Unmasking Maskaholism: Why Mask Mandates, Including the One for Public Transit, Need To Go (Part I)

Last week, United States District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle struck down the federal mask mandate for airplanes and other modes of public transit in her ruling, which you can read here. I use public transit to get from place to place. It was the last COVID regulation affecting my daily life. The timing of the Jewish holiday of Passover could not be more spot-on. While I do not equate mask-wearing with the grinding and grueling slavery that the Israelites underwent, I felt a comparable sense of liberation. Not only did it mean a sense of bodily autonomy, but more importantly, I could put the pandemic behind me. Call it a 21st-century application of the Exodus story to my personal life. I was hardly the only one that felt that feeling of liberation. 

There were airline passengers that took off their masks mid-flight because they were so sick of the mask-wearing, as well as cheering in airports. The Transportation Security Administration announced that very day that they would no longer enforce the mask mandate. The airlines immediately went from a mask mandate to being mask-optional. Even such transit authorities as Amtrak and the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) removed the mask mandate. Keep in mind that the change did not happen in days or weeks. It only took hours or minutes for these entities to remove the mask mandate. 

Not everyone shares my enthusiasm. White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki called the ruling disappointing. NIAID Director Anthony Fauci said that the ruling should not have been a court issue, but a public health issue. As we will cover later in this piece, either Fauci does not understand the concept of rule of law or does not have respect for rule of law. Economist Paul Krugman is worried that those who still decide to wear masks will face masks will face harassment, if not violence, because "this was never about freedom." I am curious if Krugman is shares the same concern about all the instances that people were harassed throughout the pandemic for not wearing a mask. 

What those like Krugman do not understand is that many people do not want to wear masks. While an AP-NORC poll from last week shows that 56 percent of people want mask mandates on planes, that means the other 44 percent either do not want them or do not care either way. Left-leaning commentator Matthew Yglesias recognizes that airlines immediately switching to mask-optional signals that the airlines do not see a significant preference for masked flying. 

The same AP-NORC poll also shows declining support for mask mandates in other social settings; it also shows a decline in people "very worried" or "extremely worried" about COVID, a figure that is at a pandemic low of 20 percent. An April 2022 poll from market research firm Ipsos found that 9 percent think we should be in crisis mode over COVID, as opposed to 17 percent who could not care less (the remaining 73 percent view COVID as a manageable problem, which should tell you something right there). 

Thankfully, the trend is moving away from the heightened risk aversion that has been so prevalent throughout the pandemic. We are reaching a stage in the pandemic where the perceived relevance of face masks and mask mandates is waning. As the divide over mask mandates illustrates, there is a desire to get back to normal. 27 percent believe we should open everything up, and an additional 44 percent believe that we should open but with precautions (Ipsos). That is 71 percent of Americans ready to get back to normal. 

If you are one of those who either want continued restrictions or are on the fence about going back to living normal, then hopefully this piece could help you out. I am going to provide my take on the federal public mask mandate ruling and masking generally in four sections. First, I will cover why the science behind masks does not merit mask mandates. Second, I will show how we have reached a stage in the pandemic where we no longer need to be in panic mode. Third, I will cover the legal argument against a federal public transit mask mandate. Finally, I will cover the social costs and moral implications behind mask mandates and masking generally. The amount of information I covered regarding the face mask debate was so extensive that for the first time in my blogging, I had to divide a blog entry into two separate entries. The first part will include Sections I and II. I plan on releasing the analyses for Sections III and IV next week. 

Section I: Scientific Evidence Does Not Justify Mask Mandates

It is understandable if you were confused about masks. Public health messaging was mixed and incoherent at the beginning of the pandemic, nothing to say of dealing with mixed evidence (see my May 2020 analysis here). In spite of the mixed evidence, I thought at the beginning of the pandemic that in spite of the decidedly mixed evidence, the relatively low economic cost combined with what the World Health Organization (WHO) phrased it in its 2019 pandemic guidance as "mechanistic plausibility for the potential effectiveness of the measure (WHO, 2019, p. 14)" overrode the inconvenience of masking. As such, I was begrudgingly in support of a temporary, limited face mask mandate. 

