California Proposition 25: Should Cash Bail Be Replaced with Risk Assessment Tools?

The right to a pretrial bail is so old that it predates the Magna Carta. It is a right that is also protected in the United States Constitution under the Due Process clause (United States v. Salerno, 1987). This upcoming November, the state of California is voting on Proposition 25 in the hopes of doing away with cash bail. Back in 2018, the California legislature passed legislation on replacing cash bail with an algorithm-based risk assessment to determine whether the suspect is a flight risk enough to be incarcerated pretrial. This assessment would result in certain monitoring conditions throughout the trial. Unsurprisingly, the bail industry filed a veto referendum to dispute SB 10. If Proposition 25 passes, then cash bail will be a thing in the past. Here's what I am wondering: if pretrial bail has been such an enshrined right historically, why take issue with it? 

The purpose of cash bail is to provide an incentive for those who are released pretrial to appear for their court dates. For those in favor of Proposition 25, there is the criticism that the cash bail system does not judge an individual based on an actual flight risk. Those who fare better in the cash bail system are those who are wealthier. Most who are wealthy can afford bail with little to no impediment. As for those who are poorer, they are forced to pay a disproportionately large amount of cash to work and be with their family as they await trail, regardless of whether they are minimal flight risk. On top of that, it entails giving the bail companies a nonrefundable premium worth 10 percent of the bail (e.g., a $50,000 bail means losing out on $5,000). For those who cannot afford to pay, they stay in jail. Not only are they deprived of working in while awaiting trial, but those who are stuck in jail are often forced to accept harsher plea deals than those who can fight the charges unincarcerated (Donnelly, 2018).

This brings us to the cost of the California bail system. As of 2014, 62 percent of prison beds (or about 50,000 beds) in California were filled with those awaiting trial, according to the Public Policy Institute of California [PPIC]. A Human Rights Watch report uses an estimate that the daily cost per prisoner is $113.87. Assuming that cost is accurate, that would mean the daily cost of imprisoning unsentenced individuals is about $5.7 million daily (or $2.09 billion annually). If we use the daily cost nationwide of $77.67 found in a December 2018 report from the centrist Brookings Institution, that would still mean an annual cost of $1.4 billion. These calculations would assume, of course, that all the unsentenced individuals would not be incarcerated. The high-bound assumption could be why the California Legislative Analyst Office [LAO] estimated that the reduction in local jail costs would be in the high tens of millions, instead of a higher amount.

This leads to the trade-off of replacing it with a risk assessment system. The aforementioned LAO fiscal impact report estimated that a new system under Prop 25 would cost in the mid-hundreds of millions of dollars, implying that the net cost could be higher under Prop 25. The fact that the LAO does not put a dollar amount on it makes it more difficult to determine net cost. The PPIC had a similar issue of putting a price tag on Prop 25 this past August.

Many Left-leaning individuals have been for Prop 25. However, there are some on the Left (and not just the American Bail Association) that believe that Prop 25 will make matters worse. The Essie Justice Group believes that it will have an even larger, disproportionate effect on minority communities. This seems to have been the case when the state of Kentucky removed its cash bail system (Albright, 2019). New Jersey had mixed results. On the one hand, pretrial imprisonments dropped by 27 percent since it removed cash bail in 2017. On the other hand, racial disparities did not budge. The ACLU of New York released a policy brief this year on how risk assessment tools perpetuate socio-economic and racial disparities. A group of researchers, including those from Harvard and MIT, signed a letter in 2019 saying that these tools do not reduce racial disparities. 

The fact that the cash bail system de facto punishes many by throwing hundreds in jail before being tried, many of whom are low-risk, non-violent offenders, makes the idea of "innocent until proven guilty" a cruel joke or something that only applies to those who can afford it. Bail reform is needed. At the same time, one could argue that risk assessment tools perpetuate past biases of the criminal justice system. While there are issues with both the current cash bail system and risk assessment tools, I think I have a slight preference for Prop 25. I like how the Brennan Center for Justice concludes: If California votes "no," they should go back to the drawing board, get rid of cash bail, and avoid risk assessment tools. If California votes "yes," we should monitor the implementation of risk assessment tools to make sure disparities are not being perpetuated in the criminal justice system. 

2020 State Ballot Hodgepodge: Florida Minimum Wage, Illinois Income Tax Reform, California Gig Economy, and Marijuana Legalization

One of the things I enjoy most about election season is not the presidential election hullabaloo or even when you have Supreme Court justice vacancies. I personally get a kick out of the state ballot measures voted on in November. They are voluminous, they cover a wide range of topics, and they have greater impact on our lives than we can anticipate. Some of the fun ones I have covered in past years have included  single-payer healthcare, condom use in the porn industry, the right to hunt, and labels for genetically modified food. Today, I will cover minimum wage, tax reform, labor market reform, and marijuana. 

