Covid-19 Politics

[filghy2]

Bronco, I believe you are looking at the article from a wrong perspective. You are a college educated man with a clearly higher-than average IQ , who is a single white collar employee who has the time and intellectual acuity to read, digest and debate all the medical and political news available to him. That is simply not true of a segment of our population. Many don’t have the intellect, education or work one or multiple blue collar jobs and most likely get their news from soundbites….that’s why what a leading politician says or does is so important. Mistakes can often be understandably forgiven, but insincerity by word or (perhaps more important) deed will always leave its mark. As the article points out - Many times , Science…at least ‘seems’ to, sometimes take a back seat to political concerns…by both elected representatives ..and medical staff. This will erode trust in people, especially if they are inherently suspicious to begin with. I don’t believe any of that is a justifiable excuse…but an attempt at explanation. To me, one or two of the author’s points can be debated on technicality…at least as memory may serve., but overall I think he gives a good attempt at explanation

There is a lot of truth in what you say, but the lack of sophistication of many people is also the reason why the authorities often oversimplify their messages in the first place. They know that if they give a nuanced message with qualifications it is likely to be either misunderstood or interpreted selectively. Sometimes they have erred too much in the direction of spin, but it's a difficult balancing act.

In addition, this is a very asymmetric game, which is why combatting misinformation is so difficult. The authorities are picked up on every error or inconsistency, but the same standard is rarely applied to their critics.

Also, many of the apparent misjudgements that led to changing advice occurred in a public health emergency where there was little information about a new virus. Inevitably some mistakes will be made in such a situation, but waiting for more information before making decisions would very likely have been more risky. Perhaps they didn't give enough thought to how things might pan out two years later, but can they be blamed for that? It's all too easy for armchair critics to find fault with hindsight, knowing that they will never have to account for their own judgments.

[fred41]

Some of the hypocrisy is cringeworthy though. L.A Mayor Garcetti (who seems like a particular Eely individual) , when caught maskless with Mayor Breed and Magic Johnson, could’ve simply stated that they were all vaccinated and outside , so the threat seemed minimal. Instead , he stated that he held his breath when he took his mask off…really?! Stacey Abrams , who is often deemed a political genius, couldn’t see the potential political damage of taking a picture with an elementary school class, where all the tykes were masked, but she is without. Especially since masking young children is still a touchy subject. When confronted, she immediately went to a race based defense…until much later on , when she admitted her folly. There are lots of examples …some of them are clear mistakes…some of them are calculated…but the defensiveness is childish. Talk about weakening trust.

[filghy2]

I guess that goes to my point about asymmetry. Democrats have to be very careful about mistakes, inconsistencies and appearances of hypocrisy because they believe in a greater role for government, so trust is important. Republicans, on the other hand, don't seem to care so much about these things because they don't believe in government. For some of them, mistrust in government is a thing to be encouraged.

[Stavros]

The Pandemic was a shock to all of those for whom it was not a shock, who not only predicted a global pandemic or a more local epidemic, but then planned for it, only to see the plans ignored or abandoned, or replaced by something that was the opposite of what had been intended: instead of a co-ordinated campaign nationally and internationally, we had fractured responses within States, eg the US and the UK, and within blocs, eg the EU supposedly far down the road of 'ever close union'. It might be the only consistent point I have made, as the 'lab leak' theory which I have queried before, might have traction now, but as an accident rather than a deliberate act, though we still don't know enough about the conditions in Wuhan, and the Chinese in their present state are not going to reveal all that they know.

