Pandemics And Politics

Is the coronavirus pandemic really just a health issue? It's natural, I suppose, to think of it that way, because previous dangerous contagions -- the influenza of 1918 (I wasn't around for that one), polio, smallpox, AIDS, ebola, and the more recent bugs of different varieties for which we now routinely get a "flu shot" every autumn --  were always defined that way in our minds.

But the coronavirus, in the U.S. at least, has become politicized. I suppose that was natural too, given our deep divisions these days. President Trump, facing an election, immediately saw the danger the pandemic might represent for him, and unfortunately though characteristically, he chose to try to ignore the problem, downplay it as a hoax, deny health experts' advice, and ostentatiously avoid wearing a mask. Thus he sowed the seeds of his own destruction at the polls, while leaving still more deep rifts in the country's political comity. 

The Democrats, also facing an election, saw the coronavirus as the one [dare I say] trump card that might turn the election their way. They  succeeded in hanging the albatross of the epidemic around Trump's neck, even some aspects that he could not have prevented. Yet they weren't as successful as they had hoped; the virus did not create a blue wave. It's not even clear to me that it was the main factor leading to Trump's defeat. It's more likely that Biden's win had far more to do with a generic malaise among many voters about Trump's essential nature and his qualification for office.  Covid was only a part of that.

So now we have a great divide. It has distressed me somewhat to see how our parties took up one side of the problem to the exclusion of the other. In debate, Biden stated categorically that he would impose a national lockdown if experts recommended it. (It's surprising that remark didn't cost him the election.) Trump kept on bellignoring reality, suggesting that everyone should get back to work and school and let the virus take its toll.

Both positions are idiotic. For Morning Fog, it seems obvious that we must try to do both at once. For those like me who have heightened vulnerability to the virus, or who are no longer in the work force, it's simple enough to sequester ourselves, avoid group contact, be careful about getting outside our germ pods, and wear masks assiduously. But I fully understand that people who have businesses to run, and those who depend on getting a paycheck to keep their heads above water, also need to be able to do those things insofar as possible; and that government relief funds, even if our deadlocked Congress can agree on them, will be woefully insufficient to save many businesses or jobs in the long term.

We will not emerge from this pandemic period without experiencing loss of life AND economic downturn. My personal view is that the long-term effects of the latter are potentially far more dangerous and destabilizing. Even as we duck for cover from the virus, we need to do a far better job of addressing the economic problems associated with covid-19. But our experience to date suggests there is no one-size-fits-all approach to cover the diversity of this nation. Further, even in less polarized times, Americans aren't inclined to accept edicts. With those factors in mind, it appears the best approach is for the federal government to restrict itself to issuing and publicizing best protection practices that are applicable to individuals and businesses that interact directly with customers, leaving it to states and even smaller groupings to decide what's practical and effective for them.

Sound difficult? It is. Life is complicated. But I note that in effect, that leaves us the sort of crazy quilt we already have, with people in each town and locality deciding how to adapt most safely to the course they themselves choose. The business owner who wants to keep his establishment open calculates what anti-virus measures he needs to take, and what adjustments to make to his business model, while diners will make their own decisions as to whether they stay home, arrange a delivery or pickup, or even go in person to a place of business.  And maybe that's the best we can achieve. But it will get the federal government away from trying to dictate details to every corner of the land and may even help draw us all back together.

Biden's recent statements suggest he is now more cognizant of the limitations of the federal government's capability to sway opinions. He has said he plans a mask requirement in all federal facilities, but beyond that seems more likely to limit himself to a strong recommendation about masks, social distancing, and similar precautions. It's a start.

Comments

[PiedType]

I have to wonder if a national edict would work. Certainly our patchwork of local regulations is not. Denver businesses are suffering, partly because immediately to the north is a county that enforces very few Covid restrictions. As with states, being able to move freely from a restrictive state to a wide-open state and back again is doing a lot to undermine control efforts. I don't know what the answer is, but I'm not leaving my home to find out!

[JHawk23]

A good point that local conditions make a lot of difference. Definitely there are no easy answers.

The news of the vaccines will help, eventually, but that's six months away for much of the population and won't come soon enough to save many small businesses.

It's galling to think how Trump could have an extremely beneficial effect, especially with his base, by making a short, simple, statement, but he won't, of course.