Florida Minimum Wage: Florida is looking to increase its minimum wage to $15 per hour by September 2026 (Amendment 2). The legislative branch's research arm, the Florida Office of Economic and Demographic Research (EDR) conducted a fiscal analysis of the ballot initiative. The EDR found that by 2027, it would cost the state of Florida $540 million per annum. Proponents argue that Florida needs to increase the minimum wage to account for rising costs in housing and transportation. Aside from contributing to the broader economy, the additional spending would offset the unemployment losses. 

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released a study on what a $15 federal minimum wage would look like. CBO found that while 1.3 million would be pulled out of poverty, the same amount of people would become unemployed. That on top of the fact that it would have a net cost of $8.1 billion. Not exactly an economic booster! Data from the last recession also found that minimum wage increases prolong recessions. Not exactly a winning policy if one of the main goals is to pull Florida out of the recession. Generally speaking, minimum wage increases such as these make it more difficult for low-skill labor to find or retain work, it is a poorly targeted policy when it comes to poverty reduction, and adversely impacts business operations. If you live in Florida, vote "No" on Amendment 2. For further analysis on Amendment 2, see the Reason Foundation's analysis here. 

Illinois "Fair" Tax: The main ballot initiative in Illinois this November is for what has been colloquially referred to as a "fair" tax. Essentially, Illinois is looking to switch its income tax from a flat tax (everyone pays the same percentage) to a graduated tax system (the richer you are, the higher percentage you pay). I covered the Illinois "fair" tax last year, but the proposed brackets are the same, so the analysis still applies. Aside from asking what constitutes as "fair when it comes to taxation, I took issue with the following:

• The tax will not close the budgeting gap.
• The tax reform does nothing to change Illinois' atrocious spending habits.
• The "fair" tax does not adequately address the issues of fairness that proponents purport.
• Illinois already has lousy tax competitiveness. Switching to a graduated tax system will simply incentivize more people to move outside of Illinois. 

Illinoisans should vote "no" on the "Illinois Allow for Graduated Income Tax Amendment." If you want more recent analysis on the ballot initiative, here is one from the Tax Foundation.

California Gig Economy: Last year, the California legislature passed Assembly Bill (AB) 5, which applied a three-factor test to determine whether a worker could be classified as an independent contractor under California law. AB 5 had considerable implications for gig workers, but especially app-based drivers (e.g., Uber, Lyft). If it passes this November, Proposition 22 would essentially reverse AB 5. I covered AB 5 last year shortly before it became law this past January. I thought AB 5 was inferior policy because a) it would cause greater unemployment, b) cost the California economy millions, c) increase costs for consumers, and d) eliminate the flexibility in hours that most app-based drivers prefer to the 9-5 work hour. 

Looking at the analysis by the California Legislative Analyst, it would create a minor boost in income tax revenue because drivers would be earning more in income. More to the point, passing Proposition 22 would "would allow the companies to charge lower fares and delivery fees. With lower prices, customers would take more rides and place more orders. This could increase the companies' profits. High profit would increase the companies' stock prices." This analysis points out that AB 5 has been hurting app-based drivers, customers, and companies that hire gig workers alike. In case you need more convincing, here are analyses from Reason Foundation and the American Action Forum. I urge Californians to vote "Yes" on Proposition 22 this November. 

Marijuana Legalization: This November, we have four states looking to legalize recreational marijuana - Arizona, Montana, New Jersey, and South Dakota. Reason Foundation provides analysis on each of these ballot initiatives. There is a reason states have been trending towards legalizing marijuana in recent years. It is because the fears and stigma surrounding marijuana have been overblown, to say the least. Colorado legalized in 2014, and it has not been anywhere near the disaster that naysayers thought it would be. Economically speaking, marijuana legalization makes sense. We're not spending millions to enforce laws (that includes policing, prosecuting, and imprisonment costs), which means we can focus on more serious crimes. There is more government revenue, which means that if government dollars can be spent, it could spent where it could do more good, instead of punishing a victimless crime. Also, we can reduce the size of the underground market. This is great not simply because it expands the legal economy, but because less commerce in the underground market gives criminals and drug lords less power. Let's continue the trend towards marijuana legalization by voting these ballots and making them the law of the land for these states. 

A Sukkot Lesson on Schach and Being Comfortable with the Uncomfortable

For a Jew, it's the most wonderful time of the year. Jews have four holidays crammed into a single month. We are currently in the middle of Sukkot (סכות). Also known as "the Festival of Tabernacles," Sukkot acts as a harvest festival. A major component of Sukkot is building a temporary dwelling called a sukkah (סוכה). As I looked up through the roof of the sukkah this year, I started to focus on the roof covering of the sukkah, referred to as schach (סכך). 

