The governors of the 50 states got handed a heavy responsibility by this virus to make decisions as to whether to impose a “lockdown” on their respective economies, and if so, how severe of one. Lock down too little, and you could face higher infection and death rates than other states, for which you would get immediate media attacks and blame; but lock down too much, and you could impose massive and potentially unnecessary economic harm on your citizens. Universally, the so-called “expert” medical and scientific advisors counseled in favor of the most severe possible lockdowns — but then, their focus is only on preventing the deaths, and they have no particular expertise in the workings of an economy.

While the dichotomy is not perfect, in general most Democratic governors opted for early and strict versions of lockdown, and have not begun to ease their lockdowns even now; meanwhile most Republican governors imposed lockdowns later (or in at least one case, not at all), and in less severe form, and have begun loosening them earlier.

The results of the differing policies are far from final at this point, but data have begun to emerge. To look at success or failure of a given governor’s policies, you need to look at two things: the disease result (measured by rate of infections and/or deaths) and the economic results (measured by some metric of economic impact).

Bottom line: on the disease side, it is impossible to find from the data any success achieved from severe lockdowns in slowing rates of infection or death. In states that have imposed severe lockdowns, infections and deaths have continued at high rates; while states that have not imposed severe lockdowns have not (at least as of yet) seen any surge in infections or deaths to remotely approach the levels in the more affected states. Meanwhile, the difference between severe and less severe lockdowns in economic results has become dramatically apparent in data recently compiled by the Tax Foundation as to unemployment claims through April 25.

For the comparisons in this post, I’m going to be relying on disease data as to infections and deaths as published at Worldometers here. These data are constantly changing, but I’m taking figures on the evening of May 8. You can go to the link to see the latest updates. For economic results, I’ll use data on unemployment claims as of April 25 from the Tax Foundation that appeared on the Powerline blog yesterday. Here is a map of the Tax Foundation data:

Start with New York, New Jersey and Connecticut — my beloved “Tri-State Region.” All have Democratic governors, and severe versions of lockdown, with no indication of when it will end. Those lockdowns have brought these states to unemployment claims as a percent of the labor force (as of April 25)(forgive me the abbreviation of UCPLF) of 19.3%, 15.2% and 18.1% respectively. And by that sacrifice did they bring their death rates down to anywhere near the national norms? Not at all. As of this writing, these three states rank first, second and third highest of all states in deaths per million population (DPMP): 1,367 in New York, 1,012 in New Jersey and 806 in Connecticut. On Wednesday, Governor Cuomo of New York said it was “shocking” that most new coronavirus hospitalizations were among people who had been staying home and had not gone out much.

The two biggest-population states with Republican governors are Texas and Florida. Both had relatively mild lockdowns, imposed relatively late; and both have already begun the process of reopening. Texas has UCPLF of 8.6% and DPMP of 37. It seems that Senator Ted Cruz went today to get his hair cut by a Texas salon owner who had previously been arrested for staying open. In Florida, UCPLF is 8.8%, while DPMP is 78. A friend of mine in Sarasota went this evening to have dinner at a restaurant that reopened today. There’s no such thing as an open restaurant or hair salon in New York or Connecticut.

At Powerline, they’ve been running a long series of artilcles about the virus response in the states of the Upper Midwest: Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, North Dakota and South Dakota. The first two of those have Democratic governors, and have imposed very severe versions of lockdown. The latter three have Republican governors, and have imposed less severe versions of lockdown, right down to South Dakota, which has imposed no mandatory lockdown restrictions at all. Here is the most recent Powerline post comparing the five states. (Go to the Powerline site for many more posts discussing the insanity of the severe lockdowns in Minnesota and Wisconsin.). All five states have relatively low rates of disease impact (DPMPs are Minnesota 95, Wisconsin 66, Iowa 77, North Dakota 43 and South Dakota 35), but Minnesota and Wisconsin of course have the higher UCPLFs (Minnesota 15.5%, Wisconsin 12.0%, Iowa 11.5%, North Dakota 11.4%, and South Dakota 6.1%).

South Dakota’s UCPLF, at 6.1%, is the lowest in the country. Of course it is. They are the only state that has had no mandatory lockdown at all. The spokesperson for Governor Kristi Noem is a young woman named Maggie Seidel. A few years ago, when she was working in Washington for some trade association, Ms. Seidel contacted me, said she was a big fan of the blog, and asked if she could meet me the next time she traveled to New York. We have been in touch sporadically ever since. Recently, she’s been living in Pierre, South Dakota — likely the most remote of all state capitals — but she has been peppering me with mainstream media articles critical of Governor Noem, and of Governor Noem’s responses. Here is an example of a recent (May 5) article from the AP predicting disaster for Governor Noem. And here is a picture of Ms. Seidel:

Obviously, it has taken quite a bit of courage for Governor Noem to pursue the path she has chosen, in the face of relentless attacks. So far, she is showing her adversaries to be idiots. But we already knew that.

Two other states of note. In Georgia, Republican governor Brian Kemp imposed a relatively severe lockdown, but then was one of the first governors to push to get the state reopened. Georgia’s DPMP stands at 132, and its UCPLF hit 19.7%. But is the reopening causing any new surge in cases? From James Freeman in today’s Wall Street Journal:

Remember two weeks ago when politicians and media pundits were condemning Georgia’s decision to deviate from the lockdown consensus and allow various businesses to resume operations? Not only has the virus curve flattened in the Peach [Tree] State. Data from the last 14 days show a welcome trend of declining new cases and deaths.

And then there is Michigan, with Democratic Governor Gretchen “Half” Whitmer. Its lockdown has been among the most draconian in the country, even supposedly preventing people with two homes in the state from traveling from one to the other. UCPLF is 19.8%; DPMP is 440. The lockdown continues. Good work, Gretchen.

It is very difficult to look at these data and believe that the lockdowns are accomplishing anything at all in disease prevention, even as millions of people get thrown out of work for little or no reason. Yet anybody — from President Trump on down — who suggests that the time to reopen has come, immediately gets subjected to a media pile-on. It’s almost as if they want the economy to fail for some reason.

As to why some states have much higher death rates than others, I don’t know that anyone has a completely satisfactory explanation. The best hypothesis I have seen is that it makes a big difference to how sick you get whether you get infected in a way to convey a “high viral load” versus a “low viral load.” Sitting next to an infected person for an hour or two would likely convey a high load; a two minute chat on the street would convey a low load. This hypothesis would at least provide a start for understanding why high density places like New York have higher death rates. But at this point, it is only a hypothesis.