How Concerned About Coronavirus Should We Be?: April 2020 Edition

If you turn on the news or social media these days, it seems as if the only topic dominating the news is coronavirus. It has reached the point where many of us in the Western world are under lockdown, whether it's referred to as stay-at-home, shelter-in-place, or a movement control order. It has taken 228,299 lives as of April 30, 2020 at 9:08am EST (Johns Hopkins). As these lockdowns last longer, we wonder what the future holds. Part of that wondering is asking how bad COVID-19 really is. I asked that question last month while going through the reasons to worry and not to worry so much. Please consult my March analysis here since this entry will be an update of what has gone on since mid-March.

Bad News

• There are still a lot of "known unknowns." Since this is a novel virus, there are still a lot of factors that scientists do not know about COVID-19. Will there be a vaccine or treatment? Will there be a second wave? Is it possible to contract COVID-19 if you have previously contracted it? What percent of a given population has already had COVID-19? What percent of people are asymptomatic? There is more data than we had last month, but we still do not definitely know the answer to some of these basic questions. 
• We could likely have a second wave. Seasonality is still technically an unknown. But given how past pandemics have behaved, a second wave of COVID-19 is likely. Plus, we have seen second waves in such countries as Singapore and Japan. There is also the question of whether a second wave would be worse. The swine flu had its second wave in the fall. If the second wave for COVID-19 hit in the winter, it would likely be worse because it would coincide with flu season. There is also the matter of how relaxed social distancing matters are in determining whether a possible second wave would be worse. 
• Immunity after infection? One of the key questions is whether immunity is developed after infection.  On April 24, the World Health Organization said that there is no evidence that recovered COVID-19 patients are immune after recovered. This has not been confirmed in either direction. If reinfection is possible, it would mean that such policies as immunity passports and herd immunity would lose effectiveness. But based on other viruses, it is reasonable to assume there is at least some immunity developed after recovery. 
• Will we have a vaccine? There are over 70 vaccines in development. Bill Gates has been pouring a lot of money into a vaccine, and thinks that a vaccine in 12 months is possible. Not everyone shares that optimism. Sir Patrick Vallance, who is the chief scientist in the U.K., said that a vaccine would be a long-shot, and even if it were successful, it would take time. Plus, we have to take into account that such coronaviruses as SARS and MERS do not have vaccines, along with HIV and even the common cold. 

Mixed News

• Asymptomatic rate. The CDC director estimates that 25 percent of those with COVID-19 are symptomatic. Chinese data puts that figure at 20 percent. The randomized test from Iceland suggests that it could be as high as 50 percent. A high asymptomatic rate is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it means that a significant amount of people who contract COVID-19 do not feel a thing. On the other hand, it makes it easier to spread COVID-19. 
• Antibody tests and infection rates. Some people were worried that infection rates were too low. If they ended up being less than 5 percent (or even 1 percent), that would mean that we have only begun to feel the pain from COVID-19. Some antibody tests help give us a better perspective on infection rates. We have infection rates for Miami (4.4-7.9 percent), New York State (14 percent) and New York City (21 percent), Los Angeles County (2.8-5.6 percent), and Santa Clara County in California (2.5-4.2 percent). These amounts are 10 times higher than initially estimated [for New York] and up to 80 times higher [Santa Clara]. Some would argue that these latest figures are still too low. It theoretically could be since the ultimate infection rate is still a "known unknown." On the other hand, let's take a look at history. For the Spanish Flu (1918-1920), about one third were infected. For the swine flu (2009-2010), the infection rate was about 24 percent. If we use some past pandemics as a proxy, we're not there yet, but we're a lot closer than we initially thought. 
• Still waiting on a treatment. Although there are over 160 potential treatments for COVID-19 being worked on, none of theme have yet to emerge as a treatment. The anti-malarial hydroxychloroquine, the drug that Trump touted, hasn't shown promise. The study (not yet peer-reviewed) from the Veterans Administration (VA) shows that it is ineffective (Maganoli et al., 2020). The drug remdesivir was supposed to be fruitful because it has helped with such past coronaviruses as SARS and MERS. While there have been some conflicting results, Dr. Anthony Fauci said that preliminary data results from Gilead Sciences released yesterday show "significant, positive improvement." The FDA plans on using an emergency use authorization to approve remdesivir for COVID-19 treatment. If remdesivir is successful, it could be a game-changer. 
• Most COVID-19 patients have comorbidity. COVID-19 is understood to predominantly affect the elderly and the immunocompromised. In New York City, the average age of those who died from COVID-19 was 63 years. 94 percent of the COVID-19 patients had at least one underlying health condition (Richardson et al., 2020). This finding is confirmed by the Italian Health Ministry's statistics (Istituto Superiore di Sanità). They found that a) the average age of death for a COVID-19 patient was 78 years old, and b) over 98 percent had a pre-existing condition. For those more susceptible, this does not provide comfort. Conversely, this means it is not going to hit most of the population heavily, especially if the infection rate remains low (see below). Also, it means that we could have a more targeted isolation policy instead of keeping everyone in lockdown. 

Good News

• The reproductive rate (R0) has been declining in multiple countries. R0 measures the rate of transmission of a given disease. In March, it was estimated somewhere between 2.0 and 3.5. For transmission to ultimately fade, R0 needs to be below 1.0. According to the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, the rates are declining.

• What is the average detection rate? This question is important because it tells us what percent of the population has already had COVID-19. The University of Göttingen estimates that it is at a global average of 9 percent (Bommer and Volmer, 2020). 
• Fatality rate is relatively low. Without mass testing in multiple jurisdictions, it becomes difficult to know how deadly COVID-19 is. We know that confirmed cases skews the fatality rate upwards (vis-à-vis the crude fatality rate) because much of testing has been done for those exhibiting symptoms. There have been some preliminary studies using antibody tests to approximate infection fatality rate (IFR) that could give insight. Los Angeles County recently released findings that suggest that the IFR is 0.1 to 0.2 percent. Iceland shows a infection fatality rate of 0.2 percent, while a study coming from Germany shows the IFR at 0.4 percent. New York City's numbers are showing an infection fatality rate of 0.6 percent. In either case, this number is by far lower than the 3-plus-percent that the WHO had initially estimated. 
• A study from a Stanford epidemiologist suggests that the death risk for those under 65 is the equivalent of driving 9 miles per day [for those in Germany] and 415 miles a day [for those in New York] (Ioannidis et al., 2020).
• Possibility of summer reprieve. The Department of Homeland Security reportedly found that heat and humidity could help kill COVID-19. This could potentially provide us a break. However, the study has not been released or peer-reviewed. 