I started to think of some of the technicalities about what makes for valid schach under Jewish law. Two important details have to do with what the schach is made of (Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 134:3). It has to grow from the earth (גדולו מן הארץ) and it has do no longer be attached to the earth (תלוש). On the one hand, it is material made of this earth, implying there was nurturing and growth that was involved in the creation of the schach. At the same time, it is no longer attached to the earth. It has been uprooted from the conditions that once allowed for it to grow. 

Another important detail is that there has to be enough schach to provide more shade than sun (Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 134:5). What is interesting is that we are not completely covered under a sukkah. We need enough openings to have the sunlight come through the roof and enough where we can see the stars. Yes, we are supposed to receive some coverage, but we still leave enough openings to be exposed to nature, to the elements. 

You would think that these would only be details that a carpenter or architect would give particular meaning. I would normally find a fixation with such details as material type of the schach to be reflective of the obsession in the Orthodox world over legal minutiae that seemingly have no bearing on a spiritual experience. And this year, I was able to find spiritual meaning in them. 

I have been reading the book How to Be Comfortable with Being Uncomfortable by Ben Aldridge. Aldridge talks about his journey, which includes the exploration of Stoicism, Buddhism, and cognitive-based therapy. By discussing these approaches, Aldridge describes how he came to terms with his fears and anxieties by leaning into them. As the title suggests, he developed the mental resistance to become comfortable with the uncomfortable. 

I think the schach has a similar lesson to teach, especially if the sukkah is meant to act a metaphor for joyful living. We grow up only to have life thrust less-than-ideal situations upon us. We are uprooted from the things that make us feel comfortable: that is an inevitability in life that I discussed this past Tisha B'Av. I think this feeling has been quite notable during the pandemic. Pre-pandemic, so many people went to work and went about their day-to-day in an automatic fashion, thinking that nothing could shake their sense of stability or security. And then we got hit with the worst pandemic since the Spanish Flu, the greatest economic downturn since the Great Depression, and social unrest in the United States that has not been since the late 1960s. The uprootedness, the disorientation, things not going as we expect: this is all a part of life experience. 

If the amount of schach teaches us anything, it is that we are not meant to be sheltered from the elements. We are meant to accept the elements as part of the process. As a dear friend of mine brought up, the sunlight comes in through the cracks. Even as we protect ourselves from the elements, we have to remind ourselves vis-à-vis gratitude that there is good in our lives. 

What about when the elements get to be too much? I wrote a piece two years ago about the exemption of sitting in the sukkah when weather conditions are uncomfortable and what we could learn about adapting to bad situations. It seems contradictory that I would now write that we need to be comfortable with the uncomfortable. But if we sift through some of the details, it really is not contradictory. 

One of the interesting points about the exemption is that it is based on a subjective definition of discomfort. If we learn to become comfortable with the uncomfortable, it would not bother us as much. It means we would have a higher resilience to deal with cold weather or rain if it comes on Sukkot. 

It is also worth noting that the sukkah pushes us in multiple ways. The temporary nature of the sukkah reminds us that our lives are also temporary. We have to find joy even while knowing that we will all die one day. Many have argued over the centuries that money buys happiness. Although it might seem intuitive for that to be the case, we are meant to find spiritual joy in material simplicity. We also have to find comfort and joy in nature when we could readily enjoy the comforts of modern-day life. The fact that Sukkot does not commemorate a specific event implies that we have to push ourselves to find meaning to a situation when one is not immediately apparent.

Yes, there will be certain scenarios in which we cannot avoid going indoors for Sukkot, such as when a hurricane, whether literal or metaphorical, abruptly comes in our lives. We cannot weather everything. We are human and thus limited by our imperfections. However, if we could learn to weather a slightly colder wind or a temporary storm, it gives us more opportunities to experience a mitzvah, to experience something we otherwise would not have. If you can enjoy eating in a sukkah, saying brachot (blessings), and singing zemirot (holiday songs) regardless of what life, G-d, or Mother Nature throw at you, I would argue that is equanimity. Stoic philosopher Epictetus once said that it is not so much the external events that cause distress, but how we respond to them. If we learn to better respond to the external events, we would have fewer scenarios in which we would feel the need to go inside during Sukkot. Life is not about the comfort zone. It is about moving beyond it to grow, much like Abraham did when he left his hometown at the age of 75. Interestingly enough, the Torah does not mention anything in Abraham's life prior to him pushing himself outside of his comfort zone. To quote American author Neale Donald Walsch, "Life begins at the end of your comfort zone."

