The COVID-19 philosophical divide

[billvon 3,095]

It is interesting to note the differences people take in their approach to COVID-19.  There are both natural divisions and artificial divisions; the artificial divisions were inevitable due to politics.  Once the first health professional criticized Trump's handling of the pandemic, and he responded angrily, the lines were drawn - Trump supporters had to support Trump's laissez-faire approach to pandemic management, and the "other side" had to support mitigation measures.  Even doctors who are Trump supporters have felt the need to "throw in" with Trump's approach even if it doesn't make much sense from a public health perspective - and even non-Trump supporters can find themselves supporting a shutdown, even if they want to get back to work.

But even before that there was a pretty clear division in people.  One poster here regularly divides the populace into two groups - progressive liberals and conservatives.  That doesn't always track 100% (not all progressives are liberals and vice versa) it has been interesting to see the very clear division between progressives and conservatives.  The fundamental difference there is that progressives believe change is part of life, and that encouraging and using that change for good is a good path to take.  Conservatives feel that traditional ways of doing things are generally preferred to new ways.  And nowhere is that distinction clearer than in the COVID-19 debate.

In terms of how to deal with the pandemic directly the difference is pretty stark.  Progressives want public health measures implemented (distancing, masks, cleaning, alterations in how services are performed, even shutdowns) to reduce the infection rate.  While these measures have definitely been implemented before, they have not been in the lifetime of most people - the last time social interventions of this scale were seen was back in 1918.  Thus conservatives want the traditional (in their experience) mitigations - vaccines and pills.  A vaccine is, of course, not available.  But witness how hard they latched onto the chloroquine rumor.  They wanted to believe there was a "conventional" treatment - a pill you took.  And we saw so many people buy into that rumor that the people who needed chloroquine for other purposes saw shortages.  One woman who was on high dose chloroquine for lupus got COVID-19 anyway, and told reporters she was shocked and dismayed that it did not protect her, based on what the president said.

In the longer term, progressives are pushing for research into vaccines, antibody therapies (monoclonal antibody production for example) and antivirals.  And while conservatives also support such research, they see any progress (i.e. a potential vaccine) as a reason to immediately end distancing protocols and get back to the traditional normal.  Progressives, on the other hand, are looking for a future of partial shutdowns and ongoing distancing measures - the "hammer and dance" version of mitigation.

There seems to be a big difference in how the two groups are responding to the shutdown, as well.  Conservatives are flocking to social media and crowded (usually maskless) protests to demand an end to the mitigation measures, and are refusing to wear masks apparently in the belief that masks support their enemies or indicate cowardice.  And while it could be argued that they don't understand how this translates into risks for other people, the infamous "sacrifice the weak" protester indicates that at least some do, and have instead decided to prioritize their own wants and needs over those of the at-risk group.   Above all, they want a return to normal, to the traditional format of society - without masks or distancing or changes to how we shop, work, play and socialize.

Progressives, on the other hand, are more about adapting to the change.  Arryved, an app allowing remote payment at breweries, has ramped up rapidly to facilitate no-touch sales and direct-to-trunk deliveries of beer.  Several local breweries here have contracted with local drivers and are delivering directly to people's houses.  Beer festivals are going on-line with mixed results.  Distilleries are switching over to manufacture disinfectant.  Delivery companies are ramping up services dramatically.  Restaurants are contracting with them to deliver food, using new sales models.  Retail is converting to direct-to-trunk deliveries at their stores, and food stores are implementing "at-risk" shopper times to allow a safe time for the elderly and compromised.  There are going to be a lot of new millionaires made as people adapt to distancing and the market responds, along with the people who go out of business because their massage parlors have fewer customers.

Needless to say many progressives have gone overboard as well.  This thinking is exemplified by the social media memes that ask "what is going to change as a result of COVID-19?" with the answer "EVERYTHING!"  They see the necessary societal changes to deal with a pandemic as a vehicle to introduce all sorts of other changes - which is unlikely to be successful, and is more wishful thinking than reality.

The future will almost surely be a mix between those two extremes.  US society will almost certainly look very different in six months than it looked six months ago, and given that we will always face risks from new pathogens, it will take quite some time for people to go back to normal.  And conservatives will be outraged that so much has changed, and progressives will be upset that not enough has changed.  And so it goes.