Postscript: Much of the panic caused in response to COVID-19 is the number of unknown factors. We don't know how bad this will end up being. We don't see an end in sight, and the barrage of bad news doesn't do any favors. On the other hand, as more data comes in, we do see glimmers of hope. The infection rate is higher than we thought, which means we're closer to the finish line. The fatality rate is nowhere near as high as the WHO projected earlier this year. While there is still considerable uncertainty with COVID-19, the picture is becoming clearer. It is my hope that we keep covering this topic so that people can replace panic with an accurate perspective.

Reflecting on My 1,000th Blog Entry and Why I'm Still a Libertarian, Pandemic or Not

I can't believe it, but this is the 1,000th piece I have written for Libertarian Jew. Assuming that I spent an average of two hours on each blog entry, that would mean that I have spent over an entire month of my life blogging. I reflect back on why I started writing this blog in the first place. During my young adult years, I was staunchly conservative. What drew me close to conservatism in college were the ideas of individual freedom, limited government, lower taxes, personal responsibility, and fiscal discipline from the government. I found camaraderie amongst my conservative friends during college (although a lot of them turned out to be libertarian like me). I developed a love and appreciation for what conservatism was supposed to stand for.

That started to change in 2009 when I started to re-examine some of my firmly-held conservative beliefs. The first one was my stance on same-sex marriage. Certainly at that time, the standard right-wing belief was to be against same-sex marriage. I held that belief mostly because of influence from family and friends. I asked myself if conservatives believe in individual freedom, how can one deny a union between consenting adults or right to contract? It didn't make sense to me anymore.

Afterwards, I questioned my beliefs in criminalizing marijuana and restricting immigration to the U.S. I also scrutinized my views about the wars that the U.S. was fighting. Not only did those wars drive up the federal budget deficit, but the government limited individual freedom with the Patriot Act and the creation of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). During this stage of my life, I was reading a lot of Milton Friedman, Frederich Hayek, and Frédéric Bastiat, which is a reading list that heavily points towards classical liberalism. I realized that conservatism was not an accurate reflection of my values. Individual freedom, limited government, lower taxes, and personal responsibility are ideas much more consistently and better represented in libertarianism.

Once I abandoned conservatism for libertarianism, I started writing this blog. My earlier pieces were more political commentary than anything else, although I did occasionally blog on my recently founded religion of Judaism as a way to explore various practices and rituals of the Jewish religion. During my graduate school program in public policy, my blog shifted from commentary to analysis. It became a place to scrutinize and analyze my own views. Libertarian Jew was a way for me to develop and ultimately solidify why I am a libertarian. It also provided me a modest way to educate others about libertarianism, which is why I thank you, the reader, for taking the time over the years (or however long you have read my blog) for being part of my readership.

This leads to a question I have been giving a lot of thought lately. Why be libertarian at all? What do I find so appealing about libertarianism that I remain libertarian over a decade later? There are multiple types of libertarianism, and I am not going to speak for all libertarians. That being said, I would like to divide my personal reasoning for being libertarian into two categories: a values-based argument and an outcomes-based argument revolving around consequential libertarianism.

My Values-Based Reasons for Being Libertarian

1. I love liberty. "Life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" is a good way to sum it up. On a personal level, I feel that as long as I am not harming anyone, I should have the freedom to spend my money how I want, practice whatever religion I would like, marry whatever consenting adult I choose, associate with whomever I would like, and consume what I want. That is the premise behind the non-aggression axiom. I feel that way not only on an individual level, but a societal one. Without free will, ethics become meaningless. We are responsible for our choices, both good and bad. Plus, the freedom to pursue your goals and live life on your own terms is exhilarating. 
2. Respect of other individuals, autonomy, and personal responsibility. Libertarians view the individual as the basic unit of social analysis. Libertarianism doesn't view things in terms of communal or group rights, but rather individual rights. It doesn't matter if you are straight, gay, bisexual, or have another sexual orientation. I don't care if you are Democrat, Republican, or independent. You could be Jewish, Christian, Muslim, atheist, agnostic, or identify with another religion. The point is that regardless of who you are, libertarianism cares about the dignity of the individual. That entails both individual rights and responsibilities. My rights end where your rights begin, and you take ownership of your decisions, good or bad. Being able to extend this respect and dignity beyond white males in power, whether we are talking about women, African-Americans, those of minority religions or sexual orientations, or other disenfranchised individuals, has been one of the greatest libertarian triumphs in history. 
3. Limited government and rule of law. Libertarianism is not hedonism. Per the non-agression axiom, individuals are able to pursue their interests and live their lives as long as they respect others. To protect an individual's rights, individuals formed governments. At the same time, government can be a dangerous institution because of the power it wields.  I, along with most libertarians, believe in limited government. This means that I believe that there are certain roles that the government ought to play. However, too much concentrated government power is the best way to strip one of individual rights. History books are replete of examples of where government is the worst abuser of individual rights, whether they be Mao Zedong, Adolph Hitler, Queen Isabella and King Ferdinand, Benito Mussolini, Fidel Castro, or Augusto Pinochet. As Lord Acton said, "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
4. Tolerance and diversity. These are expected outcomes of a pluralistic, multicultural society that respects individual rights. Libertarianism demands that we mind our own business, even when we would rather not. It imposes a minimalist level of morality of "do not do unto others as you would want done unto you," also known as the non-agression axiom. It is about establishing a basic framework of rules so that people can pursue their lives as freely as possible. Tolerance is not acceptance. Some might live a religious lifestyle while others live a secular one. Some will be wicked, others virtuous. Most people are somewhere in between virtuous and righteous I don't have to agree with your beliefs or life choices to get along with you. As long as you live in peace and respect another's individuality and rights, that's what counts. As a side note, libertarianism has provided me with the openness to get along with people who are different than me, and as a result, makes for a richer life experience.  

My Outcomes-Based Reasons for Being Libertarian
As much I hold to the aforementioned values, I find they are an incomplete description as to why I am libertarian. I recognize that people can have wildly divergent views, values, and opinions. I also recognize that values are more subjective, although the more minimalist values of respect for others (e.g., don't murder, don't steal) are more universal in nature. I respect freedom, but others might not. That is why I ultimately define myself as a consequentialist libertarian. Essentially, I hold to consequential libertarianism because I find that limited government and a liberalized, market-based economy work best.

