Imagine a virus worse than the Black Death ripping through Europe and slowly finding its way into the US.
What should we do?
If something good is going to come from our last pandemic it’d be that we’re better prepared for a much worse one in the future.
But in fact, we’re even worse off because it increased political polarization.
With that said, I think there’s still a broad middle we can agree on before the four horsemen ravage our land…
Preparation:
First, it starts with prevention. Let’s ban “gain-of-function research,” aka developing biological weapons of mass destruction. It’s already banned in the US, but we shouldn’t give funding to foreign institutions we suspect of doing it and just as we have an international agency to stop nuclear weapons (IAEA) and chemical weapons (OMCW) we need one for stopping biological weapons.
Second, we need to better test people/goods coming into the US, especially from countries we suspect of carrying out gain-of-function research (cough, cough, China). And similarly, we should implement a 5% — 10% censorship sanction on nations that prohibit free speech to disincentivize the suppression of whistle-blowers.1
Third, let’s have a healthier, debt-free, more self-sufficient population so that more of us can afford to hunker down for a prolonged period.
Fourth, let’s massively increase our medical innovation/supply via deregulation as well as restructuring our military to dedicate less of its resources to offense and more to defense, such as by having a large well-trained army of medical staff.
Fifth, federal buildings should be outfitted to be more germ-resistant, which can then serve as a role model for the private sector. This is particularly important for properties we consider “essential.”
One U.S. report estimates that bringing ventilation up to scratch could be as effective in stemming airborne diseases as vaccinating half the building’s population. — Thomas Wintle
Sixth, let’s build up our Strategic National Stockpiles (SNS) so that there is, for example, enough PPE for every American (e.g. masks, PEP, nonperishable goods, etc.). Our distribution centers should also regularly do drills with state and local governments to improve overall coordination.
Seventh, we should pass a Balanced Budget Amendment that contains a robust rainy day fund (RDF) — capped at 30% of federal revenue — so the government can access these funds in the event of a war, depression, natural disaster, or pandemic.2
Pandemic Emergency Response:
But then what should be the process for which we tap into these reserves to escalate a powerful response?
As it stands, the president can unilaterally increase border testing, quarantine travelers, stop travel from a country, and tell the responsible federal and state authorities to get ready to launch a full-scale response.
But to escalate further I think a new virus should have to be projected to kill at least 0.001% of the US population in a year (roughly 3,000 people)34 for the president to then be able to call an emergency session of Congress to enact Stage 1…
If passed by 2/3rd, the president could stop 10% of travel from abroad, designate 10% of the US a hot spot, use 10% of the SNS, spend 10% of the RDF,5 fast-track vaccine/drug development, and require on federal property: PPE, testing, and social distancing.
The percentages are less important than the principle that there should be a clear objective escalation process.
If it’s projected to kill 0.01% of the US population in a year (roughly 30,000 people) then the president could call an emergency session of Congress to enact Stage 2…
If passed by 2/3rd, the president could stop 70% of travel, designate 70% of the US a hot spot, use 70% of the SNS, spend 70% of the RDF, pause tax collection, and close non-essential federal services as well as require a vaccine to enter federal property or work as a federal employee.
If it’s projected to kill 0.1% of the US population in a year (roughly 300,000 people) then the president could call an emergency session of Congress to enact Stage 3…
If passed by 2/3rd, the president could stop 100% of travel, designate 100% of the US a hot spot, use 100% of the SNS, spend 100% of the RDF, and abolish medical licensing requirements for all federal positions & funding.
Expiration
Every month Congress would have to vote to maintain the emergency response. If it fails to get a majority then PER would sunset in a week, therefore, restoring the federal government to a state of normalcy (unless supplemental legislation suggested otherwise).
This bill should also contain a… Pandemic Bill of Rights.
The federal government shouldn’t be able to force private businesses nor individuals to lockdown, social distance, wear PPE, or be vaccinated.
The only exceptions should be if…
#1 they’re traveling into the US then they can be quarantined so long as it respects the 5th and 14th Amendment’s rights of Due Process and Equal Protection to not be “arbitrary, oppressive, and unreasonable” and where individuals must be notified of their right to counsel, independent third-party medical review, access to necessities/internet/outdoors/stipend, and be able “to ask a federal court to review their federal quarantine, including any rights to habeas review.”
#2 they’re traveling from a hot spot so that if hypothetically a virus broke out on skid row then the federal government with permission from the state government could help quarantine that section of the city or the whole city or state or region. Businesses and individuals who exist within a hot spot could continue to stay open and move about (so long as their state government within reason doesn’t say otherwise),6 but if they want to leave then the government could put them in a short-term holding facility (maximum 60 days) and/or give them stay-at-home orders.
#3 they test positive for the virus, which the federal government can have checkpoints for on federal highways and work in conjunction with the states to have checkpoints on state/local roads at which point those who tested positive could be isolated.