As for individual politicians, whether they are admired -as I think Stacey Abrams is- or reviled, as I think is now the case for both Boris Johnson and Matt Hancock, I am at a loss to explain their failures, other than to say they were never good enough to do the job. In Johnson's case, this was more his 'Churchillian' moment than Brexit, but he flunked it, because -and he should know this having written a book on the man- Churchill was far more collegiate in his management of the Wartime Cabinet than Johnson could ever be. Churchill had the greatest of respect for Labour leader Clement Attlee, both for his moral integrity, and the fact he had a better (First World) War than he did -Johnson has no respect for any of his peers, considering himself to be superior to everyone around him, a fate I suspect that knackered Trump who could have been 'Presidential' and saved his career, whereas he was just Trump, an ignorant, lazy man indifferent to the fate of others.

The rift between feelings and facts runs deep, and it doesn't matter if the mandates are temporary, the crisis on a long trajectory downhill, confidence in government is at an all time low. And feelings are important too -one recalls the mood when Mandela was released from prison in 1990, or when Tony Blair was elected Prime Minister in 1997 -yes, he really was popular once upon a time- and Obama had that singular quality of being likeable, which is gold for any aspiring politician. I look around and don't see many I like, and even fewer with a vision or a 'story' to tell that captures the imagination and wins elections. I think in 2024 in the US people will want a positive message, not a re-run of all the bad stuff, which is all Trump has.

Moreover, I fear that people will be so keen to put Covid into a box and send it to the Archive, that we will not use the Pandemic to investigate what went wrong in order to ensure it goes right next times. In the UK, Matt Hancock's utterly shocking lies and lethal consequences of the elderly sent from hospital to care homes where they died, is in need of an enquiry with legal instruments attached. After all, the Iraq Enquiry established that Tony Blair lied to us all, which we knew anyway, and where is he now? Untouched, undamaged.

Not just trust, but accountability too, is lacking. And without it, Liberal Democracy is weakened.

[broncofan]

Some of the hypocrisy is cringeworthy though. L.A Mayor Garcetti (who seems like a particular Eely individual) , when caught maskless with Mayor Breed and Magic Johnson, could’ve simply stated that they were all vaccinated and outside , so the threat seemed minimal. Instead , he stated that he held his breath when he took his mask off…really?! Stacey Abrams , who is often deemed a political genius, couldn’t see the potential political damage of taking a picture with an elementary school class, where all the tykes were masked, but she is without. Especially since masking young children is still a touchy subject. When confronted, she immediately went to a race based defense…until much later on , when she admitted her folly. There are lots of examples …some of them are clear mistakes…some of them are calculated…but the defensiveness is childish. Talk about weakening trust.

So there are people who do stupid things. And there are people who believe stupid things. But aren't there at least some cynical people who are using all of this as a wedge issue when the predictable result is fewer vaccinated people and fewer people wearing masks?

I'm not trying to detract from the obnoxiousness of people doing stupid things, but I've never wanted to seize on a stupid action by promoting a dangerous behavior. When Eliot Spitzer overpaid a prostitute for sex I didn't say "why don't I get to pay 4,300 dollars to sleep with a woman who is not super attractive." Okay that was a reach but I wanted a NYC example for you.

Fox News spent the early part of the pandemic telling its viewers that covid wasn't that dangerous. And I know occasionally Democrats also said stupid things but it was an everyday occurrence on Fox. When it became clear that Trump's response to covid was being scrutinized Fox mobilized in order to downplay the seriousness of covid as an agenda item instead of defending his response to it.

When hydroxychloroquine was proposed as a treatment somehow Trump thought he should get credit for an old anti-malarial drug that doesn't work for covid and it was a right-wing news item. And they literally promoted people yelling and screaming at their state capitols without masks early on as well.

I guess I'm asking myself this question: are most of the people who are unvaccinated refusing the shot because of hypocrisy by Democratic politicians and the occasional overreach of local authorities, or because there has been a consistent effort to amplify crankery on the right? Educated right-wing pundits are saying stuff like "I see Chris Rock was vaccinated and got covid. What was the point of vaccination again?" on their twitter accounts. This kind of sophistry helps make vaccine refusal a tribal marker for some Republicans.

When I see a Democratic politician not wear a mask when they should I think less of that politician. Why are Republicans being told that this means covid is like the flu and masks are worthless?