[JerryBaumchen 1,452]

32 minutes ago, billvon said:

It is interesting to note the differences people take in their approach to COVID-19.  There are both natural divisions and artificial divisions; the artificial divisions were inevitable due to politics.  Once the first health professional criticized Trump's handling of the pandemic, and he responded angrily, the lines were drawn - Trump supporters had to support Trump's laissez-faire approach to pandemic management, and the "other side" had to support mitigation measures.  Even doctors who are Trump supporters have felt the need to "throw in" with Trump's approach even if it doesn't make much sense from a public health perspective - and even non-Trump supporters can find themselves supporting a shutdown, even if they want to get back to work.

But even before that there was a pretty clear division in people.  One poster here regularly divides the populace into two groups - progressive liberals and conservatives.  That doesn't always track 100% (not all progressives are liberals and vice versa) it has been interesting to see the very clear division between progressives and conservatives.  The fundamental difference there is that progressives believe change is part of life, and that encouraging and using that change for good is a good path to take.  Conservatives feel that traditional ways of doing things are generally preferred to new ways.  And nowhere is that distinction clearer than in the COVID-19 debate.

In terms of how to deal with the pandemic directly the difference is pretty stark.  Progressives want public health measures implemented (distancing, masks, cleaning, alterations in how services are performed, even shutdowns) to reduce the infection rate.  While these measures have definitely been implemented before, they have not been in the lifetime of most people - the last time social interventions of this scale were seen was back in 1918.  Thus conservatives want the traditional (in their experience) mitigations - vaccines and pills.  A vaccine is, of course, not available.  But witness how hard they latched onto the chloroquine rumor.  They wanted to believe there was a "conventional" treatment - a pill you took.  And we saw so many people buy into that rumor that the people who needed chloroquine for other purposes saw shortages.  One woman who was on high dose chloroquine for lupus got COVID-19 anyway, and told reporters she was shocked and dismayed that it did not protect her, based on what the president said.

In the longer term, progressives are pushing for research into vaccines, antibody therapies (monoclonal antibody production for example) and antivirals.  And while conservatives also support such research, they see any progress (i.e. a potential vaccine) as a reason to immediately end distancing protocols and get back to the traditional normal.  Progressives, on the other hand, are looking for a future of partial shutdowns and ongoing distancing measures - the "hammer and dance" version of mitigation.

There seems to be a big difference in how the two groups are responding to the shutdown, as well.  Conservatives are flocking to social media and crowded (usually maskless) protests to demand an end to the mitigation measures, and are refusing to wear masks apparently in the belief that masks support their enemies or indicate cowardice.  And while it could be argued that they don't understand how this translates into risks for other people, the infamous "sacrifice the weak" protester indicates that at least some do, and have instead decided to prioritize their own wants and needs over those of the at-risk group.   Above all, they want a return to normal, to the traditional format of society - without masks or distancing or changes to how we shop, work, play and socialize.

Progressives, on the other hand, are more about adapting to the change.  Arryved, an app allowing remote payment at breweries, has ramped up rapidly to facilitate no-touch sales and direct-to-trunk deliveries of beer.  Several local breweries here have contracted with local drivers and are delivering directly to people's houses.  Beer festivals are going on-line with mixed results.  Distilleries are switching over to manufacture disinfectant.  Delivery companies are ramping up services dramatically.  Restaurants are contracting with them to deliver food, using new sales models.  Retail is converting to direct-to-trunk deliveries at their stores, and food stores are implementing "at-risk" shopper times to allow a safe time for the elderly and compromised.  There are going to be a lot of new millionaires made as people adapt to distancing and the market responds, along with the people who go out of business because their massage parlors have fewer customers.

Needless to say many progressives have gone overboard as well.  This thinking is exemplified by the social media memes that ask "what is going to change as a result of COVID-19?" with the answer "EVERYTHING!"  They see the necessary societal changes to deal with a pandemic as a vehicle to introduce all sorts of other changes - which is unlikely to be successful, and is more wishful thinking than reality.

The future will almost surely be a mix between those two extremes.  US society will almost certainly look very different in six months than it looked six months ago, and given that we will always face risks from new pathogens, it will take quite some time for people to go back to normal.  And conservatives will be outraged that so much has changed, and progressives will be upset that not enough has changed.  And so it goes.

Hi Bill,

Very well written; you should be a newspaper commentator.

I absolutely agree, word for word.

Jerry Baumchen

PS)  Re:  'she was shocked and dismayed that it did not protect her, based on what the president said.'  WOW - How could that be?

[JoeWeber 2,900]

52 minutes ago, billvon said:

It is interesting to note the differences people take in their approach to COVID-19.  There are both natural divisions and artificial divisions; the artificial divisions were inevitable due to politics.  Once the first health professional criticized Trump's handling of the pandemic, and he responded angrily, the lines were drawn - Trump supporters had to support Trump's laissez-faire approach to pandemic management, and the "other side" had to support mitigation measures.  Even doctors who are Trump supporters have felt the need to "throw in" with Trump's approach even if it doesn't make much sense from a public health perspective - and even non-Trump supporters can find themselves supporting a shutdown, even if they want to get back to work.