As the pandemic progressed, my support for a temporary, limited face mask mandate got weaker and weaker. About one year into the pandemic, the WHO stated that the evidence for healthy people wearing face masks was "limited and inconsistent (WHO, 2020, p. 8)." The highly revered Cochrane, which is a global network of health researchers and professionals, released a meta-analysis of randomized control trials (RTC) and cluster-RTCs, which is as good as it gets in the world of empirical evidence in the medical field (see below). Cochrane concluded that "there is low certainty evidence from nine trials that wearing a mask may make little to no difference to the outcome of influenza-like illness compared to not wearing a mask (Johnson et al., 2020)." If you want more detail on how RTCs show that masks are ineffective, I recommend this piece from the Manhattan Institute. 

After the findings from these venerable institutions came out, vaccines became more readily available. Vaccines should have been the beginning of normalcy, but we know how well that one turned out. In the meantime, the Delta variant came along. At this point of the pandemic, my view on face masks went from "skeptical about the evidence but still in favor" to "skeptical about the evidence but against mandates." By August 2021, I wrote on how the mask mandates, as opposed to voluntarily masking, does not provide additional, statistically significant benefit. In December 2021, I became more frustrated because I came across a Cato Institute literature review showing that a) the available clinical evidence of face masks is of low quality, and b) the best available evidence failed to show efficacy. 

(5-2-2022 Addendum: In case the randomized control trials were not enough, here is a peer-review observational study from the Cureus Journal of Medical Science [Spira, 2022]. This study looked at 35 European countries from October 2020 to March 2021, which was during peak COVID time. As the study found, "These findings indicate that countries with high levels of mask compliance did not perform better than those with low mask usage." Although cause-effect conclusions could not be inferred there was still a lack of correlation. After all, you cannot have causation with correlation.) 

I also come across this piece from the University of Minnesota's Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy, which had the following to say in October 2021:

"It should be well-known by now that wearing cloth face coverings or surgical masks, universal or otherwise, has a very minor role to play in preventing person-to-person transmission. It is time to stop overselling their efficacy and unrealistic expectations about their ability to end the pandemic." 

At best, face masks have minimal impact. At worst, we went around for two years covering our faces for nothing. Keep in mind that the aforementioned studies were released during the Delta variant or earlier. If the low-certainty evidence that pointed to little to no benefit during the Delta variant, one could a fortiori assume they did even less to prevent the more transmissible Omicron variant. 

Section II: Threat Level of COVID Presently Too Low to Justify Mask Mandates

To recap Section I, the evidence base for mandating that healthy people wear face masks is weak. The evidence we do have shows that face masks make minimal to no difference in terms of transmission. But let's assume for argument's sake that the evidence was less ambiguous. If the evidence were stronger or more conclusive, would that help out the argument for mask mandates? No, and I will tell you why. Although some people react to the threat of COVID as if it were still 2020, the problem with that mindset is that this is 2022. We have dealt with this pandemic for over two years now. As of April 22, 88.9 percent of adults have received at least one vaccine dose (CDC). On top of that, the CDC estimated in February that 43 percent of Americans have had COVID (4-26 addendum: The CDC now estimates that the percentage of U.S. citizens with antibodies due to being infected from COVID is now at approximately 60 percent). 

In addition to vaccine immunity and herd immunity, our access to COVID treatments has improved. The Omicron BA.2 subvariant became the dominant strain a month ago, which is significant in that Omicron is a milder variant than previous strains. The argument goes that "hospitalizations come a few weeks after cases," but how have hospitalizations fared? The "we need to flatten the curve" justification that was initially used for such measures is surely unjustifiable now because we are nowhere near the hospitals being overwhelmed. As a matter of fact, COVID hospitalizations in the U.S. in recent weeks have been at an all-time low since this pandemic began. That might have something to do with the fact that vaccines did a good job at decoupling cases from hospitalizations and deaths, not to mention COVID evolving into a less virulent strain.  

Additionally, Philadelphia was the first major U.S. city to reinstate its mask mandate but removed it in a matter of days. I have been primarily focused on the United States because I live here. At the same time, other countries are removing their travel restrictions. As of April 22, 2022, there are 34 countries that have completely removed COVID-related travel restrictions, nothing to say of the countries that are repealing their COVID restrictions more gradually. Local U.S. government agencies and federal government agencies in other countries are realizing that it is time to remove the face masks and other restrictions.