Obviously, what constitutes the "best" or metrics involved varies from topic to topic. If you are looking for topic-specific examples, my blog provides a myriad of examples. Both markets and governments have failures. A market-based system and a government-based system both have human actors, which makes the process definitionally fallible. However, when accounting for each and comparing market failures to government failures, I heavily favor markets over governments because in the vast majority of instances, a market-based policy outperforms a government-based one. As Nobel Prize-winning economist Gary Becker points out, "On the whole, government failure is far more pervasive, damaging, and less self-correcting, than is market failure."

I advocate for capitalism because it works. One could counter me by saying that if communism worked well, I could become an advocate for communism. Holding a consequentialist view of public policy, that is theoretically possible. Here's the catch with that criticism: Anything can work in theory because you could manipulate the hypotheticals to say whatever you like. In practice, communism failed, plain and simple. Communism has not been around for that long, and yet it caused so much misery and the deaths of millions. Socialism has also failed, but the magnitude of the failure is not that of communism.

As I explain in my debunking about myths on capitalism, allowing for freer trade, greater foreign investment, and market liberalization has given us a quality of life that no government policy has. There is no political or economic system that can hold a candle to the amount of poverty alleviation or improvements in life that a market-based system has provided. On the other hand, government policy and regulation is by and large stifling; it does more harm than good.

The harm of government regulation has proven itself to be especially true during the COVID-19 pandemic. Earlier this month, I came up with a list of 15 major government regulations that made us more vulnerable as a result. If it were not for these regulations, we would have had a better handle on COVID-19, and more lives would have been spared. Much like they did in the Great Recession, lavish unemployment benefits are most likely going to create prolonged unemployment. Trump's ban on green cards is going to make economic recovery more difficult. This only covers the topics I have recently blogged about. I'm sure that by enacting rushed legislation in a middle of a crisis, the other provisions of COVID-related legislation are going to have unintended consequences that are going to reverberate well beyond the pandemic.

When I say "let the private sector" fight the pandemic, what do I mean? The private sector is not some abstract or amorphous blob. It is a network of private actors (e.g., individuals, businesses) using spontaneous order to fix problems. It is doctors, nurses, and other healthcare professionals treating patients. It is grocery store staff working diligently to make sure that our store shelves are stacked with items we need. It is the researchers who are going at it day and night to find treatments and a possible vaccine. It is the truck drivers working overtime to transport goods. It is the manufacturers who, in spite of FDA regulations, will manufacture ventilators, masks, and hospital beds to deal with the influx in demand for medical goods and services. While the government has a role to play in mitigating the spread of COVID-19, its main role should be to get out of the way and remove the regulations that have made our response to fighting the pandemic all the more difficult.

All of this goes to why I remain libertarian. Not only is libertarianism a reflection of my values, but it is what brings the greatest amount of utility (life satisfaction) to people. Capitalism, justifiable skepticism of government intervention, deregulation, and respect for individuals are good values and mores to hold to, regardless of whether we are in a pandemic or not.

Trump's Temporary Immigration Ban in Response to COIVD-19 Is Misguided and Harmful

Earlier this week, President Trump tweeted that he was going to temporarily ban immigration to fight coronavirus. His reasoning was twofold: stop the spread of COVID-19 and protect the jobs of U.S. citizens. In a harried fashion, Trump signed a proclamation on Wednesday. The main provision is the suspension of the issuance of green cards for sixty days. The proclamation is much narrower than initially anticipated. As the American Action Forum points out in its analysis on the proclamation, it does not apply to those applying for temporary visas. Also, there are enough exemptions where it will apply to 350,000 out of the 1.9 million individuals applying for green cards. Even so, was this proclamation necessary? The short answer is "no." The longer answer is below....

• Trump's misunderstanding of labor markets. Trump thinks that the United States is so great that people want to come here, regardless of the situation. As great as the U.S. economy was prior to this pandemic, the truth is that the labor market is hurting. For one, international travel has been all but nonexistent because we're in the middle of a pandemic. Most people are scared to travel because they don't want to catch COVID-19. The virus is widespread in the United States, and most would-be immigrants would rather not risk it. This leads to the second reason: there has been a major drop in the demand for labor. Immigrants are most likely to move when job prospects are good. As Stanford University mentioned when analyzing the Great Recession, immigration declines when there is a weakening in the labor demand. At the onset of the Great Recession, more undocumented immigrants left than came. Immigrants don't need an executive order telling them to not come to the United States when the economic benefits are too low. 
• [May 1, 2020 Addendum: To further illustrate the point that people do not need an executive order to deter them from coming during a pandemic, Cato Institute released an analysis on how there was a 98 percent decline in non-citizens flying to the United States prior to the executive order].
• Are immigrants more likely to spread COVID-19? Intuitively, population density plays a much larger role in the spread of COVID-19. The virus doesn't care whether an individual is native-born or foreign-born. The Cato Institute points out that the data show that there is no correlation between immigrant share of the population and the number of COVID-19 cases or deaths. Also, the Cato Institute conducted a literature review on pandemic travel bans. The main conclusion was that there is no benefit to pandemic travel restrictions once the outbreak is already in the country. 

• Immigration is good for the economy and employment. The argument Trump is using is that of the displacement theory, which is immigrants will take the jobs of native-born workers and push them out of the labor market. First of all, that theory has almost never played out in practice. Even when it rarely has happened, it has only affected high school dropouts. So Trump's primary fear isn't valid for the vast majority of the labor market. More to the point, immigrants have fueled economic growth and benefit the vast majority of U.S. citizens (Griswold, 2017). That notion applies to both low-skilled and high-skilled immigrants alike. Immigration boost productivity levels (Peri, 2009), and the immigrants who are in the healthcare industry are going to be vital in fighting COVID-19 (Griswold and Salmon, 2020). Also, the Federal Reserve found that there is scant evidence that immigration has an effect on the unemployment rate (Vandenbroucke and Zhu, 2017). 
• It could reasonably last longer than 60 days. Right now, the proclamation is in effect for 60 days, but it can be continued (Section 4). And what's to think that Trump won't take full advantage of it? His so-called "Muslim Ban" (Executive Order 13769) from 2017 was only supposed to last 90 days. Guess what? It's still in effect. If Trump is going to use the justification of protecting the job prospects of U.S. laborers, then he will be waiting for a while. The current economic downturn is projected to be the worst since the Great Depression. As brought up in the previous point, immigration is good for the economy. Cutting off immigration for an extended period of time is going to delay the economic recovery further. 

