italy’s death rate is currently 13.0% (up from 12.1% on April 2); Spain has reached 10.5% (up from 9.2% on April 2), and the U.S. has climbed to 4.4% from 2.5% on April 2.

Unfortunately for the U.S. our rate of testing (9,260 per million population) is well below the three comparison countries (Spain - 12,833; Germany - 15,730, Italy - 17,758). Iceland is the world-leader with 106,490 per million of population! Given that our current testing protocols[iii] are designed specifically to exclude those most likely to recover (not too sick, not elderly or otherwise at risk), our death rate is unlikely to be much better than the world at large. I will change that assessment as a larger percentage of cases derive from countries with inadequate hospital facilities (India, Turkey, and most African countries are still in the early part of the infection curve). Their future inclusion will, I fear, drive up the worldwide death rate. For now, however, their effect on the overall rate is minor.

Applying the current 9.11% rate to the projected 900,000 U.S. cases through April yields 82,000 deaths.

Given the experience of other countries, there is no reason to expect that Covid-19 infections will magically stop on May 1. A percentage of those later infections will also die. Perhaps the original 100,000 will prove accurate after the counting is complete.

I hope Dr. Fauci’s estimate is correct, and mine is overstated. My overstatement could arise from two areas.

The U.S. does not follow Italy’s trend line and develops fewer than the 900,000 cases I projected before May 1. This will be great news—unless the reason for the decline is a continued inability to test all the people we should.

The U.S. death rate proves to be lower than the current worldwide estimate. This could arise because the U.S. health system finds more effective treatments than were available to other countries. We can hope for this great blessing. We also could experience a lower death rate because we accelerate testing and catch more infected patients earlier, thereby allowing healthcare to provide better care. Sadly, testing has not increased. As illustrated in the chart prepared by the CDC and available on their website[iv], despite promises, the U.S. rate of tests done in April are only slightly higher than those performed at the end of March.

I have my fingers crossed that I am wrong.

---

[i] https://www.npr.org/2020/04/09/830664814/fauci-says-u-s-coronavirus-deaths-may-be-more-like-60-000-antibody-tests-on-way

[ii] I used data from https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/ for the analyses in this blog

[iii] https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/symptoms-testing/testing.html

[iv] https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/testing-in-us.html

Projecting Deaths from Covid-19

In my blog on Covid-19 last week (here), I suggested we could use rates of reported cases per million of population to standardize numbers across countries and gauge the trajectory of infections based on those under the gun for a longer period. Thursday, April 2, we recorded the one-millionth case, and the official death toll crossed 50,000. That day alone the world recorded nearly 6,000 deaths and almost 80,000 new cases.

 The chart above is an update of the one I prepared last week. It shows the growth in cases per million for Italy, Germany, and the U.S. During the week, Italy’s rate has moderated. Germany, reaping the benefits of significant early testing, has dropped below the rate experienced by Italy at the same equivalent period. The only positive spin for the U.S. is that it could be worse; we could track Spain (see below).

What can we learn from Germany and Spain?

Let me be clear: I don’t know what’s going on. I am speculating based on news stories and reported statistics. The number of reported cases per million of population became significant for Germany about a week after Italy (and at the same time as Spain). Germany reacted by shutting down sports and other large gatherings and instituted widespread testing. Spain allowed a rally of 120,000 people in Madrid to celebrate Women’s Day on March 8[i] (Day 3 on the above chart).

While the huge gatherings in Spain had an effect, the biggest difference was the speed in which testing rolled out. Spain, like the U.S. required central approval before administering a test. Germany’s s decentralized system experienced no such roadblocks. The result is Germany tested sooner and more widely, identifying a larger percentage of the infected earlier in their infection. This allowed for quicker quarantining of the infected, reducing exposure.

There are also cultural differences between Germans and Spaniards. Germans have a strong form of government and tend to be rule-followers. That’s not the case in Spain, whose central government let a week or more go by before they imposed the same social distancing requirements as Germany. Spaniards did not take the matter seriously until people started dying in large numbers. By then it was too late to stop the first acceleration of cases we see illustrated in the graph above.

With a country-wide lockdown enforced by police with roadblocks and drones, and nationalization of private hospitals, Spain has clamped down. Its trajectory will eventually decrease, but the delay will cost tens of thousands of lives.

What of the U.S.? Are they just trying to scare us with the projections of 100,000 to 240,000 U.S. dead?

Compared to Germany and Spain, the U.S. had an additional week’s time to prepare for the Covid-19 onslaught. Our federal government pissed it away, leaders convincing themselves that we had taken all the measures we needed by shutting our borders to those arriving from infected areas of China.