If the public health concern was so overriding, why did the Department of Justice not immediately file to appeal the ruling from Judge Mizelle? Why didn't the DOJ put the ruling on hold and reinstate the mask mandate pending the appeals process?  Why is the CDC still arbitrarily recommending face masks on public transit while it is recommending against mask mandates in almost every other indoor setting, most of which do not have as good of filtration as an airplane or even public trains? Also, if things were that bad, why did the CDC drop all of the countries from its highest-risk category of "Do Not Travel" on its COVID-19 travel advisory system earlier this month? Because there is no clear, overriding public health emergency to justify a mask mandate. The CDC recognizes that reality, even if it does so inconsistently and arbitrarily.

CNN admitted this appeal is not driven by public health when it stated the purpose of the Department of Justice's appeal of Judge Mizelle's ruling is "less about the current COVID-19 conditions and more about trying to preserve the CDC's authority in the future." The CDC statement in response to Judge Mizelle's first and foremost voiced concern about its authority, not public health concerns. It has become abundantly clear that this mask mandate is no longer about promoting public welfare, if it ever was. This is about the CDC maintaining control over the populace and keeping hold of its emergency powers as long as possible. 

To be continued...

Applying the Tension of Scarcity and Abundance Within the Passover Seder to Our Daily Lives

Last week, I was studying some Pirkei Avot, a Jewish ethical text, with a synagogue down in Buenos Aires. I had it on in the background while I was doing cleaning in preparation for Passover. One of the passages that we were discussing was in Pirkei Avot 5:10, which was a depiction of four types of people that exist, particularly in the context of "give and take" and how one views property. You can look at the Hebrew here, but I'll give you the English:

There are four types of character in human beings. One that says "mine is mine" and "yours is yours." This is a commonplace person, although some say that it is characteristic of Sodom. The second is "mine is yours" and "yours is mine." This is [the mindset of] an unlearned person. The third is "mine is yours, and yours is yours." This third person is scrupulously pious. The fourth is "yours is mine, and mine is mine." This person is considered to be wicked. 

A bit on my take on this passage from Pirke Avot. I agree that the second person, who in modern-day terms would be the Communist, is ignorant. As Rashi brings up in his commentary, such a person lacks moral sophistication and cannot appreciate the sanctity of private property. The text Sefer HaMussar goes as far as saying that this is a moral deficiency because it can lead to coveting other's wealth and obsessing over other people's belongings, a phenomenon I pointed out last year. The fourth person is self-centered and is only concerned with what can be taken. I do not take issue with the Rabbi's take on the second and fourth individuals. 

It is the depiction of the first and third individuals that are more problematic. The first is either considered "run-of-the-mill," or בינונית. The first individual is taking a more "live and let live" approach. Tying this mentality to Sodom requires the logical fallacy of the slippery slope. Sodom was a particularly bad place. According to the Book of Ezekiel (16:48-49), Sodom's fall was due to its arrogance. Why were they arrogant? Because they had riches and food, and did not help the poor or the needy. Post-biblical Jewish texts go into detail on how cruel Sodom really was in this regard. In the Talmud (Sanhedrin 109b), it says that Sodom had such a disdain for the poor that the government of Sodom would punish those that aided the poor and the needy. This is not an indictment of free-market economics or property rights; it is an indictment of cruelty towards others (especially the poor and needy) to the point of legislating said cruelty. 

As for the third individual, the one who thinks "what is mine is yours, and yours is yours" can only go so far under Jewish law. After all, Jewish law teaches that one cannot give charitable donations beyond twenty percent of one's assets (Ketubot 67b). A vow of poverty is not a Jewish value. There is a Midrash (Shemot Rabbah 31:14) that teaches that if you had poverty on one side and all other problems on the other side, poverty outweighs them all. It is a literary device to be sure, but the point still is that poverty is awful. 

Looking through the commentary on this passage in Pirke Avot, I believe the main lesson is that we generally should be more inclined to giving. Granted, the text is referring to money and material wealth, but it could just as easily apply to knowledge, time, and effort. During this study session, the seminarian leading the discussion connects this passage to the Four Sons that are in the Passover Seder: the wise son, the wicked son, the simple son, and the son who cannot even ask a question. These are not meant to be literal children, but rather personifications of personality types. We see a similar categorization in the aforementioned Pirke Avot passage. As the seminarian brought up, some of us act like one of the four characterizations, but there are also plenty of people who personify different characterizations in different points in life. 

