“Managed Globalization”​ Through Mandated “Onshoring”​ is a Necessary Pandemic Response- But, That’s Only Half the Battle By Neil Siskind

By: Neil S. Siskind

“Managed globalization” (or “nationalism”, or “protectionism”, or “partial-autarky”, or whatever term you prefer) as a response to a pandemic (in this case, the COVID-19 pandemic), and for the purposes of preventing and managing future diseases and pandemics, requires two entirely separate elements. Congress’s establishment of a federal mandate requiring the “onshoring” or “reshoring” of all manufacturing, production, and distribution of all “essential products” is a necessary measure towards the country being prepared to efficiently manage future emergencies as they arise and create demand for essential products by hospitals, law enforcement, firefighters, the military, local businesses, and the general public, allowing for manufacturers and government agencies to more effectively prevent raw material and production limitations, and to rapidly solve supply chain constraints. We’ve learned, and are learning, a harsh lesson about the importance of this strategy and structure.

But, in terms of preventing or minimizing widespread infection and disease from pathogen outbreaks, in the first instance, inbound-travel restrictions and protocols are the main control valves.

A person brought this novel coronavirus to the United States; that happened through air travel- and not through trade. If we fail to properly manage inbound travel from foreign nations, then, the next pandemic- notwithstanding manufacturing, production, and supply chain autarky for essential products- may not be far off (not to suggest that this pandemic is, even, nearly over).

Without inbound-travel restrictions and protocols, including health checks and quarantines for inbound travelers from overseas (with such protocols conducted at the travelers’ expenses), we will always be reactive- and not proactive.

Diseases (and pandemics) can certainly start in the United States; zoonoses can, potentially, be transmitted from animals to humans in U.S. forests, in U.S. rural areas, on U.S. farms, and in U.S. zoos. But, our modern and efficient health systems and standards, combined with our national interest and self-interest, would lead to an immediate and complete response, which would include mass and vast notices to the American public. We have laws and standards and protocols designed to protect the nation. Certain other countries may not have those same health-management resources, emergency management systems, and legal obligations, or, they may have different standards of what is “concerning” or “problematic”, or they may have different interests, values, or food and sanitation practices. A nation’s financial resources, and limitations on such, plays a role in its ability to detect and respond to emergencies. A nation’s self-interest in not creating a panic or not being blamed for a pandemic may outweigh its interest in our safety- as we have, now, witnessed.

Manufacturing, production, and supply chain autarky for all essential products through strictly domestic manufacturing and production is a necessary national policy towards effectively responding to future state and national emergencies, of all kinds. But, when it comes to protection from diseases, at the borders and at customs is where versions of protectionism or managed globalization related to human cross-border mobility and movement must be implemented- otherwise our national health standards, health and hygiene practices, and disease emergency measures, will, increasingly, be rendered impotent.

Surely this would change the nature of travel as we know it. But, I’d rather see America change the nature of travel than see another country change the nature of America– again (and not even feel remorseful about it).

COVID-19: Why Can’t Government (or Anyone) Ever Begin by Pursuing the Easiest Possible Answers to Problems?

Here’s are 5 things we know, for sure, among other things, about COVID-19:

  1. High temperatures kill the virus outside the body
  2. UV light kills the virus outside the body ??
  3. The largest states and countries do not have the most COVID-19 cases or deaths.
  4. The states and countries having more cases and deaths than the states and countries with the largest populations have cold damp winters, while those largest states and countries are warm weather countries with lots of sunshine (Florida, Nigeria, Texas, India).
  5. The groups of people having the most COVID-19 cases and deaths are the same groups known to have the most vitamin D deficiencies (seniors and African Americans/dark skinned Hispanics)

So, where are the conclusive studies- one way or the other- on these matters?

Where are the tests of COVID-19 patients showing their respective vitamin D levels?

Where is any evidence to disprove that high temperatures and high UV index levels suppress the contagiousness and spread of this disease between and among people in high temperature communities- as long as they respect social distancing and hand washing guidelines to a reasonable degree, and they are not heavy on senior citizens or African Americans?

Where is the public outcry for government (W.H.O., C.D.C, D.H.S, N.I.H.) and private industry to answer the question, with definiteness and finality: “Does a plethora of sunshine, high UV radiation light levels and/or vitamin D sufficiency prevent transmission of COVID-19 throughout communities where people properly social distance and regularly wash their hands?

Seems like a, relatively, easy experiement to conduct.

While having fewer cases and fewer deaths than several colder states, are California, Texas, and Florida only even in the top ten due to their sheer sizes (and, in the case of Florida, due to its high senior citizen population, and in the case of California, because of the high number of Asian tourists)?

While having fewer cases and deaths than several colder countries, are Nigeria, India, and Brazil only even in the top ten due to their sheer sizes (and in the case of Brazil, its refusal to properly social distance or stay at home)?