Public supports Michigan public health policies regarding COVID-19

By Dennis Archambault

While the courts are determining the authority of the governor in enforcing public health, public opinion favors Michigan’s handling of the coronavirus pandemic thus far and practice safety behaviors as recommended. This coincides with national polls which also favor public health measures and a safe, slow return to the workplace.

This is good news for public health advocates who were reeling after the Wisconsin Supreme Court decision that went against the state’s governor in implementing stay-at-home orders. A similar challenge is facing Michigan Gov. Gretchen Witmer.  The poll, commissioned by the Detroit Regional Chamber (https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2020/05/20/republican-men-views-coronavirus/5227671002/?utm_source=native&utm_medium=capi_retrofit&utm_content=inapp&build=native-web_i_p), also noted that respondents were not supportive of the messaging by protesters who challenged the governor’s stay-at-home executive order, among other aspects of her administration of public health policies.

Limits on personal freedom for the greater good is difficult for many people to understand and cope with, and as time goes on, having even less patience for. Detroit Free Press columnist Mitch Albom wrote a column about this aspect of crisis response questioning whether Michiganders had the fortitude to do what it needs to do to get through a major public health crisis, calling for patience. Facing the start of summer doesn’t help. And even projecting the adjustment in the workplace and education, the public realizes that public health makes sense.

Earlier public health action would have saved lives

If the United States had begun imposing social distancing measures one week earlier than it did in March, about 36,000 fewer people would have died in the coronavirus outbreak, according to new estimates from Columbia University disease modelers (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/20/us/coronavirus-distancing-deaths.html?campaign_id=60&emc=edit_na_20200520&instance_id=0&nl=breaking-news&ref=cta&regi_id=67835882&segment_id=28630&user_id=726e823b701adead13c212c59b7071e5). If the country had begun locking down cities and limiting social contact on March 1, two weeks earlier than most people started staying home, the vast majority of the nation’s deaths — about 83 percent — would have been avoided, the researchers estimated. Under that scenario, about 54,000 fewer people would have died by early May.

“The enormous cost of waiting to take action reflects the unforgiving dynamics of the outbreak that swept through American cities in early March. Even small differences in timing would have prevented the worst exponential growth, which by April had subsumed New York City, New Orleans, and other major cities,” according to a New York Times reading of the research.

We can hope that this painful lesson will serve to prevent unnecessary damage when the next public health crisis strikes.

Dennis Archambault is vice president of Public Affairs for Authority Health.