Zorn does a nice job of writing the polling results in a prose, opinion-column style. But I've taken the liberty of summarizing the comparisons in a chart, which I'm pasting here.
Pretty clearly, Republicans and Democrats have significantly different attitudes about the seriousness and outlook for the virus.
If you would like to read a set of conclusions about this divergence which comports with a liberal outlook, I encourage you to read Zorn's column.
I'll add just a few thoughts of my own.
The obvious question which arises is, "Which side is right?" I can honestly answer: I don't know. I would observe that public policy so far in the United States has been based more on the Democratic outlook and expectations. I don't discount the possibility that, two years from now, we'll look back on this and see that policies which were tailored more to the Republican attitudes would have been wiser and better for the country.
As it happens, we could very well be in a position to have a factual basis for retrospectively judging whether the severity of the lockdown was wise. You may be aware that a real-life, high-stakes experiment currently is being run: Sweden has elected not to shut down everyday life in lockstep with the rest of the developed world. T.A. Frank reports in Vanity Fair:
Unlike most of the developed world, including neighboring Norway or Denmark, Sweden has kept its elementary schools running and allowed most its businesses, including restaurants and bars, to remain open. Travel in and out of the country remains possible for E.U. nationals. And social distancing remains, for the most part, voluntary, provided the group in question has fewer than 50 people. In short, Sweden has refused to join the rest of us in a lockdown.Another interesting and important question is: to what extent are the president's public statements influencing Republican attitudes and expectations? Again, I don't know the answer with any precision. I expect the president is having some influence. But I also expect that the influence is bi-directional: when the president expresses optimism about the future, and seeks to minimize the seriousness of the situation, he is not only reflecting his own views and self-interest, but also articulating the views of Republicans as he perceives them. I also don't discount the possibility that the president is exerting negative influence on Democrats: the more he expresses optimism, the more their own pessimism is reinforced.
As some states apparently are laying the groundwork to begin relaxing stay-at-home provisions, and with no line of sight yet to a vaccine that will inoculate us against the coronavirus, we may all end up by adopting a version of the Swedish viewpoint. As Frank notes:
the coronavirus is all over the world now, and, without a vaccine or a massive outbreak that brings about herd immunity, you won’t get rid of it. Even if you do what China did and lock down so hard that you eradicate the virus within your borders, it will return as soon as you allow any travel in and out of your country to resume. So Sweden has based its policies on two premises: (1) The coronavirus can only be managed, not suppressed. Short of going full Wuhan on the entire planet, we’ll have to live with it. (2) People won’t tolerate severe lockdown for more than a month or two, since boredom, isolation, and economic desperation will get overwhelming. ...
The question, then, isn’t whether Sweden is going to see more deaths from the coronavirus in the short term than it would with a total lockdown. It obviously will. The question is whether it’s going to see exponentially more cases. So far, that hasn’t happened.
How is Sweden's medical system doing with the increased caseload? No one wants to be NYC or Italy. They had exponential explosion fore a while. Both places have had so many deaths that they have had to resort to mass burials for the dead who had no one to claim them. Their hospitals are overwhelmed. Maybe Sweden won't be as badly affected because they don't have the population density, and they aren't a travel hub to the extent that NYC was. I don't think we can use them for a model of what would happen if we just went back to normal. Every country's "normal" is different.
ReplyDeletePeople keep talking about herd immunity. In order for that to happen 70-80 % of the population has to get the disease. There are still so many unanswered questions, such as, does everyone who gets the disease have immunity to it in the future?
As far as the Democratic/Republican divide over concern about the virus, keep in mind that the blue states are the ones which have higher population density. The red states tend to be more rural, with less population. Those living in the blue states have a well founded fear that they are at greater risk of getting the virus.
Yes, Sweden is different in many ways than the US, a point conservatives often made when Obamacare was being debated.
DeleteI'd add that any observation about Sweden's rates of infection have to be qualified with "so far". It's quite possible that their cautious approach will turn out to be a public health disaster.
It's worth noting that the situation in Sweden doesn't exactly reflect what we think of as "normal". For example, restaurants and bars are open, but people aren't allowed to massively congregate in them (e.g. no more standing at the bar). Gatherings of 50+ people are no longer allowed, so presumably their football and other sporting events aren't open to the public. And I believe the public authorities intervene with more onerous local restrictions if/when there is an outbreak. In short, what Sweden is doing now is not "normal"; it is probably closer to what will be the "new normal" for us as our restrictions begin to be lifted. For example: I've been hearing that, when airline travel resumes, middle seats no longer will be offered for sale, in order to find some balance between group long-distance travel and social distancing.
I am not sure what to think about herd immunity. Do we ever achieve herd immunity to the seasonal influenzas? I think we don't; we rely on herd inoculation. That will be the ultimate outcome, it seems to me: one or more companies develop shots which can be mass-produced, -distributed and -administered. In the longer run, it becomes another annual "flu shot", or maybe even an add-in to the existing annual flu shots. I've been following a Chicago Tribune theater critic's columns who wrote that many leaders in the Chicago theater community believe that will be the point when theater becomes viable again. Unless there is some unanticipated medical breakthrough, it seems we're still 18-24 months away from that point. And even then, I suppose there will be many people who will not be able to receive an inoculation because of health complications, and many others who will choose not to.
