The debate over when and how to “reopen the economy” during this pandemic is a debate about acceptable risk. Many proponents of a quick return to normal cite the nearly 40,000 road deaths we seem to accept every year.
This comment from ‘Honeybee’, on a recent Times story about Covid testing failures, is typical of this line of reasoning.
“The virus is here to stay. It has a very low fatality rate for people under 65 who are relatively healthy. The rate isn't zero, but neither is the rate zero for riding in a car or flying on a plane. Stop this hysteria. Stay home if you are terrified. No one can infect you if you stay home.”
Conveniently, the number of Americans killed by Covid-19 so far this year is about the same as the number killed annually in traffic accidents. (36,560 in 2018, according to DOT FARS data.)
Of course in reality, the comparison of those fatality totals is specious. The Covid-19 deaths have all occurred in the last few weeks. Assuming an equal degree of exposure, Covid-19 is far more dangerous–even to young people–than driving.
Last but not least, you can’t go out and engage in risky behavior on the road, get in an accident, then go home and breath on someone else and cause them to have an accident two weeks later. The analogy between the risks of Covid-19 and driving is fatally flawed.
In spite of that, I would argue that we should treat the risks of reopening the economy the same way we treat the risks of driving. Here’s why...
Road fatalities and injury accidents are extensively researched and analyzed both by government agencies within the Department of Transportation, and by NGOs like the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, with the result that very accurate models exist to predict mortality and morbidity.
Everyone gets tested
Driving is heavily regulated. We test and license drivers. We insist they’re all insured. In most states we safety inspect every vehicle.
Every state has a traffic code listing hundreds of rules. States, counties, and municipalities deploy hundreds of thousands of cops to enforce those rules, writing millions of tickets resulting in billions of dollars in fines. Every state maintains a database of violations, and cops in other states can easily access it. Even minor violations can dramatically increase the cost of mandatory insurance. Violating laws that wantonly put others at risk, such as driving while impaired, will result in imprisonment.
As individuals, no one is just ‘allowed to take their chances’ on the road.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the Federal Highway Administration, along with Departments of Transportation in all 50 states, regulate auto safety and road infrastructure standards.
Every new car is crash tested. Auto manufacturers are forced to build in advanced technology from anti-lock brakes to air bags, with the goal of reducing the number of accidents and helping to make inevitable accidents more survivable. Taken as a whole, these safety efforts have cost us–consumers and taxpayers–countless billions. They’ve also made driving far, far safer than it otherwise would have been and saved at least 50,000 lives.
Of course, states have the latitude to make rules that reflect unique conditions and residents’ preferences. Texas is free to post a speed limit of 85 mph on Highway 130, and let motorcyclists ride without helmets. But statutes and discretionary funding give the federal DOT the ability to ensure that broadly similar standards are upheld across the country. That’s as it should be as American drivers freely cross state lines.
So yes, we really should apply the rules to ‘reopening the economy’ as we do to driving. Our approach should be data-driven, with the goal of maximizing public safety. The federal government has a responsibility to ensure that technology like testing protocols actually works. The research needed should be fully funded. Re-opening the economy should be well-regulated. And the rules should be enforced.
Just like driving.