There are points when we are more selfish, either because all we want to do is take or we find ourselves in a dire enough situation where we need to receive instead of give. There are other moments where all we want to do is give to others. And there are times where we do not feel like doing others and feel like being left alone. I find this tension about giving and taking greatly encapsulated elsewhere in Pirkei Avot, specifically from Rabbi Hillel at Pirke Avot 1:14 (Hebrew is here):

If I am not for myself, who will be? If I am only for myself, what am I? And if not now, when?

I like this passage for a couple of reasons. One, if differentiates between self-interest/self-care and pure, unadulterated selfishness. Two, it reminds us that we need to be self-reliant and self-sufficient, but at the same time, there is a calling to be there for others. I also bring up Pirke Avot 1:14 because segues into a parallel tension in the Passover Seder. 

We sanctify the beginning of the Seder with a glass of wine (קדש) and wash our hands (ורחץ). Afterwards, we start with the uglier side of the experience of slavery. We then eat the green vegetables dipped in saltwater (כרפס). The most common explanation for כרפס is that it symbolizes the tears that the slaves shed while in slavery. It does teach about hard times, but as I brought up, it also can teach about growth throw adversity. We have the difficult time of slavery. With the slavery is the implicit poverty. This brings us to the next step in the Seder (יחץ), which is breaking the middle matzah. I discussed the ritual of יחץ a few years ago. Matzah, the unleavened bread eaten on Passover, is referred to as "poor man's bread" (Talmud, Pesachim 115b). In premodern times, breaking food and stashing it for later was a common practice to make sure people had enough food to eat. We break the middle matzah to try to put us in their shoes and understand at least a wee bit as to what slavery and poverty are like (Rashi). After stashing the matzah, we do something counterintuitive in the Seder. We say the following:

כל דכפין ייתי ויכל. כל דצריך, ייתי ויפסח

To translate the Aramaic above, we say "all who are hungry, let them come and eat. All who are needy, let them come and celebrate Passover with us." In a matter of seconds, we see a major paradigm shift. Yes, we stashed food, which symbolizes a scarcity mentality in which one thinks there will never be enough. In spite of the lack in the Seder narrative, the Seder allows us to invite others to join us in the festivities, which brings us to a mindset of abundance. 

What are we to learn from this transition? We are supposed to take care of ourselves. Self-preservation and self-care are important. If we are not healthy enough, emotionally sound enough, or financially stable enough, we either end up being someone else's burden or are unable to help out others. There lies at least one paradox here: taking care of ourselves helps ensure we can be there for others. This paradox hearkens back to Rabbi Hillel's "If I'm not for myself, who will be?" 

But we are meant to do more than merely survive, which is why Rabbi Hillel's dictum in Pirke Avot continues with "If I am only for myself, what am I?" This is why we invite guests into our home after stashing food. We are not meant to only think about ourselves. If there is someone nearby or within our sphere of influence, that is hungry or has spiritual needs, we are to help to the best of our capability. At the time the Seder was created, abject poverty was the default. It teaches that when we have little, we are meant to share what we have. All the more if we are in a state of material abundance, which is much more commonplace in the 21st century than it has been in any other point in history. 

This brings me to another point. Passover celebrates the transition from slavery to freedom, from a low point to a high point. What we see in today's piece here is another transition: from a scarcity mindset to an abundance mindset. I would argue that a scarcity mindset is a form of slavery. The most literal definition of slavery is one human being owning another. It is certainly a morally egregious act, one that sadly still occurs to this very day. However, it is not the only type of slavery. 

A scarcity mindset is one of the most prevalent forms of slavery that one can experience in the mind. Scarcity mindset and fear come hand in hand. You think you will not have enough money or time that you cannot do things. Yes, there is a limit of goods and services in this world. This is why the study of economics exists. Plus, there is a moment we need to be aware of these limits so we can make sound and cogent tradeoffs when making life choices. We are not meant to ignore reality or view the world through rose-colored glasses. At the same time, when you are on the scarcity mindset, the tunnel vision of fear limits you from going ahead in life and taking risks. You think of life as a limited pie. It impedes you from viewing things in the long-term or makes sure you lose sight of priorities. When you think you do not have enough or that you are not enough, it creates anxiety, which can over time create physical and mental health problems.