Since Trump has been in office, he has had an axe to grind with immigration. He doesn't have a problem only with undocumented workers, but "legal immigration": chain migration, those protected under temporary protected status and DACA, low-skilled immigrants, and immigrants with H-1B visas. Even during the pandemic,  Trump has banned travel from China, Iran, and most of Europe, as well as closing its borders for nonessential travel between Canada and Mexico. Most visas have already been halted, which means that most travel cannot take place. While the proclamation is mostly redundant, Trump is nevertheless taking aim at long-term visas, the very sort of immigration that is going to help us recover from this economy.

If that is the case, why do it at all? As Reason Magazine brings up, this is virtue signaling to his base, plain and simple. The pandemic has been great fodder for Trump to advance his protectionism and restrictionist immigration policies. Trump should be focused on fighting the pandemic with solutions that actually work, not on getting geared up for the election in November. More than ever we need policy that helps employers hire employees and pull us out of this economic downturn, not a political tactic that distracts us from the larger issues at hand. 

Can We Be Trusted to Maintain Social Distancing without a Government Mandate?

As the lockdowns carry on, more and more people are having quarantine fatigue. People want to get back to work, have their social life back, or at least something that more closely ressembles life before the lockdowns and "stay-at-home" orders. There are at least six governors, including those of the state of Texas, that are starting to open the economy back up this month. I say "starting to" because allowing people to open up businesses again will be a gradual process. Instead of it being like flipping a switch, think of it more as turning a dial. A new national poll from NBC and Wall Street Journal found that 58 percent worry about opening up the economy too soon. In contrast, about a third are worried about the economy being opened up too late.

There will be a point where governors reverse their edicts. While the lockdowns will end, there will be a period afterwards where we will still need to practice social distancing. Thinking about how life will be after these suppression measures, I think of what the new regulations and norms will be regarding social interaction. A major question in my mind is "Do we need the government to mandate social distancing?" The state of Florida partially opened up its beaches this past weekend, and after seeing a photo of people walking along the beach in Jacksonville (see below), I sort of have to wonder whether the people in the United States have the self-discipline to maintain social distancing while we are in this pandemic.

Sweden provides an interesting case study. They have become a punching bag of sorts for those who vehemently support lockdowns because Sweden's approach has been relaxed in comparison. Sweden has not imposed lockdowns or quarantines. While staying at home is urged by Swedish health officials, it is not mandated. Restaurants and malls are still open. What makes the Swedish model different is that the people individually and voluntarily take on the recommendations made by the health authorities. I'm not going to get into whether the Swedish model is an under-reaction or if the lockdowns throughout much of the Western world are an overreaction because the truth is that we are still in the middle of a large social experiment. We will be debating this for years to come, which is why I will cover the Swedish example at another time. What I do wonder is if the United States could follow a model of personal responsibility and voluntary social distancing once the lockdowns are lifted.

The first thing to consider is the extent to which U.S. citizens were already practicing social distancing before the lockdowns took place. The libertarian Cato Institute covered this point succinctly. In early March, online restaurant reservation company OpenTable found that there was a decline in year-to-year restaurant reservations almost three weeks before lockdowns were the norm.

Air travel was already taking a nosedive prior to the lockdowns, according to Transportation Security Administration (TSA) data [see here]. Human resources association SHRM found that there was a surge in work-from-home arrangements before the lockdowns took place [per its results from March 12-16]. I know I was working remotely about three weeks before my governor officially declared a "stay-at-home" order.

Aside from what happened beforehand, many U.S. citizens are hesitant about returning back "to normal" once the lockdowns are lifted. Here are some interesting finds from polling and survey data:

• 20 percent say they would immediately resume normal activities once the lockdowns are over (Gallup)
• A majority of U.S. citizens think that grocery shopping, attending conferences, or going to family gatherings create a moderate to large risk (Ipsos)
• 81 percent think we should continue social distancing, even if that means damaging the economy (Politico)
• Nearly three-out-of-four people would not attend a sporting event until there is a vaccine for coronavirus (Seton Hall)
• As of April 13, 69 percent of U.S. citizens think we need a month or more before we can start working and return to normal (Harris)
• Two out of three U.S. citizens would not travel for at least three months after COVID-19 subsides (Harris)

Millions opted to practice social distancing before the government mandated it, and the polling data suggest that most people will be hesitant to return back to normal activities because they understand the risks of COVID-19. Opening up the economy is not as simple as President Trump or your state governor telling you it's okay to come out. Even if all the governors permitted "non-essential businesses" (not a fan of that term) to open again, we're not going "back to normal". If anything, we're going to have a "new normal." People are going to need to be convinced that it's safe once more before the economy really can gather traction once more.

Much of the feeling of safety will come from better data. We'll need mass testing, whether molecular or serological. We need to ramp up hospital capacity, especially since the main reason to flatten the curve was to make sure hospitals weren't overwhelmed. There could be some market-baed social distancing regulations. Whatever we do is going to be less-than-ideal, and should not come with some unrealistic goals before we open up the economy again.

I don't have a crystal ball, and I don't know if the number of people who don't take it seriously would be enough to start a second wave, given the rate of transmission for COVID-19. Plus, what if individuals' opinions are going to change as they start to experience freedom and normalcy once more? This doesn't even get into the economic costs that ramp up as we lock down for longer and longer periods of time. I think it partially depends on how cynical you want to be about the American people or humanity generally, and part is how well you think people can handle the concept of personal responsibility or consideration for others. I will also add that societies that allow for the economic freedom and institutional flexibility fare better in times of crisis, according to a study of 212 economic crises since 1993 (Bjørnskov, 2016). We won't know the outcome until we actually lift the lockdowns, but there is enough evidence to suggest that voluntary compliance, economic liberalization, and flexible institutions will help us get through this pandemic.

9-27-2020 Addendum: The Louisiana State University released a study earlier this month using mobility data to show that voluntary actions were more responsible for social distancing than the government lockdowns (Narayanan et al., 2020). 

Unemployment Insurance Expansion Under the CARES Act: Too Much of a Good Thing?