[broncofan]

I guess that goes to my point about asymmetry. Democrats have to be very careful about mistakes, inconsistencies and appearances of hypocrisy because they believe in a greater role for government, so trust is important. Republicans, on the other hand, don't seem to care so much about these things because they don't believe in government. For some of them, mistrust in government is a thing to be encouraged.

This is only somewhat related but early in the pandemic a 50 year old man who thought covid was like the common cold went to Mardi Gras, got covid, and died. When his family was interviewed they said something to the effect of, "Okay so it is serious and deadly but we would have believed that if Democrats hadn't politicized it."

How did Democrats politicize it? By responding to right-wingers like Rush Limbaugh and Jesse Waters who were saying it was mild by saying it was deadly? This is a kind of asymmetry. They were literally told by pundits they trusted that the virus wasn't anything to worry about, they believed it, got sick and died. But those people who tried to get them to take it seriously caused them not to because they were criticizing pundits and politicians that they love.

I'm not saying there isn't a right way to try to win people over. But as you kind of indicate there are some people who were not trying to encourage people to behave in a responsible way but had vested interests in doing the opposite. There was scheduled programming and punditry that had the intent of promoting treatments that weren't effective, of casting doubt on the effectiveness of vaccines in ways that were not skeptical but dishonest, and undermining public health guidance bc it could be seized on for ratings.

I probably look rigid in this but I suppose I now accept many of the premises of the article. There were missteps and they caused some harm but I think the willful stuff was much more influential and it was rife as can be.

[Stavros]

T
...there are some people who were not trying to encourage people to behave in a responsible way but had vested interests in doing the opposite. There was scheduled programming and punditry that had the intent of promoting treatments that weren't effective, of casting doubt on the effectiveness of vaccines in ways that were not skeptical but dishonest, and undermining public health guidance bc it could be seized on for ratings.

There is a paradox here. On the one hand, the public critics who saw an opportunity to attack the institutions of the US on the basis that nobody needs them, and they mislead the public anyway, I am not sure but Rand Paul seems to be on a mission to discredit not just Fauci but the science he represents. In addition, the sectarian nature of US politics meant that instead of creating a sense of solidarity, of 'we are all in this together', Trump went out of his way to deepen the divisions -consider that when Washington State and New York State were in the front line of the crisis, he did not offer help, or support or sympathy -he insulted and abused the Governors, while it is claimed Jared Kushner deliberately withheld Federally available PPE to the State of New York so that the Democrat Governor would look incapable and lose voters support. This kind of behaviour from the top was disgraceful, but was anyone surprised Trump behaved as he did, and that his supporters in the media waxed lyrical in their ridicule of science because of their ideological fixation on ending 'Big Government' and the 'Deep State'?

And yet, is it not also the case that on the ground, in communities and on the front line across the US, many more Americans went 'the extra mile' to help people they did not know, that they, in practical terms, ignored whatever drivel was coming out of the White House, and got on with the more important business of helping people affected by the virus? The Silent Majority creating a Silent Solidarity.

It begs the question -will Covid be seen as a moment that has changed the US for the better? Or have the weirdos and extremists so captured the 'centre ground' that talk of executions, rigged elections and voter suppression are delivering a fatal blow to the experiment in democacy that began in 1776, as Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez said the other day?

The Constitution is a document created by Compromise, yet now we are led to believe Compromise is not good politics, but a form of surrender. So is the US stronger as a consequence of Covid, or weaker?

[blackchubby38]

I am well thank you….the Big Apple - well, we will have to wait and see. If I had small children I would’ve either moved to the suburbs, small town or perhaps a different State, but we have a new Mayor and I am somewhat hopeful that he will create a better environment in NYC. I could elaborate further…but this is the Covid thread so I’ll leave it at that.