If our minds are stuck on a scarcity mindset, we limit our potential as human beings. Scarcity mindset means ignoring what we have, whereas an abundance mindset means gratitude. If there is a certain lack in our lives, an abundance mindset gives us the ability to see and pursue a solution to a certain lack in life. If we are to take the Seder seriously, we need to think less in terms of scarcity and more in terms of abundance. How do we do that? There are a few ways that one can do that:

• We focus on what we do have instead of what we do not have. As Rabbi Ben Zoma brings up in Pirke Avot (4:1), "Who is rich? The one who is satisfied with their lot." 
• Surround ourselves with those who have an abundance mindset. 
• Incorporate gratitude in your day-to-day. Gratitude is an essential component of the abundance mindset. This would explain why Judaism teaches that we should say 100 blessings a day. It would also explain the Hebrew term for gratitude (הכרת הטוה), which literally means "recognizing the good." We do not ignore the suffering, injustice, or problems in the world. It means we remember that there is plenty of good in this world. 
• When things do not go our way, we focus on the lesson from that experience and ask ourselves how we learn for the next time. 
• Use cognitive-based therapy (CBT) to reframe scarcity-based thoughts. 
• Invest in yourself, whether that is professional development or getting a professional fitness trainer, so you can earn more and do more in life. 
• Don't focus on strictly material wealth. There are other forms of abundance, whether that comes in the form of health, friends, family, a romantic relationship, spirituality, personal development, or sense of purpose. 

An abundance mindset comes with multiple advantages. You can find happiness or contentment, even in difficult times. You are more resilient and more able to solve problems as they arise. It allows for you to better take advantage of new opportunities and seize the day. It creates confidence that you can pursue endeavors in life. You end up with greater physical and emotional energy. Life is more exciting. You feel more empowered and engaged in life. In summation, an abundance mindset is an essential component to having a free and healthy mind. By going from scarcity to abundance, we are able to feel and undergo the Passover experience.

Biur Chametz: What Burning Leavened Bread Before Passover Teaches About Personal Development

Pesach (פסח), also known as Passover, is one of my favorite Jewish holidays is because it celebrates the universal theme of transitioning from slavery to freedom. This redemption story has been the source of inspiration for many. I am not talking about Charlton Heston on the Big Screen. For example, Harriet Tubman was referred to as the "Moses of her people." As powerful as the Passover motif of freedom is, I also enjoy Pesach because there are a number of rituals involved that have a lot of symbolism. Even before the holiday begins, we see the symbolism emerge. 

One of the main prohibitions on Passover is the consumption of chametz (חמץ). You are probably wondering what chametz is. It is the leavened product made out of one of five grains: wheat, oats, barley, rye, and spelt. Matzah (מצה), which is unleavened flat bread, is allowed. As a matter of fact, Jews are obligated to eat matzah on the first day. As an extension of this prohibition of chametz, Jews are not even allowed to legally own chametz. That is why Jews traditionally clean their houses to make sure there is not even a single crumb of chametz within their possession. There is also the practice of selling the chametz before Passover begins. On the evening before Passover, there is a formal search for chametz that is called bedikat chametz (בדיקת חמץ), a process that includes a statement of nullification. You can tell that Jewish tradition is serious and stringent about not owning a single crumb because all of these practices are not enough. On the morning before Passover, there is one last ritual: biur chametz (ביעור חמץ). Through the practice of biur chametz, a Jew is to destroy the last bit of chametz that they own, most traditionally by burning it. The ritual includes reciting the following a statement of nullification in Aramaic:

כל חמירא וחמיעא דאכא ברשותי, דחזתה ודלא חזתה, דחמתה ודלא חמתה, דהערתה ודלא בערתה, לבטל ולהוי הפקר כעפרא דארעא.

All chametz, whether I have seen it or not, whether I have destroyed (removed) it or not, is hereby nullified and ownerless as the dust of the Earth. 

My first question is that if you recite this at the end, why do we need to do everything else? If the above is a statement of nullification, why spend hours of cleaning and searching for chametz? If we view the cleaning and searching of chametz in strictly literal terms, it makes more sense to simply nullify the chametz at the end. However, the pre-Passover rituals are as much about the spiritual lessons as the physical act of removing chametz, if not more so. 