What I leave you with are some questions to think about: What makes us uncomfortable? How does the discomfort impede us in life? How do we learn how to build our resilience? How do we learn to become comfortable with the uncomfortable so we experience life more fully instead of missing out on the vast number of opportunities that life has to offer? 

מועדים לשמחה!

Let's Dismiss the Case for Court-Packing

The death of the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg could very well reverberate and affect our democracy for years to come. This would not be because of the Justice's death per se, but the implications of how and when to fill the vacancy. President Trump is looking to fill that seat with another conservative justice. If the Republicans are successful, that would result in a 6-3 conservative majority on the Supreme Court. It's interesting to see both sides react. The Left thinks that a conservative grip on the judicial branch would harm the country for decades. The Right thinks that the Left is acting like a bunch of sore losers and that "it's our turn to be at the helm." Since the Democrats are unlikely to block a nomination (either before or after the presidential election), they are looking at another solution: court-packing.

The term court-packing dates back to Franklin D. Roosevelt. FDR tried passing various legislative initiatives (most notably the New Deal), but the Supreme Court struck down a number of these initiatives as unconstitutional. To deal with the frustration of his vision of government largesse, he attempted to increase the size of the Supreme Court from nine justices to fifteen justices. This has rightfully been portrayed as a political ploy and a power grab to gain influence over the judicial branch. 

Since the Democrats do not want to acquiesce power to the Right, they are looking to "pull an FDR" by packing the Court if they gain a majority in the Senate. The last Judiciary Act, passed in 1869, set the number of justices at nine. The number of justices has been adjusted on more than one occasion, so it is not as if there is not any historical precedent for changing the number of justices. Constitutionally speaking, all the Democrats would need to do is pass another Judiciary Act to modify the number of justices. The question is not so much whether the Democrats could gain enough power after the 2020 elections, but rather whether they should go down this path.

For one, the Supreme Court's popularity is at an all-time high (Gallup). If the Democrats opt for court packing, the political costs for the Democrats would be high. It could help to bolster the Republican's narrative on the Supreme Court. 

But let's think of this in terms of political calculus. After all, the call for court-packing is a political process and it would be foolish to think that the call for court-packing is about restoring "good governance." To quote the late Justice Ginsburg, "If anything, it [court-packing] would make the court look partisan. It would be that--one side saying, 'When we're in power, we're going to enlarge the number of justices, so we would have more people who would vote the way we want them to." 

As the Brennan Center for Justice, which is not exactly a conservative institution, brings up, it would be dangerous to "tamper with the mechanisms of democracy to thwart a single political figure." Since the impetus for court-packing is political in nature, you better believe that if the Democrats strike the first blow, the Republicans will retaliate with even more court-packing once they regain power. Since the Court would appear more partisan as a result of court-packing, it would end up eroding the legitimacy of the judiciary branch. 

If the Supreme Court cannot be seen as or act as a check on the other two branches, that erodes separation of powers, and ultimately the constitutional republic that was envisioned by the Founding Fathers over two centuries ago. Since the Left is concerned about such causes célèbres as the right to an abortion or the right to same-sex marriage, it seems peculiar that you would undermine the very judicial protection that has held those rights in place.

To be sure, both parties feel justified in retaliating when it comes to court nominees. The Democrats feel like they were robbed when it came to nominating Merrick Garland in 2016. The Republicans feel like they have been robbed of multiple federal court nominees, including Miguel Estrada. Let's be for real. Both parties have chucked procedural decency out the window when it was politically convenient.  Partisan politics can be summarized by saying "it's okay when we do it, but not when they do it." Harry Reid created the "nuclear option" in 2013. Senator Mitch McConnell extended the "nuclear option" to Supreme Court justices in 2017. 

Even so, court-packing is a whole different animal. At least with filibustering or holding up nominees, the judicial system was held intact. If we throw the norm against court-packing out the window, we also through our capacity at judicial review out of the window. As the Left-leaning Vox illustrates, multiple political scientists have pointed out that there have been multiple examples of court-packing by would-be or eventual autocratic countries: Hungary, Honduras, Poland, Venezuela, Argentina, Turkey. 

For those who complain about Trump bringing down the country, it seems hypocritical for various anti-Trumpers to advocate for a policy that would most likely erode democratic institutions. Those on the Left might want to retaliate in response to their animus towards Trump, but if successful, it would be one of the more myopic things to come from the Left, which is saying something given a look at the economic policies so many of them cherish.

         

Should We Pay People to Take the COVID-19 Vaccine When It Is Available?

Although it seems like the worst of the pandemic is behind us, we are far from returning to a pre-pandemic normal. Half of Americans are unlikely to eat in a restaurant with 25 percent capacity. 52 percent of Americans are uncomfortable with the idea of flying on a plane. Such individuals as Bill Gates and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau have expressed a growing opinion that life will not be back to normal until there is a vaccine. In the meantime, we will be meandering through uncertainty. 