With the coronavirus-induced stay-at-home orders, millions of citizens have stayed home from work. As a result, over 22 million jobless claims have been filed in the United States, breaking previous weekly records by almost ten-fold. In terms of percent presently unemployed, only the Great Depression rivals what we are currently experiencing. Until the spread of COVID-19 is more manageable, state governors are going to feel inclined to continue with the stay-at-home orders. To mitigate the economic fallout, Congress passed the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act [H.R. 748]) on March 27. The CARES Act, which entails a whopping $2.3 trillion in federal spending, represents an urgency that was not even felt during the Great Recession. I plan on covering more of the provisions of the CARES Act in the upcoming weeks, but what I would like to cover in further detail today is the unemployment insurance (UI) expansion under the CARES Act. The UI provisions include the following:

• An additional $600 per week in UI benefits for up to the next four months for those who are not working due to the stay-at-home orders
• Federal funding to state UI funds that will provide up to 39 weeks of UI benefits for those who typically are not covered under UI (e.g., self-employed, independent contractors) 
• Federal funding for up to 13 weeks of UI benefits until December 31, 2020 if the state's UI fund is depleted 

The idea behind the UI expansion is to stabilize households economically while people stay at home in order to significantly slow the spread of coronavirus. Plus, it will provide households liquidity to pay bills and buy essentials (e.g., food, medicine). On the one hand, we are in uncharted territory, both with the exogenous nature of the shock to the economy and the magnitude. This is not like the Great Depression or Great Recession when there was something fundamentally wrong with the economy. These are actions the government is taking in the near-term in the hopes that we can contain coronavirus, thereby being the least worst option. On the other hand, there is reason for skepticism that this will end up being worse.

When looking at the Great Recession, multiple Federal Reserve Banks found that unemployment insurance benefits prolonged the recession because of the disincentives to work that UI benefits create (Hagedorn et al., 2013; Mazumder, 2011; Valletta and Kuang, 2010). Another Federal Reserve paper points out that UI benefits also create moral hazard, substantial monitoring costs, and tax distortions (Fabre et al., 2014). And given that a) UI benefits are increasing, and b) only 41 percent of U.S. citizens have enough money in savings to cover a $1,000 emergency, we are seeing the moral hazard piece play out. As a matter of fact, a paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research shows that removing UI benefits after the Great Recession allowed for the creation of 2.1 million jobs  in 2014 (Hagedorn et al., 2015).

UI benefits prolonged high unemployment rates during the Great Recession because receiving UI benefits was preferable to working. If the UI benefits were smaller under the Great Recession and they caused such unemployment, it stands to reason that larger benefits would create larger incentives for unemployment. The higher the replacement rate (i.e., the ratio of the claimant's weekly benefit amount to average weekly wage), the greater the incentive to stay unemployed (e.g., Eugster, 2015).

Prior to the CARES Act, the average weekly UI benefit was $385 a week. Adding $600 a week means an average increase of 155.8 percent (Brookings Institution). The median weekly earnings for a full-time worker in Q4 2019 was $936, which is almost $50 a week less than the UI benefits under the CARES Act. While UI benefits vary from state to state, and while this provision is temporary, it still means that many workers would find it more profitable to stay at home than work.

May 5, 2020 Addendum: As a matter of fact, a Heritage Foundation analysis found that these expanded unemployment benefits will resulting in an extra 13 million people filing unemployment claims than would have otherwise filed absent the $600 a week.

The amount of the UI benefits is not the only concern. There is the matter of the length of the benefits, particularly with the extra $600 a week. The University of Washington's Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation model for COVID-19, which is the model that the White House bases its projections on, predicts that a) we have already passed the peak, b) numbers will decline considerably, and c) there will be less than 100 COVID deaths a day in June until it peters out by the end of June. Do we really need for these benefits to go through July?

Also, what about long-term unemployment? What if after four months of not working, it takes a few months to find a new job? Long-term unemployment (normally defined as lasting for at least six months) not only makes it more difficult to find a new job, but it means less earnings and lower career potential once a job is found (Van Horn and Zurkin, 2014), emotional turmoil (Basbug and Sharone, 2017), lower health outcomes, less social mobility, and higher crime and violence on a societal level (Nichols et al., 2013). The effects of unemployment, even short-term unemployment, go well beyond the initial unemployment phase.

I also worry about how these lavish UI benefits will affect state UI benefit funds. According to the Right-leaning Tax Foundation, six states (including three large states: California, Texas, and New York) will not have enough funds to get them through the month of May. The Upjohn Institute for Employment Research found that most states have inadequate UI funds (O'Leary, 2020). This research also found that 36 states exhausted their UI funds after the Great Recession and had to borrow to pay benefits (also see Brookings Institute research here).

Unlike the federal government, states cannot run up deficits. As I pointed out in my analysis on balanced budget amendments, 46 states and the District of Columbia require balanced budgets. While states do have rainy day funds, most states do not have large rainy day funds. Given the scope of the pandemic, states will need to use the rainy day fund for more than UI benefits.

If incentivizing unemployment and weak UI funds were not enough to worry, here are some other facets to consider:

• The amendment to add a cap at 100 percent of workers' wages was rejected. Capping the UI benefits would have mitigated the unemployment effects. 
• The "self-certification" provision in Section 2102 neither specifies the necessary conditions of self-certification nor does it provide adequate oversight. All of these factors create strong incentives for individuals to stay unemployed.
• These strong UI benefits do not only create perverse incentives for employees, but also employers. Companies such as Equinox, Macy, and Steelcase have started laying off workers because they figure that their employees fare better because of the lavish amount of the enhanced UI benefits. 
• The replacement rate could be high enough where it creates the risk of incentivizing unaffected or essential workers to become unemployed and remain so (Birinci and See, 2019).
• Depending on how many people use the benefits and for how long, these enhanced UI benefits could cost anywhere between $187.6 billion and $319.9 billion. The Left-leaning Tax Policy Center believes it could end up costing more.

It is one thing to create a financial stopgap during a public health crisis. It has the potential to reduce the duration and magnitude of the economic downturn. Frederich Hayek, who was a renowned economist who defended libertarianism (classical liberalism), argued for a basic social safety net. An argument for UI benefits during these difficult times can be made. Conversely, these provisions under put strain on the federal and state economies and respective UI funds. The way that UI is set up under the CARES Act incentivizes people to be on UI benefits longer than they need to be. Policies such as these that create perverse incentives that have large swathes of the labor market be unemployed longer than otherwise necessary is going to hit this country hard in the upcoming months.


May 19, 2020 Addendum: A working paper from the University of Chicago confirms my concerns (Ganong et al., 2020). According to this paper, the median replacement rate is 134 percent. To quote the paper, "replacement rates over 100% create distributional issues and may hamper efficient labor allocation both now, and especially during an eventual recovery. That is, UI induces tradeoffs between consumption smoothing and moral hazard."

June 5, 2020 Addendum: The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released a report this week on what extending the UI benefits would look like. One finding is that five out of six recipients would have a replacement rate exceeding 100 percent [p. 4]. It would lower incentives for low-income households to work more than high-income households [p. 6], which would reduce demand for goods and services [p. 7]. Employment would be lower in 2021 than it would be without the extension [p. 7].