I’m fully vaxxed and boostered and will continue with the recommended regimen. For myself, this is the most logical course of action on all fronts. I’m not overweight, don’t smoke nor have any immune compromises at the moment, but I’ll be 60 in a few months - in one of the densest cities in the U.S…where vaccination rates are high…but fully aware that they’ll never be at 100%. Also, I enjoy going to restaurants, pubs, gyms and shows, none of which can be comfortably traversed without some medical protection…especially when ones decision making process is often hindered by ones own vices…and probably - ones own stupidity..lol.

It seemed like almost everyone in NYC had Omicron during the Christmas holidays, but most of my friends and relatives are vaccinated so that , for those who were infected, the symptoms were either mild (much like a cold) or non existent. I had either the flu or Omicron - I’ll never know for sure, because the only test I could get at the time was a PCR test which results were deemed invalid…two Rapid tests I was able to procure much later came back negative. At present, you can get either test for free all over the city (there’s one up the block from my address).

I hope you and everyone here remains healthy. I often continue to read some of the threads, but just don’t have the desire or personal drive to post.

Be well.

Just to piggyback on what you're saying about life here in NYC. If I had small children, I would move from here too. As of right now, the only thing keeping me here is the fact that I help look after two elderly parents.

[broncofan]

There is a paradox here. On the one hand, the public critics who saw an opportunity to attack the institutions of the US on the basis that nobody needs them, and they mislead the public anyway, I am not sure but Rand Paul seems to be on a mission to discredit not just Fauci but the science he represents. In addition, the sectarian nature of US politics meant that instead of creating a sense of solidarity, of 'we are all in this together', Trump went out of his way to deepen the divisions -consider that when Washington State and New York State were in the front line of the crisis, he did not offer help, or support or sympathy -he insulted and abused the Governors, while it is claimed Jared Kushner deliberately withheld Federally available PPE to the State of New York so that the Democrat Governor would look incapable and lose voters support. This kind of behaviour from the top was disgraceful, but was anyone surprised Trump behaved as he did, and that his supporters in the media waxed lyrical in their ridicule of science because of their ideological fixation on ending 'Big Government' and the 'Deep State'?

I acknowledge the fact that reducing the size of government is an ideological position held by Republicans but I also think some of what happened was based on political expediency. Trump has always been successful when he's been able to vilify someone. Even during the Republican primaries he had Little Marco to mock or Lyin Ted to set up as the enemy. So when the virus started spreading and Jared Kushner came up with the harebrained idea that it showed a media double standard because nobody was so concerned about swine flu, he was ready to dust off the old playbook.

The things that Trump said were not just normal political truth stretching but showed a sociopathic indifference to the effects of his self-serving statements. He accused doctors of inflating covid death numbers. He fired Rick Bright, a man who is a noted vaccine maker, because Bright said he didn't think hydroxychloroquine (hcq) was an effective Covid treatment. He called researchers at Johns Hopkins "Trump haters" when they found hcq was not better than placebo. He called covid "a flu" even if he later backtracked on that. After he got covid he said that he wasn't sure whether masks were effective. I am probably forgetting some notable statements but these are not unforced errors. These are self-serving falsehoods that got people killed and set the tone of antagonism towards public health. And they weren't intended to serve anyone but himself.

If you then look at the direction right-wing media took, I think they were boxed into tying it to ideology. They couldn't outright say vaccines are dangerous without destroying their credibility so they attacked employer mandates as encroachments on freedom but this conflicts with another ideological commitment they have; the commitment to free markets. In the past they have consistently held that employers have the prerogative to put whatever conditions they want on employment and on patronizing private places of business. So what was different here? It was no longer about free market ideology but about naked selfish ambition.

I have watched segments from the talking heads on Fox. To me it is clear that the segments have the effect of glorifying resistance to vaccines and championing people who refuse to get them. Some of the people who have appeared in these interviews with Laura Ingraham for instance have since died of covid.