Unlike Germany, where the federal government acted deliberately, our federal government has been reluctant to exert control, leaving it up to states and municipalities to respond as they see fit. This has led to a rolling set of policies that react to local conditions after the problem has already grown large. That’s too late to dampen the curve quickly. Even today, when the positive effects of social distancing are understood, states like Florida still allow church services, which they deem essential services[ii].

This nonuniform response will continue to lead to rising case numbers. The same Florida governor who refused to close beaches during Spring Break issued a requirement for those travelling from New York to self-quarantine for fourteen days,[iii] as though the virus weren’t already spreading in his state.

So yes, given the spectacularly slow response by many state and local governments, I suspect health officials are trying to scare us into complying with requests/demands to stay at home. We’re doing much better than Spain, but not nearly as well as Germany. As it stands now, we’re not even matching Italy.

But isn’t the death rate for Covid-19 under 1%?

Does that mean we’ll have 10 to 25 million people infected? Later today, I project, we’ll exceed a quarter of a million people reported infected in the U.S. With all the social distancing ten million or twenty-five million seems unlikely in the near term. It’s unclear what assumptions the studies used to arrive at their death figures.[iv] Much depends on the duration covered, policies employed (and followed), and the death rates assumed.

The studies that showed death rates below 1% were based on data from China, which has come under question based in part on the number of urns being shipped to Wuhan province.[v] [vi]

What we do and don’t know about death rates.

The only way to know the mortality rate for a disease is to test everyone to determine who had the disease and divide that number into those who died from the disease. In fact, we’ll never know the factual answer. Some very smart people with sophisticated models will make their best estimates, which is where the 100,000 to 240,000 deaths came from.

What we know as of April 2, 2020

Excluding China, there have been 49,848 reported deaths and 933,344 reported cases of Covid-19. That’s a death rate of 5.3%. That’s low, because even if there were no more reported cases, we still expect more of those already infected to die.

An early study showed that on average two weeks passed between onset of first symptom and death. For a SWAG (some wild-assed guess), let’s assume the average reported case occurs seven days after the first symptom. If the 14-day period from first symptom to death holds up, then reported deaths came from the population whose illnesses were reported before March 26. Again removing China from the reported cases, that leaves nearly 50,000 worldwide deaths arising from 390,000 reported cases. That ratio is 12.8%!

Is that possible? Italy’s current death rate is 12.07% of reported cases. Spain, which started a week later than Italy, is already up to 9.2%.

But Germany has a 1.3%. rate. The lower rate is because the denominator includes many “healthy” sick discovered as part of Germany’s more extensive testing. Most of these additional individuals will recover (lowering the mortality rate compared to countries who didn’t know these types of individuals were ill).

Our testing rates are more comparable to Italy than to Germany, and so of those already reported, we should expect a higher mortality. (We’re already reached 2.5% and it’s climbing.) For us, experiencing 100,000 deaths may result from as few as one million reported cases—and we have already reached 250,000 cases.

It’s up to each of us.

Our previous actions, or lack thereof, have baked in the number of cases of Covid-19 the U.S. will experience over the next week to two weeks. What happens after mid-April depends on how each of us acts. Will you be responsible, or will your behavior kill others?

Your choice.

---

[i] https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2020-03-08/thousands-march-in-spain-on-womens-day-despite-coronavirus-fears

[ii] https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/490908-florida-other-states-allowing-church-services-during-coronavirus

[iii] https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/23/politics/florida-coronavirus-new-york-new-jersey/index.html

[iv] https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/experts-and-trumps-advisers-doubt-white-houses-240000-coronavirus-deaths-estimate/ar-BB125ZfP?ocid=spartandhp

[v] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-01/china-concealed-extent-of-virus-outbreak-u-s-intelligence-says

[vi] https://www.the-sun.com/news/618241/stacks-of-coronavirus-urns-and-queues-for-ashes-at-crematorium-cast-more-doubt-on-chinas-official-death-toll-of-2500/

* * * * *

James M. Jackson authors the Seamus McCree series. Full of mystery and suspense, these thrillers explore financial crimes, family relationships, and what happens when they mix. False Bottom, the sixth and most recent novel in the series is set in the Boston area. You can sign up for his newsletter and find more information about Jim and his books at https://jamesmjackson.com.

The COVID-19 Trajectory

On Thursday, March 26, the United States took over the top spot for the number of reported COVID-19 cases, exceeding 85,000. It’s important to recognize that reported cases are an inaccurate proxy for actual cases. Some countries may deliberately under-report their rate of infection. Some countries do more testing than others. Regardless of the statistic’s flaws, it’s what we have available.

