Does science tell when to shutdown?

Biden's claim that he would follow the science when deciding when to shutdown the economy is a shame and a shame. Don Boudreaux explains why science cannot tell us when to shut down. His reply to a reader echos what the WSJ posted earlier. Claiming otherwise denies the responsibility of authorities to consider ALL aspects of life, not just some statistics on coronavirus. I recognize that decision is difficult, in large part because uncertainty makes comparison of the costs and benefits difficult. I also recognize that the promise to "follow the science" may be a great campaign tactic because it contributes the narrative that Trump is anti-science. However, we need more clear and honest discussion of the costs and benefits of shutdowns, not pious, vague promises.

Should we "follow the science?"

The emphasis by some politicians and reporters that public policy should follow the science is a shame and a sham. By following the science, they mean implementing policies that Dr. Fauci and others who study rates of infection, hospitalizations, ICU and ventilator usage, and deaths from COVID-19 recommend. If these expert scientists tell us that imposing shutdowns, masks, or other dictates would save some level of lives because the rates exceed some level, "following the science" means that the politicians would follow the recommendation and impose the recommended shutdowns, masks, or other dictates. This singular focus on the adverse impacts of COVID-19 ignores the reality that the implementing the recommendations imposes its own costs. What happens to current income when the government commands people not to work? What happens to learning and future incomes when the government commands students to learn remotely? What happens to death rates from other diseases? What happens to rates of depression and suicide now and in the future? This sample of questions shows that anyone trying to determine the best response to COVID-19 should balance many competing priorities.

I agree that the "most elemental duty of the politician [is] the balancing of competing priorities." Politicians who say or imply that that COVID-19 is the only priority shirk their most elemental duty. For reporters not to press them to ask about how they balance competing priorities stifles the honest and difficult debate we need.  

Is Biden's claim about masks accurate?

I fear that Biden's claim about the efficacy of wearing masks and the media's complacency in reporting it are both shams and and shames. Biden claimed that "The estimates by the experts are that it [mandatory mask wearing] will save over 40,000 lives in the next three months." A quick Google search reveals no support for the claim. The search does reveal that in June the IHME forecast that wearing masks would save 33,000 by October. Perhaps Biden rounded up and presumed that the mandate would make people go back in time to change their behavior retroactively. Otherwise, how would wearing masks for three months save 40,000 lives when wearing them for five months would save only 33,000?

Compounding the exaggeration is the lack of any attempt that I have seen by the media to press him on the basis for his recommendation. The media stresses the inability of Trump to "follow the science" and repeats endlessly that he makes statements "without evidence". What is the science that says wearing masks for the next three months would save 40,000 lives? What evidence did he provide to support his claim other a vague reference to "experts"? The media mocks Trump when he says, "people say". Saying "experts say" is no better.