Even libertarians can get behind this exception because they believe in the do not harm principle and so just as it’s illegal to punch me it should and already is illegal to knowingly infect me and in the event of a pandemic I think it’s fair to consider knowingly carrying a highly contagious deadly virus even if you have no intent to do harm as similar in principle to reckless endangerment and/or gross negligence.
Conclusion
I sought to balance a multitude of principles to maximize the long-term quantity and quality of life.
I balanced a quick broad unilateral response with objective thresholds so that the president could do his utmost to stop the spread, but he wouldn’t be able to effectively and indefinitely abolish checks-and-balances under the guise of public safety concerns.
I balanced safety with liberty so that if authoritarians wanted to “not let a crisis go to waste” to increase the state’s power they’d be confronted with the reality of having to give up some power in other areas.
I balanced saving lives in the short-term with saving lives in the long-term so that the government can spend a huge amount of money — a 30% RDF would be the largest in the world — but not so much that we’d make life afterwards several degrees worse therefore causing a net decrease in life years.
In the end, I welcome constructive criticism, but then what’s your plan? The more you believe in democracy the less you can abdicate responsibility to an elite few to figure out what to do, which is especially true the more you also believe in liberty because if your plan is that the government should do nothing then in practice you’re saying it should do everything.
Don’t let the allure of feeling ideologically pure cause you to not make concessions where we must in order to get stronger protections than exist so that on the net America can be even more of the land of the free and the home of the brave for centuries to come.
Social Media: Federal agencies should be banned from advocating for censoring legal speech and obviously we should cut their funding since apparently they have so much time on their hands to be scrolling social media for what they feel is “misinformation” and “hate.”
BBA: The beauty of a balanced budget amendment is it’d make deficit/surplus spending a 2/3rd vote, which is particularly useful during mass hysteria. By tying each stage to surplus spending it’d help constrain the other actions too. Of course, Congress could use a majority vote to pass a standalone bill that does any of the aforementioned staged actions, but at least with stages it’d streamline the process when time is of the essence and compromises are already baked into the stages so to bypass it would garner the err of the other party therefore reducing public trust at a time when it’s most essential.
Objective: I’m not a fan of the legislature passing its responsibility off to the administrative state and the courts in order to determine what a “pandemic” or “national emergency” are because these terms can be interpreted too broadly to serve as any real check on executive power, but of course the reason legislators do this is because as soon as they give a specific number it’s easier for people to attack, “0.1% is too low, tyrant!” “0.1% is too high, murderer!” I erred toward a lower end, but whatever number enough legislators can settle on to pass the bill will be better than not picking a number at all.
Projection: But then who should be in charge of making the projections? I’m openminded on the specific organizations responsible for making it (CDC, NIH, CSSE, IHME, etc.), but I think it should be about 3 - 7 (chosen bipartisanly) where they then vote as a committee if they think a new virus will surpass any given threshold. And then at the end of the year, which ever organization was the most accurate should get a large cash bonus and the least accurate should be replaced.
If the RDF is 30% of the federal budget then every year 1% - 2% could automatically be added to it so that every 15 - 30 years it’d fill up. If it hasn’t filled up yet, e.g. back-to-back pandemics, then the government could still spend at each stage as if the RDF was 100% full aka the equivalent to 30% of the previous year’s federal budget.
State-based lockdowns: The federal government can’t lockdown, but state governments can… within reason. The 1st and 14th Amendments don’t disappear during a “pandemic,” but then… “how much is reasonable”? This is tricky ground. Should unelected judges decide by staring off into the distance asking themselves what they feel is “reasonable”? For example, the Texas Supreme Court considered the longer lockdowns continue, the less legal they become, but then who should decide when “long” is long enough? Judges? Or should the US Congress offer clarity — similar to the Civil Rights Acts, ADA, ADEA, Clean Air/Water Act — where it restricts state governments based in part on its own interpretation of what’s reasonable so that the US Congress could draft a law that says something along the lines of: “In order for a state to issue stay-at-home orders 2/3rd’s of their legislature must agree every 30 days for a maximum of 90 days at which point Congress must also then vote on whether to extend the cap every 30 days thereafter.” Or we can just leave it entirely to the states/courts to decide what’s “reasonable” where I recommend at least one state adopt a law embracing this 2/3rd recurring vote.
Anthony, thanks for this very well thought out piece on preventing and coping with the next pandemic. Your article deserves and hopefully will get a much wider audience. What is obvious is that our response needs to be global, not subject to the political dysfunction that plagues nation states.
For many years thought leaders like Larry Brilliant have discussed the potential of using information technology to manage pandemics. My son lived in Singapore during Covid and saw the effectiveness of thier use of infotech. Today with AI and yet better communication, it would be very interesting to put together a global team to push your ideas forward. I think people like Jensen Huang an Nvidia would be a lightning rod for attracting the kind of people needed.
This is one of the most important articles you have written. Please push it forward.