Being number one is not a status we’d prefer, but it’s one we are likely to keep for a time. Ultimately, India, with its population four times larger than ours, or Indonesia, Brazil, Pakistan, Nigeria, Bangladesh or similar with lesser populations but less-developed healthcare could exceed our overall cases. We don’t wish it on anyone.

Using Reported Cases per Million of Population

Because of the population differences, the raw number of cases does not reflect the status of the disease within a country. Ten-thousand cases in a country of ten million is much more serious than ten thousand cases in a country of one-hundred million. Converting the raw reported numbers into cases per million of population eliminates the effect of population size.

All statistics used in this blog come from https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/. I have not attempted to independently verify their numbers, but I believe them to be reliable. As of March 26, the U.S. had a reported case rate of 258 per million. Italy stood at 1,333; Spain at 1,236, Germany at 524. Some countries we don’t hear about in the news have much higher rates: Iceland stands at 2,350 and Luxembourg at 2,321.

The U.S. Prognosis if it follows other country trends.

We are in the early stages of this contagion’s spread. I prepared this chart to illustrate how our rate of reported cases compares with Italy and Germany. Day 1 for each country is the date when reported cases per million of population was approximately 6. Italy (in blue) reached that milestone first and, therefore, has the most days on the chart. Germany (salmon) reached the threshold eight days after Italy. The U.S. (black) had the benefit of an additional week before it crossed the threshold.

Germany has closely tracked Italy for three weeks. That does not mean we know Germany will continue to follow Italy’s trend. Perhaps their “social distancing” measures will prove more effective, or their healthcare system more robust in stopping the spread of the disease by better testing and isolation of patients with positive coronavirus results.

The United States can take no comfort from this chart. Our rate of increase for the last week has exceeded Italy’s and Germany’s for their equivalent period.

What would it mean if we were to follow Italy’s trajectory? Using their 1,333 cases per million, the U.S. would total 440,000 reported cases at day 30. We would have about 33,000 new cases that day—Good Friday—two days before the President wishes for filled churches on Easter Sunday.

Will it be that bad?

I have no idea. Perhaps the measures many states have taken will be much more effective than Italy’s efforts, and we’ll see our rate of infection slow significantly. But it is also possible that because of the independent spirit Americans are so proud of, large pockets of the country will continue to ignore best medical precautions and our path will continue to worsen.

Below is the same chart, but with Spain added.

Spain (green) reached the initial six cases per million on the same day as Germany. They did not implement the same precautions, and Spain’s rate per million has already exceeded Italy’s.

These charts should be a precautionary tale. In the U.S. we still have large portions of our population who continue to be exposed. Those working in our hospitals are most vulnerable: we bring the worst cases to them. That is the sharp tip, but underneath are all those who continue to serve so we may live. The folks at the grocery stores, drug stores, Amazon’s warehouses, factories producing masks and ventilators, police, fire, national guard. The list goes on.

We have not isolated those “out in the world” from those in “self-isolation.” That’s why infections are likely to continue for many more weeks. We can hope warm weather will help bring an end, but seeing cases rising in places like Australia and Chile, where summer recently moved to autumn, do not provide comfort.

Over the next days, facts will replace supposition concerning the trajectory of infections in the U.S. Rather than wishing and hoping for life to return to normal in two weeks, we need to concentrate on caring for those most ill and protecting those most vulnerable from contact with anyone infected.

This might be an appropriate time to live the words John F Kennedy used in his inaugural speech. “Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.”

* * * * *

James M. Jackson authors the Seamus McCree series. Full of mystery and suspense, these thrillers explore financial crimes, family relationships, and what happens when they mix. False Bottom, the sixth and most recent novel in the series is set in the Boston area. You can sign up for his newsletter and find more information about Jim and his books at https://jamesmjackson.com.

What Are We Trying To Accomplish?

“The trouble with not having a goal is that you can spend your life running up and down the field and never score.” — Bill Copeland

“Without goals, and plans to reach them, you are like a ship that has set sail with no destination.” — Fitzhugh Dodson

The United States has not articulated a goal for dealing with the coronavirus that leads to COVID-19. Without clarity, we continue to mis-allocate and squander scarce resources and to sow distrust with conflicting information. In short, we will fail to reach our objective if we continue as a ship under full sail with no destination or compass.

The medical profession has proposed that our goal must be to flatten the curve of infection and provide extra resources so that our healthcare providers are not overwhelmed by the disease. The Trump administration has never accepted this objective.

Had that been the aim, the administration would have tried to slow contagion to buy time and use that respite to prepare for the coming tsunami of illness. It’s not that they didn’t know what to expect. Trump announced on January 31 that he was instituting some travel restrictions on individuals arriving from China. We won’t argue here whether the restrictions were too early or too late, too onerous or too lax. By the end of January, health officials knew the problem was serious enough to recommend restricting travel and Trump did.