January 4, 2021 Addendum: I figured that expanding unemployment insurance would lead to more unemployment. The latest research from the National Bureau of Economic Research confirms that notion (Holzer et al., 2021). Since 18 states left the program early, the researchers were able to present difference-in-difference estimation and event study estimates to compare. States that continued to participate in the additional unemployment benefit programs (i.e., FPUC, PUA) had 0.8 percent higher unemployment in July and 0.7 percent higher in August. Additionally, the states that terminated the programs early saw the flow of unemployed workers into employment increased by about two-thirds. Even better, there is no evidence to show that expanded unemployment benefits had an improvement on one's welfare. 

15 Ways Government Policy Got In the Way of Our Response to Coronavirus

There are those, such as Peter Nicholas over at The Atlantic, that argue that there is no such thing as a libertarian in a pandemic. How can there be? We are faced with a pandemic in which only the government can provide the solution, or so goes the argument. I can acknowledge that the government has a role to play in handling the pandemic. For example, testing is vital in fighting coronavirus (COVID-19), which is why I wouldn't have a problem with government subsidies for both molecular and serological testing. After all, I am a proponent of limited government, not a proponent of no government whatsoever. At the same time, I remain skeptical of government largesse being the solution to the problem. Over the past few weeks, I have been keeping track of the developments of COVID-19 and how we, either as a society or a nation, have responded. What I have noted is that there were multiple instances in which government regulation that existed prior to the COVID-19 outbreak undermined our response to adequately fight COVID-19. Not convinced yet? Read on.


1. Federal testing regulations. One of the largest criticisms of the United States' response to fighting COVID-19 is that there was not mass testing at the onset. If we were able to identify hotspots, who is infected and needed to be isolated, along with other epidemiological data, we could have greatly limited COVID-19's influence on our lives. I agree that President Trump did not respond to the severity of COVID-19 soon enough. Even if he had, something else was already in the way: the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

• The first emergency use authorization (EUA) that the FDA issued was on February 4 for a real-time diagnostic panel. The issue with this diagnostic panel is that only the Centers for Disease Control and Protection (CDC) could administer it. Its next emergency use authorization was not until March 13. 
• While private-sector organizations and postsecondary institutions were all too eager to get testing kits manufactured, the CDC warned them to not do their own testing without an EUA from the FDA. It took until February 29 for the FDA to start developing a fast-track, which was over a month after the first COVID-19 case was identified in the U.S. on January 21. Here is an article from the New York Times outlining it further.
• Even better, Germany already had a test available, and China had five COVID-19 tests on the commercial market. The FDA does not grant reciprocal approval for testing already approved in other countries because FDA regulations dictate that they need to be approved by the FDA first. If the FDA were not strangled by its own red tape, we would not have had nearly as bad of a shortage in testing kits as we had. 
• As of date, the FDA's EUAs do not apply to at-home testing. Let's forget that errors can be detected with positive/negative controls, at which point you simply do a re-test. The main issue with this restriction is that merely visiting the hospital can result in a COVID-19 infection. 
• If you need a timeline for how the FDA and CDC dropped the ball on the testing, here is one from The Dispatch. Also, here are scathing reports from ProPublica and USA Today on this debacle. 

2. Tariffs on medical products. I have no love for Trump's trade war for China. As I have argued before (see here and here), Trump's tariffs on Chinese imports have lowered employment, translated in a smaller GDP, and made consumer goods more expensive. Now we have another reason to show disdain for this trade war: the tariffs on imports of Chinese medical products. In its analysis on these tariffs, the Peterson Institute for International Economics shows how these tariffs have made it more difficult for the United States to get valuable medical equipment (see below). The differences were especially noticeable for CT systems, patient monitors, and thermometers. Even for those where imports were not negative, the tariffs cost additional resources, resources that could have been spent on fighting COVID-19.

3. Certificate of need laws and hospital beds. This next grievance has to do with state-level policy. In 35 states, there exists what is known as certificate-of-need (CON) laws. The idea of CON laws is to have state planning agencies approve major capital expenditures for certain health facilities in order to keep hospitals from overspending. According to Mercatus Center data, 28 states have CON laws for hospital beds. More striking is the research that the Mercatus Center conducted on CON laws in its February 2020 report. The takeaway from this reports that "controlling for other factors, relative to patients in non-CON states, patients in CON states have access to fewer hospitals per capita, fewer hospital beds per capita, fewer dialysis clinics, fewer ambulatory surgical centers, fewer medical imaging services, and fewer hospice care facilities." What is scary is what Mercatus Center found for the state of New York, the state most heavily hit by COVID-19. If CON laws did not exist in New York, New York would have 317 hospitals across the state instead of its current 220 hospitals.   CON laws have not only limited healthcare access in a time of need, but they put thousands of lives at risk in the middle of this pandemic. Even without a pandemic, the Mercatus Center found that the mortality rate for states with CON laws was higher than those without (Koopman and Stratmann, 2016).

4. Anti-price gouging laws. When disasters hit, people stock up on things. In this case, people fear that they will be stuck in their homes for a certain amount of time without essential supplies. Anti-price gouging laws exist to try to prevent companies from "exploitative behavior." I covered the topic of price-gouging in 2012, but it merits repeating. Prices increase and decrease all the time. Prices especially increase during an emergency. But prices are not just about a dollar amount. Prices are a mechanism that signal to producers and suppliers what consumers want the most. Not only does allowing for prices to increase decrease the incentive to hoard, but it allows for much-needed goods to get to consumers faster than they otherwise would. If you want to know why there is a shortage of toilet paper and hand sanitizer, you can thank anti-price gouging laws.

5. FDA regulations on surgical face masks. The testing is not the only thing that the FDA is impeding. HHS official Dr. Robert Kadlec estimated we would need 3.5 billion masks to fight COVID-19, but only have 1 percent of that on hand. The reason that companies have not ramped up production is not because they don't want to, but because of the FDA's "premarket notification" guidelines. These guidelines dictate the approval process takes six months for a new product. The FDA rescinded these guidelines as of March 26, but as we saw with the testing kits, delaying production has all sorts of negative consequences.

6. CDC regulations on N95 masks. It is not only a shortage on surgical face masks (see difference between surgical mask and N95 mask here), but N95 masks, which are close-fitting masks that has a very efficient filtration of airborne particles. The regulations behind N95 masks fall to the CDC. The issue with current regulations is that it can take 45 to 90 days to get approved. While this might not seem like a long time, it is a lifetime in the middle of a pandemic.