As I explained a decade ago, the difference between chametz and matzah is subtle, yet important. Chemically speaking, the chametz has undergone the fermentation process. The chametz is to represent the ego, the fluff in our lives, our inflated view of the self and other distorted views. The matzah has no fluff or fanfare. It is to represent ourselves exactly as we are: nothing better or nothing worse. This state of being is meant to be a balance between arrogance and self-debasement, an equilibrium that I have argued is the most Jewish definition of humility. Rather than be aggrandizing or demeaning, a Jewish sense of humility is meant to be one of self-awareness. 

Bring that back to why we clean on Passover. Coming back to the figurative view on these rituals, Passover cleaning is not simply about removing crumbs and prohibited food from the home. It is about decluttering our minds, hearts, and souls. We clean before reaching biur chametz because we are meant to put in the work on our own personal development and to become the best version of ourselves. 

What is equally interesting is that in spite of all the preparation, all the cleaning, searching, and selling, Jews still burn chametz and make a declaration of nullification. The declaration during biur chametz states that regardless of whether I found it or not, whether I destroyed it or removed it or not, it is no longer mine. If we go further with the metaphor, it means that we can prepare until we can prepare no more. In spite of our best efforts, something can go awry. Taking this extra step is to remind us that not everything is in our control. 

When one completes biur chametz as a last step of Passover preparation, what is being said is "I have put my best food forward. I have done all I could. What happens next is what happens. G-d does not expect us to be perfect. If He did, we would have been angels. The reality is that we are not angels. To be human is to err." What the practice of biur chametz reminds us that we can only do our best. If we could clean our houses perfectly (either physically for Passover or metaphorically in life), we would not need such a practice as biur chametz. Yes, we can work on improving ourselves (as the Passover cleaning symbolizes), but doing anything beyond our darnedest is not possible. We are not meant to be angels, but the best versions of our human selves. There is a point where we have to say that we are good enough and that what we have done up to now is good enough. Could G-d ask for anything more?

Will the Economic Sanctions on Russia Work and Will They Be Worth It?

Russia invading Ukraine back in February certainly has had multiple implications for foreign policy and international affairs. Multiple countries, especially those in the West, take issue with Russia's unprovoked attack on Ukraine. At the same time, they do not want to anger the nuclear power or do something that will also harm them in the process. It is because Russia is a regional power with a sizable economy and nuclear weapons that makes the response all the more limited. I have already covered why military intervention is ill-advised, why a no-fly zone should not be implemented, and the limits of the United States banning oil and natural gas. One policy idea seems to have received a fair bit of traction: economic sanctions. 

What are economic sanctions exactly? Per the definition from the Council on Foreign Relations, economic sanctions are "the withdrawal of customary trade and financial relations for foreign- and security-policy purposes. Sanctions may be comprehensive, prohibiting commercial activity with regard to an entire country, like the long-standing U.S. embargo of Cuba, or they may be targeted, blocking transaction by and with particular businesses, groups, or individuals." We can be looking at anything from travel bans and export restrictions to trade embargoes and asset seizures.

In the context of the Russo-Ukrainian War, we are seeing multiple types of economic sanctions. Aside from the United States' import ban on oil (see my analysis here), there have been banking sanctions. The United Kingdom announced that they were freezing assets of Russian banks. The United States announced restrictions on Russian banks. Two Chinese state banks were limiting financing to purchasing Russian raw materials. The European Union implemented sanctions targeting technological transfers, Russian assets, and Russian banks. The United States, European Union, and Canada have banned air travel from Russia. It can be argued that we are seeing an unusually high amount of economic sanctions in response to Russia's decision to invade Ukraine. This is to name but a few of the economic sanctions imposed upon Russia. If you want a full list of the sanctions imposed on Russia, please view the timeline from the Peterson Institute for International Economics here.

There is some appeal to economic sanctions. It is a way to stick it to Russia without partaking in something as problematic as conventional war with a nuclear power. Also, given the current nature of globalization, much of the global economy is conducted in U.S. dollars, which gives the Western powers an upper hand. It would not be much of an exaggeration to say that the rules of the U.S. financial system are the rules of the global financial system. Whether or not economic sanctions are a good idea really depends on what your goal is. Are you trying to encourage Russia to exit Ukraine? Are these sanctions to cripple Russia's ability to fund its military actions in Ukraine? Are you trying to encourage regime change in Russia? Or are these sanctions simply punitive in nature? 

Historically, economic sanctions have mixed results for bringing about policy change, regime change, or cause military impairment (Hufbauer et al., 2009). One study put the likelihood of success at about 40 percent (Morgan et al., 2014). 

