Everyone should stop with the partisanship and calling each other names and blaming one side or the other.
This pandemic requires ALL of us to be nimble in our thinking, and adaptive in our strategy. We clearly do not know enough about this virus to really understand what’s going on. Leaders around the world have sent confusing, conflicting messages. And the pandemic looks VERY different in some places vs others.
As we learn more about this virus, previous positions will become invalid. People need to be able to change their minds. But the minute it becomes political and partisan, people’s positions harden and it becomes difficult to change minds when they need to be changed.
The truth is, both sides have a point. I brought this up before, but let’s revisit this scenario: Let’s say there is no vaccine to be had, and this is going to go on until we build up herd immunity. Let’s also stipulate that the shutdown is extremely costly, in terms of money and social cohesion, and it will get costlier as time goes on.
Under this scenario, it seems to me that the strategy would be to open up just enough that we don’t overwhelm the health care system, but otherwise expose people as fast as possible. A lockdown so tight that only .5% of the population is infected and ICUs are at 10% capacity may well be too strict, as it means we will have to shut down for a LONG time before we reach herd immunity - probably too long to be sustainable. In that case, as supply chains dry up and people go broke you could see mass protests, insurrection, and completely lose control of the ability to control the spread. That would be a disaster.
What’s the correct strategy in that case? It seems to me that the correct strategy would be pretty much what is planned: Open up in phases, small trials here and there, being willing to tolerate a moderate rise in infections, but always ready to back up and lock down again if the cases spike too high, to avoid overwhelming the health system. That would be the fastest way to get to herd immunity with the minimum amount of death and dislocation.
Also, in that case it makes sense to open up the least-affected and lowest population density areas first, and those tend to be ‘red’ areas. Clearly, New York has to stay on lockdown. But does nowheresville Idaho, with total current cases equalling zero?
Unfortunately, the correct strategy depends on a lot of information we just don’t have yet. But politicians need to have the flexibility to say, “we’re going to try this”, and then later say, “Well, that didn’t work. Back to the previous plan.” They will only do that if they are facing a reasonable electorate willing to accept that conditions change, and decisions have to change with them.
But if we all retreat into our little partisan corners and keep blaming the other side, attacking politicians who change course for being wrong, stupid, or evil, or unquestionably supporting ‘our’ side even when the facts change, we are freaking boned.
If there ever was a time for understanding and looking past political differences, this is it. But apparently, that’s not going to happen.