7. FDA regulations on hand sanitizer. Washing our hands is one of the best ways, along with social distancing, to help minimize the spread of COVID-19. Hand sanitizer is flying off the shelves, which has caused a shortage. Alcohol distilleries want to produce hand sanitizer, not only because they want to help, but also it will help keep their businesses afloat during these tough times. Nearly 600 distilleries have shifted some of their production to hand sanitizers. However, it is difficult when FDA regulations get in the way. Although the FDA released follow-up guidance on March 27 saying they won't take action against these distilleries, but nevertheless expect them to follow strict guidelines. One major guideline is requiring a denaturant, which is not required by World Health Organization (WHO) standards. These FDA regulations are making it more difficult for people to acquire a much-needed product.

8. FDA regulations on ventilators. Ventilators are another key good into fighting COVID-19 since it is an upper respiratory disease that requires a ventilator for those with severe symptoms. Many states have dealt with ventilator shortages. Anesthesia gas machines and positive-pressure breathing devices could have been converted into ventilators when COVID-19 was first an issue. However, it was not permitted by the FDA until they issued an EUA on March 27. This EUA also allows for some modifications to be made on hardware, software, and materials, which is nice because normal approval vis-a-vis the 510(k) takes over 100 days. While it's better late than never, we had ample warning that COVID-19 was coming, and the FDA getting out of the way could have meant having more ventilators ready before the COVID-19 peak arrived.

9. Employer-sponsored insurance. Employer-sponsored insurance is a tax break that allows employers to exempt certain health-care uses of income from being taxed if they are to pay for an employee's health insurance. I have criticized this tax break (see here and here) because it makes income inequality worse, it drives up health care costs in a way not seen in other countries because only the United States has this tax break, and the most relevant of reasons to hate it: it ties health insurance to employment. This has not become apparent because only recently have we seen the massive job losses. With millions losing their jobs, we are going to see decreased health access, which has the real potential to strain the healthcare system and impede our responsiveness to COVID-19.

10. H-1B Visa Caps. The H-1B Visa Program has allowed U.S. companies to hire foreign technical talent, and has overall been helpful to the United States. Presently, there is an annual H-1B visa cap of 65,000 professionals and 25,000 students. This becomes problematic with COVID-19 because more than one in six medical professionals are foreign-born. It is not just hospitals that use the H-1B visa, but also biomedical companies.  Keeping out foreign-born medical professionals and researchers only hinders our ability to come up with a response to COVID-19.

11. Telemedicine. Videoconferencing has given healthcare professionals the ability see and sometimes treat patients from long distances. This sounds like a great way to help patients, especially with the recommended social distancing for COVID-19. A trip to the hospital could risk COVID-19 infection for either the patient or the physician, which is why allowing for telemedicine is all the more important. While President Trump allowed for telemedical consultations, that order only applies for Medicare. There are 36 states (and DC) that require an in-person visit for write a prescription. Some states even require an assistant ("telepresenter") to be present.

12. State-level scope-of-practice laws. As the Mercatus Center brings up in its analysis on these laws, there is 1 physician for every 500 U.S. citizens. If you include nurses, physician assistants, and other medical professionals, that number goes up to 1.6 caregivers per citizen. A 2015 study from the University of California-San Francisco suggests these laws lower access to care. Mercatus Center research also shows that these laws drive up costs without making patients safer. A report from the Brookings Institution comes to a similar conclusion about these laws. Providing caregivers full practice authority would improve their ability to pick up the slack when the demand for medical services is so high.

13. Occupational licensing. Occupational licensing is a government regulation mandating a license before practicing a certain vocation. I have criticized occupational licensing under normal circumstances since it restricts employment (especially for individuals of a lower socio-economic status), boosts the prices for goods and services, and exacerbates income inequality. Occupational licensing comes with another flaw: a lack of portability across state lines. One state is going to have a greater need for healthcare workers than others. With the current occupational licensing scheme, physical assistants and nurses cannot cross state lines to help those in greater needs. Massachusetts' Governor Baker has allowed for temporary licenses for out-of-state nurses, as did the governors of Maryland, South Carolina, and Texas. The barriers of occupational licensing normally limit access to health care, and are particularly acute in an emergency such as this one. Let's hope governors have the sense to lift these barriers during the pandemic, as well as evaluating the idea of universal license recognition once we're out of this crisis.

14. Freight and hours of service (HOS) rules. The freight industry is the lifeline that is helping keep the current economy afloat. Normally (49 CFR §395.3), a trucker can work 14 hours a day, which includes 11 hours of driving and a number of breaks. The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) temporarily waived these rules for trains, as did the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration for trucks. States are also removing their own HOS rules. While this is an improvement, there are still regulatory ambiguities, including what is considered "routine" and which products fall under exemption.

15. The Jones Act and Shipping Costs. Known as the Merchant Marine Act of 1920, the Jones Act restricts the transport of U.S. goods by mandating that any transport of goods between U.S. ports has to be done on U.S.-made and U.S.-operated ships. Much like with HOS rules, the Jones Act makes freight shipping more difficult. The Jones Act is bad enough policy under normal circumstances by driving up the cost of shipping and costing the U.S. economy. By repealing the Jones Act, it will lower freight costs for to ship medicinal goods, which will make it easier to fight COVID-19.

Postscript: This list doesn't touch upon the government's response either through monetary policy or such fiscal policy as the gargantuan CARES Act, the latter of which I intend to cover in future blog entries. This list is what government regulations existed prior to COVID-19 that created shortages in healthcare workers, necessary medical supplies, and made it more difficult for people to buy goods in a time of crisis. If the pandemic has taught us anything, libertarianism and the call for limited government are far from dead. If anything, we could have been better prepared had it not been for all of these inane and burdensome regulations. Because of the red tape at both the federal and state levels, COVID-19 ended up taking more lives than it otherwise would have. It has been a sobering lesson in how unnecessary the vast majority of government regulation truly is.

What we are seeing is a surge of deregulation so that companies are free to solve problems instead of being hobbled by red tape. Even better, companies don't need a directive to help. Pulmotect's aerosol drug, PUL-042, that has already been effective in fighting SARS and MERS, is being tested to see if it can treat COVID-19. Clearwater Paper is manufacturing more paper products. Honeywell and 3M are creating more N95 masks. Not only is Dyson ramping up ventilator production, Medtronic voluntarily released the patent on its ventilator so everyone can produce more ventilators. The list goes on, but U.S. companies are stepping up to help defeat COVID-19.