I agree with you re: Democrats and Republicans not being grouped in the same places. But even red states have some Democrats (some of them have a lot of Democrats), and the inverse is true for blue states. The differences between Democrats and Republicans aren't purely geographic or even demographic; I think there are real psychographic differences as well.
The opinion polls largely reflect the stereotypes of what people are led to believe by the media are the opinions of Democrats and Republicans. Just self fulfilling prophecies.
ReplyDeleteHowever about half of both Republicans and Democrats are wearing face masks, and more than half of each say the worst is yet to come. Republicans prefer to see the glass half full, Democrats half empty. No one really knows how long this will last and how deep its effects will be.
If Obama were still president, Democrats would be much more likely to look for the silver lining.
Fortunately, we have a basis for saying what Obama would do if he were still president. H1N1 Swine flu arose during the first year of his presidency. Within two weeks of the first case, Obama had declared a national health emergency, the CDC had come up with an effective test, and supplies were being released from the Strategic National Stockpile. When a vaccine became available in October, Obama got one of the first shots. About 12,500 Americans died of it, fewer than due from conventional flu.
DeleteH1N1 was not nearly as deadly, granted, as Covid-19, and its qualities were fairly well known before it appeared. About 12,500 Americans died.
The Obama administration was able to accomplish that fast start without a secretary of HHS, whose nomination was being held up, not least by the U.S. bishops' opposition.
And Obama didn't get into any personal fights with governors and the WHO. Nor did he blame Mexico, where it originated. He was surreally efficient by current standards.
Tom: do you live in Florida, or is it Jake?
DeleteOops: Jack not Jake
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteTom is Florida. Jack is Ohio. And I am Ironman.
DeleteTwo hypothses from the data:
ReplyDelete1. Democrats tend to value life, Republicans money. The idea that oldsters should be willing to take die for their native land (God bless America!) originated on the R side of the aisle and is an unstated predicate to ending social distancing and reopening business under this administration.
2. It is easier to reopen safely without a vaccine if you family lives in a compound than if it lives in a one-bedroom apartment.
To a point that Katherine made above: Democrats and Republicans tend not to live in the same places. I think it's likely that the coronavirus has been ravaging Democrats much more than Republicans. And that personal experience and personal observation presumably is feeding the respective pessimistic and optimistic outlooks.
DeleteSouth Dakota, like Sweden, has ignored the virus. Now 600+ people at Smithfield are sick, and the place can't stay afloat. Repubs ignore the fact that opening everything up too soon or taking no precautions has economic costs, too.
ReplyDeleteGiven the way Michigan residents in my area of the state have been ignoring emergency measures, I will not be out and about any time soon spending my stimulus check (if it ever arrives).
And Raber returning to Mass with the dimwits who milled around the Capitol sharing germs fills me with dread.
The Smithfield processing plant shutdown is bad news not only for that local community but possibly for the entire country, as that plant processes something like 5% of all pork consumed in the US.
DeleteAt the same time: it's not non-essential work that could be shut down even under a more restrictive set of regulations, and it's not the kind of work that can be done from a home computer with an Internet connection and Zoom. And in general, the virus has missed South Dakota; on a county-by-county heat map at the John's Hopkins website, SD is a vast sea of yellow.
What needs to be understood is how the infection rate got so high at that plant. If the company and the local community had safeguards in place, they didn't work.
Maybe we could also say it's bad news for the people in the plant?
DeleteAs May Day approaches, I wish I people would think more about the workers who keep us in food, water, and heat. They are often very low paid and poorly protected.
Re Smithfield: According to more than a dozen interviews with U.S and Canadian plant workers, union leaders and industry analysts, a lack of protective equipment and the nature of ‘elbow to elbow’ work required to debone chickens, chop beef and slice hams are highlighting risks for employees and limiting output as some forego the low-paying work. Companies that added protections, such as enhanced cleaning or spacing out workers, say the moves are further slowing meat production.
https://farmpolicynews.illinois.edu/2020/04/smithfield-pork-processing-plant-closes-as-covid-19-cases-at-meat-plants-an-increasing-worry/
Jim, pretty sure there weren't any safeguards until they had a crisis. It's puzzling because most of the plants have unions. But apparently they don't have much clout, especially in a right-to-work state.
DeleteJean's point is well taken.It isn't only the medical personnel and first responders who are being heroic. There are folks like the cab driver honored by hospital employees for bring them coronavirus patients free of charge. And the "necessary" ordinary workers like truck drivers, food processors and the folks at the grocery store who, after three weeks -- or is it five? -- finally were provided with the masks and gloves they should have had at the start. Very few of the folks risking their lives are in the higher paid echelons on the workforce. Now that we have all had a wake-up call, that should change. (Some of the opinions in the chart above suggest why it probably won't.)
Delete