Back in June, research from the University of Chicago suggested that it was not so much the lockdowns that caused the economic contraction, but it is people are afraid to leave their homes because they could contract COVID (Goolsbee and Syverson, 2020). If fear is what is holding people back from feeling like they could spend at pre-pandemic levels, then achieving herd immunity is one of the best ways to do that. Having a vaccine would go a long way to achieving herd immunity. 

However, there is at least one major issue with betting on a vaccine to bring us back to normalcy. According to a poll from Gallup, 35 percent of Americans would not get a free COVID vaccine if available. NBC News polling found that only 44 percent would get a vaccine. If the polling data are correct, that could present a major obstacle towards herd immunity. If we cannot get people to take the vaccine for free, perhaps we should pay them to take it. Last month, Brookings Institution fellow Robert Litan made the argument that we should pay $1,000 per person to take the vaccine. A few weeks later, conservative author and Harvard professor Gregory Mankiw endorsed the idea. 

The argument for paying people to take the vaccine comes down to two economic concepts: externalities and incentives. First, what is an externality? A positive externality is when the production or consumption of a good or service results in the benefit, often of a third party. 

Positive externalities can provide both private and social benefits. Take education as an example. The private benefit is that more education typically results in higher earnings, whereas social benefits can be others learning from your knowledge or benefitting from the services or goods rendered as a result of the education acquired. When I made the case for birth control subsidies six years ago, I argued for the subsidies based on the idea that a) the subsidies would be a positive externality, and b) the cost and overall size of government would be larger if we did not subsidize.

When looking at subsidizing people to take vaccines, we have to ask ourselves the cost of the subsidies versus the cost of inaction. Yes, if we paid 75-80 percent of the population $1,000 per person to take the vaccine, that could run upwards of $300 billion. On the other hand, look at the billions of dollars that have already been spent and Congress would love to spend if they could actually agree on something. 

Let's say that we are on board with such a price tag, realizing that $300 billion is a smaller and more desirable number than another trillion-dollar-plus stimulus package. If enough people are hesitant to take the vaccine, as polling data suggest, then an underconsumption could result in not achieving herd immunity. How do we get past this apprehension? To think of it in economic terms, an incentive could be provided. An incentive is a financial reward, usually money or a prize, to make a certain choice. While it would not guarantee a behavioral change, providing financial incentive could nudge enough people in the right direction to achieve herd immunity. To put it in layman's terms, money talks. Money could talk in this case, especially if the price to get a vaccine is right.

At least in concept, the idea of paying people to take the COVID vaccine is a good idea. To play Devil's Advocate, I will question the initial premise, mainly that the COVID vaccine is a prima facie positive externality. I don't say this because I think vaccines are bad or that because I am an anti-vaxxer. Quite the contrary! I got my flu vaccine this month. More to the point, I argued in favor of an opt-out vaccine system six years ago. What I take issue with is a rushed vaccine. 

In spite of years of vaccine research, we have yet to develop a vaccine for HIV, Hepatitis C, or the common cold. We also still have not produced a coronavirus vaccine that has passed Phase III. Let's forget those facts for a moment. There is a reality that vaccines typically take several years to produce. The current record for a vaccine is four years with the mumps vaccine. Why? Even if you want to argue that technological development has improved since then, it takes time to make sure that the vaccine is effective and does not have any long-term effects in which the cure could be worse than the disease. There are also the regulatory hurdles, not to mention the coordination, time, and resources required to produce and distribute the vaccines en masse. Adar Poonawalla, who is the CEO of the world's largest vaccine manufacturer in terms of number of vaccines produced (Serum Institute), said earlier this week that we probably will not have enough vaccines for the global population until 2024.  

Even if scientists could get past enough of these hurdles, there would still need to be convincing that the process was not rushed. You do not need to be an anti-vaxxer to be concerned about the speed at which these vaccines are being produced. If there is a convincing enough argument that the vaccines are indeed safe, I would be more inclined to support such a subsidy. Until then, I will remain skeptical of the proposal.

Exploratory Analysis on Sweden's Coronavirus Strategy: How Successful Has the Swedish Approach Been So Far?

Many on the Left, particularly Senator Bernie Sanders, laud countries such as Sweden because the "Nordic model." Forget for a moment that Sweden abandoned actual socialism in the 1990s because it had failed, that Sweden economic freedom comparable to the United States, or that Sweden has some features that are undesirable to the self-identified "democratic socialists," whether that be school choice, abolishment of the wealth tax, or the fact that Sweden deregulated significant portions of its economy in the late 1990s and early 2000s. In spite of these counterfactuals, it had been common for the Left to idolize Sweden.....at least until the pandemic began.