While there is a role for government to play in helping the spread of infectious disease, its main role should be to get out of the way and let private-sector actors fight the good fight. 

A Passover Lesson on Freedom in the Middle of a Pandemic

One of the reasons I like Passover so much is the many ways that is relevant to our spiritual journey. The apex of the Passover seder is the telling of the Passover story (מגיד). The recitation of מגיד is not for its own sake. It is meant to be a symbolic and vicarious living of the Passover story. There is one aspect of the story that we do not relive in other years that we get to live in the Jewish year 5780 (or 2020 on the Gregorian calendar).

We are in the middle of the coronavirus pandemic. The individuals in the Exodus narrative also dealt with ten plagues. The last of the Ten Plagues was the death of the firstborn son (Exodus 11:4-6). The Israelites painted lamb's blood on their doorposts, and G-d passed over their homes, sparing their children from the last plague (Exodus 12:7, 13). We might have social distancing instead of sacrificing a lamb, but the fact that we are staying in our homes because we are waiting for a plague to pass over us brings alive the Passover story in a way we very well might not experience again in our lives.

In light of the pandemic, the spirit of Passover is different than it has been in previous years. Much like the Israelites stayed in their homes to wait for the plague to pass over, so too are we to stay in our homes during Passover during the coronavirus pandemic. It will be the first time I have done Passover seder alone. It feels confining and contrary to the spirit of Passover being "the time of our freedom" (זמן חרותנו). How can I be free if I cannot spend time with loved ones? What is freedom when so many of our normal activities are verboten? Can I find freedom this Passover, and if so, where?

First, I think it is important to reflect on how the Israelites developed their sense of freedom. It didn't stop once they were out of reach of the Egyptians. It was developed in the wilderness (במדבר). The Israelites were not near any civilizations. They did not have access to any real material wealth to speak of. They were a nomadic people that were fed by manna that fell from the sky. Their freedom was found during a time where material wealth was lacking. As a matter of fact, the Rabbis taught (מרבה נכסים, מרבה דאגה): that the more property (read: material wealth) you have, the more worries you have (Pirke Avot 2:7).

One of the factors that is driving the coronavirus-related anxiety through the roof is the uncertainty. There is uncertainty as to how long the pandemic will last, how deadly it is, and how much economic damage our response to coronavirus is causing. Although all pandemics come to an end, we see no end in sight. In his book "Everything is F*cked: A Book About Hope," self-help author Mark Manson talks about why we are more anxious and prone to suicide, even though the world is, by most metrics, better than it has ever been. Manson's answer is that although we have material wealth that could only be imagined by our ancestors and a quality of life that is quite high by historical standards, we become anxious because we have more to lose. We have become so accustomed to a certain lifestyle and a certain quality of life that something like the coronavirus really throws us off. To echo the Rabbis, מרבה נכסים, מרבה דאגה.

The path to freedom is not in material wealth, but is in spiritual wealth. We develop that spiritual wealth in our minds. Victor Frankl said that the last of human freedoms is "to choose one's attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one's one way. And there were always choices to make." Just as relevant of a Victor Frankl quote is my favorite Victor Frankl quote:

"When we are no longer able to change a situation, we are challenged to change ourselves."

This quote holds true regardless of our current situation. I can tell you right now Victor Frankl didn't have an easygoing life. The man survived four concentration camps during the Holocaust, and his takeaway was still we choose our attitude and our responses to the situation. Freedom is about the culmination of choices we make, even during a pandemic.

This concept is in the Passover seder. Eating bitter herbs (מרור) is a mandatory part of the Passover seder because we are meant to taste the bitterness that the Israelites felt during their slavery (Exodus 12:8; Talmud Pesachim 120a). Eating the sweet, dark-colored paste known as charoset (חרוסת) is optional (Mishnah Pesachim 10:3; Talmud, Pesachim 114a, 116a). Why is the latter optional? The Rabbis said it was to blunt the taste of the bitter herbs (Talmud Pesachim 116a). I took that idea a step further a few years back by saying that bitterness in life is inevitable (it is the first of the Four Noble Truths in Buddhism), but we have the option of adding sweetness to our own lives. There are a few ways that we can metaphorically take off the edge of the bitter herbs:

1. Gaining and developing perspective. When we sing the song והיא שעמדה (Ve'hi She'amda) during the Seder, we are reminded that we have experienced difficult and seemingly insurmountable challenges. The Jewish people have dealt with not just the Egyptians, but the Greeks, Romans, Spanish Inquisition, Nazis, and the Jewish people are still here. Dealing with challenges in life is not unique to the Jewish people. It is a universal theme that cuts across every group of people. Also, let's remember that other plagues in history, whether it is the Black Plague, yellow fever, or the 1918-1920 Spanish Flu, pandemics do come to an end. One the one hand, we have to understand the gravitas of the present danger. On the other hand, it might not seem like it now, but there is an end, and developing that perspective should develop resilience in uncertain times. 
2. Gratitude. During the Passover seder, we sing the song Dayenu. One of the lessons that Dayenu teaches us is that we are to be grateful for each incremental step. Gratitude is not meant only for the easy times. If anything, it becomes all the more important during the difficult times. As the Rabbis said, "Who is rich? One who rejoices in their portion" (Pirke Avot 4:1).
3. Humility. The difference between matzah and chametz is subtle. They are both made of flour and water, but chametz is fermented. Metaphorically speaking, that "puffiness" is the ego. Judaism defines humility not as meekness, but understanding one's place in the world. It involves not self-deprecation, but self-awareness. As motivational speaker Charlie Haray points out, only through introspection were the Jewish people ready to escape the bonds of slavery and begin their journey of freedom. While we cannot go to our favorite restaurants or attend public events, we can take Passover as a time to ask us who we are, what we value, and what makes life worthwhile. 
4. Kindness out of brokenness. The beginning of the seder has a breaking of the middle matzah called יחץ. This brief ceremony reminds us of the brokenness that comes with life. We are all feeling brokenness on some level right now on some level. However, just because we feel broken doesn't mean we are helpless. Go back to the Victor Frankl quote: we are challenged to change ourselves when we cannot change the situation. The seder begins with brokenness, but it doesn't end there. It ends with singing songs of praise (הלל) and finding that broken piece of matzah (אפיקומן) as a symbol of finding redemption from slavery. That redemption was not brought by any individual, but was on a communal level. Especially in a global society, we are more interconnected than we could possibly imagine. We can choose to call our family and friends, help out a neighbor, and support each other in our time of need. We are in this together. 

חג כשר ושמח!