[Stavros]

I acknowledge the fact that reducing the size of government is an ideological position held by Republicans but I also think some of what happened was based on political expediency.

I think there is a deeper problem than just political expediency. It is hard to know with Trump because he is just not intelligent enough to have thought deeply about the US political system, but there are around him people who do have an agenda for change, Bannon being the most obvious one.

We have dealt with Conspiracy theories before on HA, and the ease with which the multi-layered US political system encourages cospiracies because decison-making can often get lost in the corridors of power at county, state and Federal levels. But most theories can be and are debunked, the latest nonsense being that the Clinton campaign spied on the Trump campaign in 2016. The obsession Trump has with Hillary Clinton is probably something only a Psychologist can explain, but the tactic to divert attention away from his real problems does at least create a story for Fox to follow even if they know it is just pigswill. Though there is the irony that if there were Russian smart phones in Trump Tower in 2016 they were more likely to have been in the Trump campaign's pockets. Whatever.

The real danger here is that Democracy and the Rule of Law is being challenged at a level that should have you worried as an American more than anything else. I have pointed out in other posts that States which have Rights, are now transforming those Rights into a form of Power that in effect, repudiates any law passed by the US Congress. The clearest example is the use States are making of their Right to define term limits to deny American women their legal right to an Abortion, by making a termination all but impossible in the State. The use of State laws on elections to deny Americans the right to vote, if they have a criminal record, or to make the registration and actual voting so hard people don't bother, is another example of the Voting Rights of citizens 'guaranteed' by Congress interfered with and in some cases, transparently aimed at minority communities.

Lastly, consider the claim of a protestor in Ottawa -"“I ain’t going anywhere,” said Pat King, one of protest organizers. “I haven’t overstayed my welcome. My taxes paid for me to be here.”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...lice-crackdown

We can ignore the comparisons of Justin Trudeau with Hitler and other dictators, most people don't take that seriously, but when it comes to the Rule of Law, you have a serious problem when the concept of the 'Sovereign Citizen' is used. To me this appears to be an indivdual deciding what the law is, and not Congress, or the Supreme Court or even the local police, if they disagree with something, or protest in such a way that appears to either break the law, or interfere with other people's lives- they not only choose to behave in this way, they believe they have a Right to do so.

It is a peculiar form of solipsism that would not stand up to scrutiny in any Court, but what it also does is register the alienation with the Rule of Law and the status quo that Trump has sought to change. In this sense, Trump represents a threat to US democracy and the Rule of Law because he not ony believes it does not apply to him and his ambitions, but it has become the central theme in his supporters in the Republican Party and beyond. At a very crude level, the murder of Ahmaud Arbery is an example of some White men deciding they are the law in Georgia, and killing someone as a result. At a supposedly more sophisticated level, it is the criticism of Fauci, of Vaccines, and Vaccine Mandates, from the law protecting the citizen, to the law penalizing the citizen.

Dismantling the Rule of Law is a key weapon in the New Wave Fascism that Bannon has been promoting. It starts by attacking the 'system' as it is -corrupt, dysfunctional, partisan- and seeks to replace it, using historic examples in US law as if this gives their agenda for change its legitimacy. The use of the 'cultural' agenda introduces critical issues of Race and Gender into the debate on the basis that it is what the 'White Heterosexual Christians' of America want to hear, though I think they exaggrate ther importance to all but some hysterical parents; but what it does is seek to re-habilitate Race as the defining issue in the US, where the definition is simple -if you ain't white like me you don't belong here.

So wrapped up in that anti-science rhetoric is a much more insidious poison. It gnarls on the bark of the tree of knowledge, slowly eating away the fabric until it falls apart.

Perhaps though, it will be the Rule of Law that brings the Trump era to its close. The time has come when he can't plead the Fifth forever.

"During his 2016 presidential election campaign, he ridiculed the practice, saying “the mob takes the fifth. If you’re innocent, why are you taking the fifth amendment?”
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...-investigation