Once we were in full lockdown mode, Sweden received considerable derision. Why? Because Sweden did not implement a lockdown. On top of that, there was no face mask mandate. Granted, they closed down secondary and tertiary schools and gatherings exceeding fifty people, but a lot of businesses and institutions remained open while multiple countries implemented lockdowns and stay-at-home orders. Sweden largely relied on voluntary social distancing. I can understand why lockdown proponents would throw shade at Sweden. Imagine if a country proved that the goals of the lockdown could have been achieved without a lockdown. It would mean that so many of us went through lockdowns for nothing. Those who get angry at Sweden for their approach to handling COVID-19 do so because they have skin in the game. They want to know that their sacrifice was worthwhile. But enough of psycho-analyzing (at least for now). Let's answer an important question here: how successful has the Swedish model been so far?

One way to answer this question is to look at the death rates. If keeping things open like Sweden were as bad as lockdown proponents purported, Sweden would be an unfortunate outlier. However, that is not the case. Looking at John Hopkins' Coronavirus Resource Center, Sweden has a death rate of 57.05 per 100,000 people. This is certainly a higher rate than multiple countries, including its Nordic neighbors: Denmark (10.73), Finland (6.05), and Norway (4.97). On the other hand, Sweden has fared better than four European nations that locked down: Belgium (87.48), the United Kingdom (62.44), Spain (61.72), and Italy (58.64). France was not so far behind, with 45.56. Another noteworthy example is when you compare the state of New York to Sweden. Andrew Cuomo touted his work on defeating COVID-19 at the Democratic National Convention last week, although the death rate for New York is almost three times that of Sweden, at 169 per 100,000 people (Kaiser Family Foundation).

Let's take a look the raw number of COVID deaths. One Swedish model, which was inspired by the Imperial College model that got the United Kingdom to go into lockdown mode, predicted back in April that if they did not "change their evil ways" by implementing stringent social distancing measures, there would be 96,000 deaths (Gardner et al., 2020). Where are we with that?  If you look at statistics at Folkhälsomyndigheten (FOHM), which is Sweden's health ministry, the deaths are slightly over 5,800. When looking at the FOHM death data by age, you have some interesting findings:

1. Nearly 4,000 of the deaths of those who are 80 and older. About half of Sweden's COVID deaths in Sweden during its peak were in nursing homes. If I were to have any criticism about the execution of Sweden's strategy, it was the inadequate protocol at long-term care facilities at the onset of the pandemic (Stern and Klein, 2020). 
• Although elderly deaths were high in Sweden, it still was nothing in comparison when New York governor Andrew Cuomo mandated that COVID patients stay in nursing homes, thereby significantly contributing to New York's COVID deaths.
2. As we see below, COVID deaths in Sweden peaked in April, but in recent weeks, COVID deaths have come to a grinding halt (Worldometer). 
3. One study from Sweden shows that those in nursing homes in Stockholm had an average about 5 to 9 months of life remaining (Stern and Klein, 2020). While we should not minimize anyone's death, looking at it from the angle of years of life lost (YLL) due to premature mortality also should play a role in assessing Sweden's success. For example, someone who dies from COVID at age 30 would have more years of life lost to COVID than someone who is in their twilight years. About 500 of Sweden's COVID deaths come from those who are 50 and younger. This is significant because setting the initial nursing home policy aside, you see there are not that many deaths for most age demographics. 

The other scary COVID model that came from Sweden had to do with hospital capacity. This model predicted that intensive care unit [ICU] would reach 10,000 beds, well above the pre-pandemic capacity of 526 beds (Sjödin et al., 2020). Sweden was quickly able to ramp up its capacity to 1,100 ICU beds, but if we took the model seriously, Sweden would be screwed in either case. Guess what happened? Did Sweden exceed hospital capacity? Svenska Intensivvårdregistret (SIR), which is Sweden's intensive care registry, has data on COVID ICU bed usage. There was a two-day peak of 558 ICU beds in April, but it has declined considerably ever since (see SIR data below). Not only did the model exaggerate by almost twenty-fold, but Sweden still had plenty of ICU capacity left. In other words, Sweden was able to accomplish one of the lockdown's main goals without locking down, i.e., making sure that hospitals did not exceed capacity.