It is more than citing examples of how Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, and Syria went about their foreign policy in spite of economic sanctions. We already see a lack of efficacy, at least in the immediate term, in the context of the Russo-Ukrainian War. Previous economic sanctions did not deter Russia from attacking Ukraine in February, although they could potentially deter Russia from invading other nations in the future (or could even deter China from invading Taiwan). 

The latest round of economic sanctions being implemented will need time to take into effect, which is worth mentioning since we are talking about the immediacy of war. This is shown by the fact that Russian military forces remain in Ukraine. Plus, Russia has one of the lowest debt-to-GDP ratios (at 17 percent) and is sitting on $600 billion in currency reserves, which is the fourth-largest reserves in the world. There is also the possibility that neutral countries (e.g., China, India, Pakistan, much of Latin America) could help provide sanctions-busting transactions as a workaround. 

Conversely, this latest round of economic sanctions has been massive, multilateral, and swift. In terms of determining success, one should ask what the ultimate goals are. Getting Putin to retreat in the short-run is not going to happen. We are past the point of deterrence since Russia has already attacked Ukraine. Punishment in the medium-term is more feasible, even in spite of the Russian ruble making a comeback from a previous crash in recent weeks. Standard & Poor's is estimating an 11 percent contraction of GDP in 2022 primarily due to the war. Russia is also looking at double-digit inflation. There is a case to be made that the economic sanctions will have medium-to-long-term implications for weakening the Russian economy. As for changing Putin's behavior (i.e., rehabilitation), it will be difficult to get Putin to remove Russian troops from Ukrainian territory since he is staking his political future on Ukrainian annexation (or at least having a Russian rule Ukraine on Putin's behalf).

One of the arguments against such broad-based economic sanctions is that they disproportionately impact individuals or groups of people who are not responsible for the government's decisions. Economic sanctions would make sense if ordinary Russian citizens were responsible for its government's foreign policy decisions, but they are not. Even if the goal is to inflict pain on the Russian oligarchs and their interests in the West, the results will be less predictable than it will be for the general populace. 

Perhaps regime change is a desirable outcome of these sanctions. But let me re-iterate how these sanctions take time to take hold. It could be a few months or a few years before the effects are fully felt by the Russian people, particularly the oligarchs and others in power. The Director of Harvard University's Growth Lab, Ricardo Haussmann brings up why economic sanctions rarely result in regime change. Haussmann's explanation is that although the sanctions weaken the regime, they tend to weaken society even more so. Harold James, who is a history professor at Princeton University, also mentions that domestic discontent could increase in Russia, but so could nationalistic fervor and support for Putin. Looking both at nationalism in Russian history and the mechanisms that Putin has in place to silence dissidents, these sanctions have the potential to strengthen Putin's popularity within his own country. The sanctions could also backfire by putting Putin in a corner and taking greater risks by escalating either to war or more belligerent actions (e.g., cyber warfare).   

There will be spillover effects beyond Russia. We are talking about trying to shut down or severely limit large swathes of one of the world's largest economies in an increasingly globalized world. While there have been other economic sanctions in human history, the sheer magnitude of what is being attempted leaves us in a situation without parallel. We are already seeing increasing prices in oil and natural gas, stock market volatility, and other negative demand shocks, not to mention an impending food shortage throughout Africa. Much like with other restrictions on trade openness, economic sanctions will in all likelihood make the poorer and less free. 

A 2019 report from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) echoed concerns about unintended consequences of economic sanctions: "Some studies [on economic sanctions] suggest that sanctions had a negative impact on human rights, the status of women, public health, or democratic freedom in target countries. In addition, more frequent and comprehensive use of sanctions could encourage sanctions targets, potential targets, and their commercial partners to develop trade and financial ties that are less dependent not he United States (GAO, p. 25-26)."

Will these economic sanctions result in the outcomes desired by Western governments? That remains to be seen, although historic precedence gives us mixed results. I can say with fair certainty that they will dole out a fair bit of pain for the people of Russia and the Russian economy, as well as make goods and services more expensive for people throughout the world. Whether these sanctions will deter future Russian military action or if it will engender political change from Moscow is much less certain. At best, these sanctions would need to be one tool in the toolkit to bring about peace in eastern Europe. At worst, it will be all pain for little to no gain. Only time will tell to let us know whether or not these sanctions were worth it.