Minnesota’s top Republican Thursday said he doesn’t approve of Gov. Tim Walz extending a statewide stay-at-home order, but offered scant explanation or a clear alternative.
The criticism of Walz by state Senate Majority Leader Paul Gazelka, R-Nisswa, echoes a simmering dissent among some Republicans and some conservatives that much of the state’s — and nation’s — response to the coronavirus pandemic is unjustifiably wreaking havoc on the economy and livelihoods of those being ordered to make unprecedented sacrifices.
Walz responded that he has the weight of the scientific and medical communities on his side, as well as guidance from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention — and essentially the Republican White House.
The controversy — the first real partisan fissure since the state’s pandemic response began in earnest in mid March — came a day after Walz announced Wednesday that he was extending his stay-at-home order and closure of all non-critical businesses until May 4.
Walz is a Democrat, and Gazelka is the top member of the Senate, which is controlled by Republicans. The two men have had a publicly amicable relationship since Walz took office last year, and they’ve generally shown a unified front on COVID-19 response, until Thursday.
On Wednesday, Gazelka said he welcomed an aspect of Walz’s extension that allowed for some businesses, such as landscaping, to resume, while also creating a mechanism for others to make a case that they could safely return to work. But Gazelka, who had been briefed with other lawmakers by Walz earlier in the day, didn’t say whether or not he supported the move.
Then on Thursday afternoon, shortly before Walz began his daily briefing with the media, Gazelka posted two tweets:
The first one read: “I do not approve of the Governor’s unilateral decision to continue the order to shelter at home until May 4th. We have to get on with our lives.”
I do not approve of the Governor’s unilateral decision to continue the order to shelter at home until May 4th. We have to get on with our lives.
— Paul Gazelka (@paulgazelka) April 9, 2020
About 20 minutes later, he posted a second: “Gov Walz expecting up to 5,000 people in ICU this June. New York State has less than 5,000 people in the ICU TODAY! NY has 19.5 million people to our 5.6 million. We have around 3000 beds available. We are ready for the surge now. Why shut MN business down for a NY sized surge?”
Gazelka declined to respond to a request for comment, and a spokeswoman said the tweets speak for themselves. As such, it was unclear Thursday what course of action Gazelka thinks Walz should take.
IS GAZELKA RIGHT?
The second tweet appears to offer a mix of reasoned questioning and a shaky grasp of facts. One by one:
- Walz is not expecting exactly 5,000 people in intensive care in June. Based on University of Minnesota modeling he discussed Wednesday, he’s preparing for between 3,000 and 5,000 people in need of ICU beds during some stretch of a period between late May and late July.
- Gazelka is correct that New York state, which is believed by many to be close to its peak demand, has fewer than 5,000 people in intensive care. As of Thursday, that number was 4,925. Gazelka’s population estimates are correct, and his question — why is Walz preparing for a New York-scale surge? — is one many have asked. It cuts to a level of skepticism about the U modeling that Walz is leaning on, and why it appears to be projecting numbers that are higher than some other models, and, in this case, about as high as New York (where it’s unclear if the number of ICU beds will actually be exceeded). There was no clear answer Thursday from Walz on this question. The team of modelers from the university’s School of Public Health is planning to brief lawmakers and the media separately Friday.
- Gazelka’s assessment that Minnesota is “ready for the surge now” with “around 3,000 beds” is debatable. Some models suggest the state’s ICU capacity will not be overrun, while others suggest it might. With three days advance notice, the state estimates that hospitals can expand their ICU capacity to 2,770, but the number of ventilators currently available is 2,458, and it’s unclear how easily that number can be increased. Moreover, projections endorsed by the Minnesota Hospital Association show that the availability of personal protective equipment for nurses and doctors could plummet to near nothing as the surge approaches. The prospects for replenishing those stocks are also unclear.
WALZ RESPONDS
Over the audio of a conference call, Walz appeared at times to bristle after several members of the media asked him about Gazelka’s tweets Thursday. At one point Walz raised the topic of climate science, implying that climate change skeptics and deniers, who are often Republicans, are being revealed for their lack of respect for science under the rapidly evolving pandemic, which has generally progressed along patterns scientists have developed over decades.
Walz, who has wielded rare force under the state’s emergency powers laws, said he welcomed a level of scrutiny from lawmakers, and that he has no motive for essentially rendering 385,000 Minnesotans jobless over a mere a matter of weeks.
“If the hospital association told me today, ‘Governor, we got it. Send everybody back to work. We got plenty of PPE, we got plenty of doctors, we got plenty of beds, we got plenty of ventilators,’ I would do it now,” Walz said. “But not a single one of them is saying that.” PPE refers to personal protective equipment, used by health care providers.
At one point, he added: “I don’t think deliberating in a crisis by tweet is the way to go.”
Walz noted that he’s hardly alone; governors from all but eights states have issued statewide stay-at-home orders.
Walz challenged Gazelka and other Republican skeptics to provide examples of experts who have suggested a different course of action.
WHAT EXPERTS SAY
On Walz’s side appear to be an overwhelming chorus of public health officials and epidemiologists.
Many skeptics of Minnesota’s numbers have pointed to a model from the University of Washington Medical School’s Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation. It’s one of the few models that offers state-by-state projections, and it’s been highlighted by the White House’s coronavirus task force. It’s also striking in how the numbers it projects are far lower than those projected by the University of Minnesota’s model.
But the Washington model still assumes a stay-at-home order — through the entire month of May. And the institute’s director urges that, calling it “crucial.”
“The trajectory of the pandemic will change — and dramatically for the worse — if people ease up on social distancing or relax with other precautions,” Dr. Christopher Murray at the University of Washington said Tuesday, adding later: “If social distancing measures are relaxed or not implemented, the U.S. will see greater death tolls, the death peak will be later, the burden on hospitals will be much greater, and the economic costs will continue to grow.”
Many economists agree.
The University of Chicago’s Initiative on Global Markets recently polled its Economics Experts Panel — a group of respected economists — on the following statement: “Abandoning severe lockdowns at a time when the likelihood of a resurgence in infections remains high will lead to greater total economic damage than sustaining the lockdowns to eliminate the resurgence risk.”
Eighty percent agreed or strongly agreed. None disagreed.