I would like to say a word about herd immunity. When the pandemic began, experts postulated that herd immunity would be around 60 to 70 percent. In May, an antibody study showed that Sweden only reached about 7 percent (see here), which is a far cry from 60 percent. By late July we started to see a decline in cases, hospitalization, and deaths. If it is not the antibodies, what could it be? It could be possible that T-cell immunity is contributing to herd immunity, as is implied by studies from Karolinska University in Sweden (Sekine et al., 2020) and University Hospital Tübingen in Germany (Nelde et al., 2020). Even better is that herd immunity might not be so high. One study from Science magazine calculates a possible herd immunity rate of 35 percent (Britton et al., 2020), whereas a preprint study from Oxford suggests that it could be as low as 10 to 20 percent (Aguas et al., 2020). While this evidence is preliminary, it does suggest that Sweden could be closer to herd immunity than we might realize. If Sweden did inadvertently reach herd immunity sooner than expected, it could mean that Sweden has experienced the bulk of its COVID deaths as a result. And if that is true and other countries end up going through a second wave, it means that it is too early for lockdown proponents to use death rates as a metric.

While this a pandemic, there is more to consider than the health aspect. There has also been the question of whether keeping the economy open would help Sweden. If you would have asked me at the beginning, I would have expected the Swedish economy to get pummeled along with the rest of the world. After all, Sweden is more dependent on imports, not to mention greater dependence on international demand for Swedish goods. Not even the Riksbank, which is the Swedish central bank, was that optimistic. They were predicting an annualized contraction of 6.9 percent. Yet the GDP for the first half of 2020 surprised me. Although economists were predicting a 0.6 percent contraction for Sweden in Q1, it actually grew at 0.1 percent (or an annualized rate of 0.4 percent).

Sweden did experience a contraction in Q2, but it was not nearly as bad as their European neighbors (BBC). Sweden had a quarterly decline of 8.6 percent, which was still less than half of the United Kingdom (19.1 percent) and Spain (18.5 percent). As a reminder, the United Kingdom and Spain locked down, yet they both had higher death rates and a higher economic contraction than Sweden. The European Union average was a contraction of 11.9 percent, which is also worse than that Sweden. Capital Economics found that Sweden is going to have the least shallow recession in Europe, even in comparison to its Nordic neighbors.

Since the Swedish economy did not experience economic contraction in Q1, they technically are not in a recession yet. That could change in Q3, but as of now, economic growth is faring better than other developed countries.

Unemployment figures are less encouraging. Sweden has an unemployment rate of 8.9 percent (Statistika centralbyrån [SCB]), whereas the Euro Zone average is 7.8 percent (Eurostat). While it is still higher than the Euro Zone average, it is still lower than the U.S. unemployment rate of 10.2 percent.

Postscript: Yes, the Swedish government made some clear mistakes at the beginning, most notably with long-term care facilities. But even after that rough start, Sweden seems to have gotten the virus under control. The decline in deaths, hospitalizations, and cases since its April peak has been encouraging. The GDP figures are also higher than forecasted, which is also good news. Sweden's economy seems to be faring better than its European peers.

While there is some reason for initial optimism, it is still too soon to definitely determine if Sweden's light-touch method was the correct one. Whether Sweden gets hit with a second wave will help determine if its more lax, voluntary approach was the right one. If Sweden does not get a second wave, I would most likely give Sweden a rating of B/B+ for its overall response. For Sweden's sake, I hope that it does not get a second wave.

Should States Be Encouraging Voting By Mail During the Pandemic?

Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden announced that his running mate for this election is to be Senator Kamala Harris (D-CA). With the presidential elections less than 100 days away, the American people are gearing up for Election Day. A question still remains: what is the best way to hold an election during a pandemic? One of the possibilities is to encourage voting-by-mail efforts, which many states are examining as an option. According to Pew Research, 65 percent of Americans support "no-excuse" absentee voting. Nevertheless, there is a partisan divide: Democrats are nearly twice as likely to support voting-by-mail. What I would like to do here is get past the partisan clamoring and examine whether we should push for more voting by mail or not.

1. How many states allow for mail balloting? Those who are against the proposal act as if voting by mail were unprecedented or untested. That's simply not the case. We have allowed for absentee voting for civilians since the late 1800s. There are five states in which voting by mail is the default: Colorado, Hawaii, Oregon, Utah, and Washington. Another 29 states allow for "no-excuse" voting by mail. According to the Election Assistance Commission (EAC), 31 million Americans (or 25.8 percent of ballots) were casted by mail in 2018.

2. Would allowing for more voting by mail give one party an advantage over the other? Given the partisan divide, I have to ask this question. On the one hand, greater access to voting could increase turnout for young adults, minorities, low-income individuals, all of whom are more likely to vote Democrat. On the other hand, this could provide greater access to voting for senior citizens, who skew Republican. It really could go either way. What do historical data have to say? Four political scientists from Stanford University answered this question. They looked at voting data from 1998 to 2016. Their conclusion is that although there is a mild increase in turnout, it does not favor either party when it comes to election outcome (Thompson et al., 2020). The statisticians over at FiveThirtyEight also explain how the net effects are negligible.