But even before that there was a pretty clear division in people.  One poster here regularly divides the populace into two groups - progressive liberals and conservatives.  That doesn't always track 100% (not all progressives are liberals and vice versa) it has been interesting to see the very clear division between progressives and conservatives.  The fundamental difference there is that progressives believe change is part of life, and that encouraging and using that change for good is a good path to take.  Conservatives feel that traditional ways of doing things are generally preferred to new ways.  And nowhere is that distinction clearer than in the COVID-19 debate.

In terms of how to deal with the pandemic directly the difference is pretty stark.  Progressives want public health measures implemented (distancing, masks, cleaning, alterations in how services are performed, even shutdowns) to reduce the infection rate.  While these measures have definitely been implemented before, they have not been in the lifetime of most people - the last time social interventions of this scale were seen was back in 1918.  Thus conservatives want the traditional (in their experience) mitigations - vaccines and pills.  A vaccine is, of course, not available.  But witness how hard they latched onto the chloroquine rumor.  They wanted to believe there was a "conventional" treatment - a pill you took.  And we saw so many people buy into that rumor that the people who needed chloroquine for other purposes saw shortages.  One woman who was on high dose chloroquine for lupus got COVID-19 anyway, and told reporters she was shocked and dismayed that it did not protect her, based on what the president said.

In the longer term, progressives are pushing for research into vaccines, antibody therapies (monoclonal antibody production for example) and antivirals.  And while conservatives also support such research, they see any progress (i.e. a potential vaccine) as a reason to immediately end distancing protocols and get back to the traditional normal.  Progressives, on the other hand, are looking for a future of partial shutdowns and ongoing distancing measures - the "hammer and dance" version of mitigation.

There seems to be a big difference in how the two groups are responding to the shutdown, as well.  Conservatives are flocking to social media and crowded (usually maskless) protests to demand an end to the mitigation measures, and are refusing to wear masks apparently in the belief that masks support their enemies or indicate cowardice.  And while it could be argued that they don't understand how this translates into risks for other people, the infamous "sacrifice the weak" protester indicates that at least some do, and have instead decided to prioritize their own wants and needs over those of the at-risk group.   Above all, they want a return to normal, to the traditional format of society - without masks or distancing or changes to how we shop, work, play and socialize.

Progressives, on the other hand, are more about adapting to the change.  Arryved, an app allowing remote payment at breweries, has ramped up rapidly to facilitate no-touch sales and direct-to-trunk deliveries of beer.  Several local breweries here have contracted with local drivers and are delivering directly to people's houses.  Beer festivals are going on-line with mixed results.  Distilleries are switching over to manufacture disinfectant.  Delivery companies are ramping up services dramatically.  Restaurants are contracting with them to deliver food, using new sales models.  Retail is converting to direct-to-trunk deliveries at their stores, and food stores are implementing "at-risk" shopper times to allow a safe time for the elderly and compromised.  There are going to be a lot of new millionaires made as people adapt to distancing and the market responds, along with the people who go out of business because their massage parlors have fewer customers.

Needless to say many progressives have gone overboard as well.  This thinking is exemplified by the social media memes that ask "what is going to change as a result of COVID-19?" with the answer "EVERYTHING!"  They see the necessary societal changes to deal with a pandemic as a vehicle to introduce all sorts of other changes - which is unlikely to be successful, and is more wishful thinking than reality.

The future will almost surely be a mix between those two extremes.  US society will almost certainly look very different in six months than it looked six months ago, and given that we will always face risks from new pathogens, it will take quite some time for people to go back to normal.  And conservatives will be outraged that so much has changed, and progressives will be upset that not enough has changed.  And so it goes.

Stress always creates opportunities and exposes divisions, it has ever been thus. For example, I've always marveled at those who've despaired over our complicated and byzantine tax codes. Yes, the IRS Codes totally suck and given the chance I would simplify it all in a heartbeat. But in the meantime, the harder it is to figure something out the better chance the figurers have to succeed. It is not a zero sum game. Right now I have a personally significant economic interest in the Skydiving biz. I see real opportunities ahead for those who survive so I'm hanging tough. But it will not be the same business, not by a long shot. Some will like it, some will not. Some, like me, don't have decades to like it or not. But with or without we SC denizens the party will happily go on in some fashion or another. Just the way it is.