In a globally connected world, no one could imagine that such restrictions would allow the U.S. to avoid contamination. By then, we already had several cases. What it could buy was time to prepare, time to buy some insurance. The thing about insurance is that you pay the premium and then hope like heck you never have to file a claim. We chose instead to wish for the best and not pay the insurance premium.

We should have ramped up production of masks. (One night of news from China showed that we’d need them.) By the end of January, we knew this disease required ventilators beyond our capacity. We should have ramped up production and storage. China was already building two additional hospitals Why weren’t we developing plans for providing more beds? So states and local government could react quickly when novel coronavirus made its appearance, we could have accelerated production of test kits and pre-distributed some portion to state health departments. We could have developed communication policies to educate residents on the danger, creating a language of short-term sacrifice for long-term benefit. I have seen no evidence we did anything of the sort.

The travel restrictions and decent luck bought us a month, and we pissed it away celebrating what a fine job we were doing and watching the DOW reach record highs.

In January and February, we did not have a goal to be prepared to control the novel coronavirus. Trump, on the campaign trail for re-election, dismissed any concerns over a pandemic and promoted his running of the economy: how low unemployment was, how high the stock market was.

Does that mean keeping our economy strong is the unstated goal? For some, it is. Florida’s governor refused to close beaches during Spring Break (although now he wants anyone visiting Florida from New York to self-quarantine for fourteen days!). Just this week, Texas Lt. Governor Dan Patrick suggested that grandparents should willingly risk death by COVID-19 “in exchange for keeping the America that all America loves for your children and grandchildren.” Obviously, healthcare is not something Patrick values as American. He wants us to “get back to work . . .get back to living . . .and those of us who are seventy-plus, we’ll take care of ourselves.”

This idea that what Americans value most is commerce is not a recent one. Calvin Coolidge said in a 1925 address to the American Society of Newspaper Editors that “The chief business of the American people is business. They are profoundly concerned with producing, buying, selling, investing and prospering in the world.”[i]

The question of the economic cost of saving lives is not abstract. We’d probably all agree that we wouldn’t send most people home for two weeks or longer to save one individual life. And we’d probably agree that if 100 million Americans would die because we didn’t shutter our economy, we close it down and count the bargain cheap. Easy answers at the extremes don’t eliminate tough choices in the middle.

That’s where having stated goals is useful. As many people have noted, we drive automobiles even though their use causes thousands of deaths and disabilities a year. Over time, Congress felt pressured and passed laws to make vehicles safer, but the convenience and economic advantages of automobile travel continue to be more important to us than the human toll of death and dismemberment autos cause.

With COVID-19, we have no shared vision of the tradeoff between economic well-being and increased mortality. If we agree that the only aim is to flatten the curve, we should take the approach of China and South Korea, test everyone and lock down the population. The hodge-podge of solutions at state and local levels when travel continues between areas can defeat even the best of intentions. Only national restrictions will work and only the federal government may do that. We’ve made shared sacrifices in times of war, but it’s important for leaders to demonstrate understanding. It does not help to propose social distancing and then see the President gather his team in close proximity for his daily update.

Despite Trump declaring himself a “wartime president” he has been ambivalent about calling for shared sacrifice and defining what that sacrifice must be. He declares that we will secure “total victory” over the virus without defining a path to success. Had he set clear objectives, Congress would have shared focus for its third try at bailing out portions of the economy, as it did with its first two slices at the pie. Without it, politicians (and their supporters) have retreated to their political tribal bunkers, squabbling over the same issues: corporations or people, broad-brush solutions or targeted remedies.

Dithering as a strategy in the face of a crisis is a recipe for disaster, and I fear we shall enjoy its bitter fruit. We cannot catch a time-machine and redo the past; we can only change the present and its effect on the future. I believe Americans will pull together if given a clear understanding of their required sacrifices and a believable assurance that the government will mitigate the damage as much as it can. Only one person has the positional power to make this happen.

President Trump must tell us his intentions. In clear, direct, unambiguous language, he must detail the goals he wants us to achieve. In November, voters can decide the wisdom of his proposed course and either reward him with four more years or vote him out of office. 

---

[i] https://blogs.loc.gov/inside_adams/2019/01/when-a-quote-is-not-exactly-a-quote-the-business-of-america-is-business-edition/

*     *     *     *     *

James M. Jackson authors the Seamus McCree series. Full of mystery and suspense, these thrillers explore financial crimes, family relationships, and what happens when they mix. False Bottom, the sixth and most recent novel in the series is set in the Boston area. You can sign up for his newsletter and find more information about Jim and his books at https://jamesmjackson.com.