3. Is voting in-person during a pandemic unsafe to the point where everyone should vote by mail? This is the main impetus for those to be in favor for voting by mail. Waiting in long lines, being in tiny voting booths, and using pens shared by hundreds of voters could spread COVID-19. This is certainly plausible.

On the other hand, I remember how liberal media outlets were freaking out in April because the Republican assemblymen were pushing for the in-person voting, and the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Wisconsin should hold their primaries without delay. A piece in the Atlantic said that voting in public during a pandemic is not compatible with safety. There was sure to be an uptick in COVID-19 cases in Wisconsin as a result, right? Not really. Researchers at Stanford University and the World Health Organization found no detectable surge as a result (Leung et al., 2020). The CDC came to a similar conclusion in July (Paradis et al., 2020).

Granted, Wisconsin is one case study. At the same time, if it were impossible to keep safe with in-person voting, the outcome from the Wisconsin primaries would have been different. As long as we keep the same protocols that we do while going grocery shopping or to a retail store (e.g., face masks, social distancing), the odds of an outbreak of COVID-19 would be low. Plus, if Liberia can conduct elections during the Ebola pandemic, I think the United States could handle this pandemic.

4. Does voting by mail increase the likelihood of fraud? This is a concern commonly held by those on the Right who oppose voting by mail. Theoretically, by-mail voting makes it easier for someone to falsely vote on behalf of someone else or tamper with ballots. The MIT Election Data and Science Lab points out that while it is more likely for fraud to occur for by-mail voting than in-person voting, voter fraud is still an overall rare occurence. How rare? Based on an investigative reporting project funded by the Carnegie Foundation, there were 491 reported cases of absentee ballot fraud between 2000 and 2012. As Snopes illustrates, the methods for tracking in-mail ballots (e.g., Electronic Registration Information Center [ERIC]) have gotten more sophisticated since then.

As the Brennan Center brings up in its analysis on by-mail voting fraud, one is more likely to get struck by lighting than commit mail voting fraud. In short, while it is more likely, the risk of widespread fraud is minimal, even if we reverted the entire system to in-mail voting.

5. How much less likely ballots by mail less likely to be counted? Let's forget for a moment that there are those on the Left accusing Trump of hampering USPS operations in hopes of undermining the election. As I brought up in May, the United States Postal Service (USPS) was having issues before the pandemic began.  Can the USPS honestly handle such an uptick in delivery both in ballots from election officials and back to them? Also, how many ballots will get lost in the mail?

Postal delivery could have a great impact on whether mail-in ballots are counted. For one, there is the issue of undeliverable ballots, i.e., the ballots that were returned the registered voter did not live at the address on file. Of those that were transmitted to voters (as opposed to returned to election officials), 1.4 percent were counted as undeliverable in 2016 (EAC).

Second, the 2020 primaries could give us a glimpse into what that could look like. According to the Associated Press, 1.5 percent of mail-in ballots for California's 2020 primaries received were ultimately rejected, the most common reason being that the ballot was not mailed and delivered on time. Another reason for ballot rejection could be in filling out the ballot. For thousands of Americans, this will be the first time voting by mail. As MIT political scientist Charles Stewart points out, first-time mail-in voters are more likely to have ballots rejected.

How bad is the rejection rate for returned ballots? According to the Election Assistance Committee (EAC), the national rejection rate for 2016 was 0.77 percent (Overview Table 2) and 0.9 percent for 2012 (Table 32). NPR highlights how multiple states, including Virginia, Arkansas, Minnesota and Oklahoma, had rates above 1.0 percent during their 2020 primary elections. And if you want a scary outlier, New York City is rejecting one out of five of its in-mail ballots. But we don't have to use an outlier to make a salient point: If in-mail ballots are done on a large scale, a 1-2 percent rejection rate could make the difference between a win and a loss for a candidate.

Conclusion
My take on the whole debate is this. Both sides of the debate are stoking fear to gain support for their side, whether that is the fear of the pandemic, of voter fraud, or of the erosion of democracy. My main concern is that of delivering the ballots. Absentee ballot rejections rates are high enough during normal election years. Combine that with the disheveled nature of the USPS along with perturbing rejection rates that were high in the 2020 primaries, I am skeptical of the ballot delivery system to be adequate.

Does this mean I want to force everyone to go to the voting booth in-person? No. Does this mean I want mandated by-mail voting? Again, no. Some people will feel more comfortable going to the voting booth because it helps better guarantee that their vote gets counted (plus, it takes pressure off the USPS). Others will feel more comfortable with an absentee ballot because they do not want to risk contracting COVID-19. Each individual should be allowed to assess their own personal risk and make the choice that best fits that situation. State government and election officials should do their utmost to make sure voters have the ability to exercise whichever method of voting works best for them.