Polarising

Excluding the science portions of the debate for the moment, I have observations on how the plates have shifted on the politics.

Early on in the C19 crisis, it was conservatives who were raising the alarms that something was up in China, something that was worse than the government was letting on, and the American media was burying the reports coming out from doctors on the scene.  The accusation was that much of the Western media was protecting China, and calling people drawing attention to the problem alarmist, and sometimes calling them racist. As the Western media was also burying stories about Uighurs (still are), it seemed part of that pattern.  This gradually escalated, with liberal politicians doubling down and telling people to go out for Chinese New Year and into Chinatown in general. Then reports out of Italy started to work their way into the discussion, but the balance did not immediately change.  When Donald Trump halted international travel, he was accused of racism, as were his supporters. There was still a lot of conservative sentiment that the Chinese were flat out lying as well as mistreating their own citizens.

Italy changed things, albeit slowly.  Lots of politicians and university types like European travel and consider it part of their birthright.  Suddenly a European country was getting things badly wrong and people returning from there were turning out to be dangerous to their campuses and social circles back home. Racism couldn't be used as an excuse on this one.  Conservatives remained on the "this is dangerous" wagon, but there was a shift in focus to noticing that a socialist medical delivery system was not up to the task.  The reports that Italy essentially only provided palliative care after age 60 began to leak out - mostly in the conservative press.

I saw lots of discussion in the conservative press about what might our best response, with very little shouting.  The idea of letting things ride while super-protecting the vulnerable was proposed by a few, and the Brits were going to try it. But once Boris Johnson was in favor of it , it got bad press, so that was out.  The Swedes are trying it now, and people are oohing and aahing over how well it's working, because well, it's the Swedes, so they must be right.  I think they've got the 10th-highest death rate in Europe - that's not great, though every country has population and cultural factors that make it potentially an exception.

The pendulum has shifted, and when looking at the conservative and liberal stereotypes, it is not surprising. Conservatives and libertarians are much more of the school of "let people do what they want, everything carries risks," while liberals run more toward caution and protection and don't mind interfering with what they want to do.  The economic stereotypes also hold, in a similar way to the climate discussion.  It's "jobs are more important than people are acknowledging here," versus "we do what we have to do, the money will come from somewhere."

Let me point out again that none of this actually* informs any of the science or policy.  What I am listing here is what people would tend to believe entirely independent of what the correct answers are. That is not to say that this makes anyone's answer wrong.  It's just that we have to apply a discount to all POV's.  When vehemence increases, I apply a greater discount. Texan99's cautionary statement that I shouldn't make insulting analogies did give me pause.  Then the next day a writer at Maggie's headlines that those others are "sheepies."  (Some) Conservatives are making this a courage issue and they are sneering. I would counter that adulthood means accepting reality as it is and not as we would prefer it to be.

Most people taking added risks are mostly taking their own risk.  Each additional person's contribution to community risk is negligible, especially when it is a calculated or thoughtful risk.  But a thousand people in my community of 18,000 who decide to adopt a higher risk profile do raise the overall risk.That's my risk, and they didn't ask.

I think I have been in the same place all along: I pay attention to the medical professionals who have actual skin in the game.  The hospital officials...those I want to hear, and I'm going to think long and hard before going against their advice or telling someone else they should. Next, of the various competing experts, I want to hear a synthesis curated by people of reliable trustworthiness.  That will not necessarily result in correct answers, but it's better  than the alternatives. I am also still in another same place I was at the beginning of the shutdown, when I predicted that if it worked, people would claim we never needed to be this dramatic.  We have less death than predicted.  Some people will credit the interventions, some will claim it was never a big deal.  I'm seeing a lot of motivated reasoning, a lot of picking and choosing of data out there. I'm not singling out conservatives on this, I'm seeing lots of liberals absolutely unhinged in their insults.  But those aren't the people I feel much responsibility for.

At the moment, if I were king I would greatly reduce outdoor restrictions, because the evidence for outdoor transmission is weak. I don't know that I'd do much else immediately. That would mostly affect recreation, but there are jobs attached to all of that boating and fishing and hiking and golfing and swimming, so we can get them up and running.

Side note, based on an email I got, which reminded me:  Hospitals are not "fine." They prepared for a lengthy large emergency, and thus far have gotten a small** emergency of indeterminate length.  They postponed a lot of treatment that still has to occur, and this backlog gets worse every day.  They are also going to be trying to accomplish this with less money.  They have considerable financial incentive to advocate for calling these restrictions off.  Yet they aren't. When people act against their financial interests it is worth paying attention.

* That has a reputation as a mansplaining word, but I think of it as an Asperger's and OCD term.  A lot of sentences begin with "Well actually..." with that crew, even the children. I'm one of them, because when people say that, even when it's irritating, I find they are right a large percentage of the time.

**I'm not sure a new illness that kills tens of thousands of people is actually a "small" emergency, but it is less than expected. Maybe if we got a third and a fourth recurring virus people would wonder if maybe we should do something.