Coronavirus Politics: Right vs Left

I wanted to post on this last week and big sky/Stu mentioned it in a post so I figured I might as well. Its something I am terribly intrigued by.

I want to attempt to frame the question in a way that takes away some typical talking points in order to get to the part I find most intriguing.

Without a doubt I have found that almost unanimously, if someone is on the right....they are far more likely to believe the country should be lowering restrictions. And if someone is on the left...they are far more likely to believe we should keep the restrictions in place. Yes, there are exceptions. But they are exceptions.

The simple response to this is that both viewpoints are politically motivated. This is exactly how both sides are framing the other.
The Left: "The Right (with the help of Fox News) downplayed the seriousness from the very beginning. They are in a rush to open up the country again because they know if the economy does not start moving again Trump will not win re-election."
The Right: "The Left with their liberal media have been trying to scare people for months. They want everyone on lockdown because they want to show they can control you and they want to hurt the economy in order to beat Trump in the November election."

There is some truth to both of these points of view on both sides. There are people on both sides it would be easy to point to or show their tweets or speeches and say, "See, that is what they are doing". And they are. On both sides. That is the simple answer. And its just too easy for us to focus on that, point the finger and leave it there.

BUT...I believe there is something deeper going on and that is the part I am more intrigued by.

On this particular board (Barber Shop), the far majority of posters are right-leaning. To the point, it at times pushes away any of those left-leaning board members who post or peruse (this is Imo but I also know it as fact). But, even here, we have a small representation of this dichotomy of Coronavirus POV based on our political leanings.
I haven't been posting on this particular board for very long but have done so for long enough to know where most on here lean politically (as do all of you). And, just as you would expect, those political leanings have been consistent with our views on lifting restrictions or not.

So, to my question, why is this the case?

I have met Doc, Bigsky and Mick for instance. And even though I am sure all of us are susceptible to being influenced by the media we watch or listen to....I don't believe for a second that they want people to die from Coronavirus in order to get Trump re-elected.
I have not met Stu or Kingcat, but Is suspect we would enjoy a beer and conversation together. And even though they (and me) are susceptible to being influence by media we watch or listen to.....I don't believe for a second they want people to lose their jobs because of Coronavirus in order to get Biden elected.
I think this is true of everyone on this board (and true for a lot of Americans).

Most on the Right don't want people dying. Most on the Left don't want people losing jobs.

So...what is at the core of why something so non-political....divides so extremely on political lines?

Again, its too easy to make broad statements about "the right" and "the left". That is why I made it personal with the names above. Think about those of us right here.
Chuck isn't hoping for more deaths.
I am not hoping most people lose their jobs.
In fact, if we could stop this pandemic today and save jobs and lives...and the deal is Trump is re-elected, I will take that deal today (I wish it were that easy).
I suspect Chuck would do the same. If we can save jobs and lives today...and Biden would get elected, he would take that deal.

I would guess that is true of all of us on here. So, why then the divide on Coronavirus? You would expect something like this to be "less political". Stu and I agree (on many things) on politics but we don't always agree on basketball. Basketball is apolitical. Our politics don't play a role in what we think about the use of the 3-point shot (although to be fair, I am more liberal about its use).

So, if its possible to leave out all of the traditional talking points about how awful both sides are...what do you think it is that is causing this health crisis to be divided so politically right here on this board with good, well meaning people.

Why is Doc in favor of lifting restrictions?
Why is Stu so adamant we should not?

To me, that question is intriguing.

Let me clarify something. I am not adamant about we should not be lifting restrictions. I think phased planning is a smart way to proceed at the right time.

I'm in favor of lifting restrictions in controlled environments where things can be monitored.

I am vehemently opposed in this rush to reopen while cases are still rising, deaths are near their peak, new estimates now show a doubling of deaths. There is an ignorance towards reopening around the guidelines that is being led from the top. Even from a state approach, there isn't a "one size fits all" solution, from either side.

I am also accepting that there is going to be casualties and unnecessary loss of life, but I think we have a social responsibility to minimize that loss. Plus, I've already been on record as saying that I think the economy can adapt and survive BETTER by just staying the course until June 1 than it can be having a 2nd shock.

Then, on my personal front. We have already been crushed as a family by the economic impact and job loss, so you would think we would be rooting for the economy to rebound. We are not. I am vulnerable. Many family and friends have vulnerabilities. I have friends that work on the front lines and have seen how that has forever changed their lives. We only have one tool right now to fight the spread and deaths, and we're taking a big crap all over that. It's devastating. I just want to be alive after this is all over. I could care less that someone is missing some sports, concerts, etc. I am too.

So, there's no right/left issue for me, it's (and always is), doing things intelligently, empathetic and understanding the risks and potential consequences. We have the opposite of that. Decisions are being made under emotions, a careless thought extends to "how many people are we comfortable with dying", and total disregard of what will happen when this spikes again.

I consider myself a conservative but no longer a Republican. So I kind of speak the language a little, even though I'm no longer fluent. ;)

The best argument I've seen for why we should be reopening even though cases and deaths have plateaued goes something like this:

--We isolated on the premise that doing so would prevent our hospitals from being overrun. That succeeded.
--Now a new premise is being put forward for continuing isolation: to minimize deaths as much as possible. Minimizing deaths is good, but we're never going to get a reduction to 0 or close to 0 under the current state of care (low testing, low tracing, no therapeutic treatment, no vaccine). As a society we can't stay isolated long enough for those things to change. We shouldn't wreck our economy by long-term isolation to achieve what are minimal reductions. Individual states (or even counties within states) should be free to choose how they operate. Montana shouldn't have to live by New York rules.

Something like that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StuBleedsBlue2

So, there's no right/left issue for me, it's (and always is), doing things intelligently, empathetic and understanding the risks and potential consequences. We have the opposite of that. Decisions are being made under emotions, a careless thought extends to "how many people are we comfortable with dying", and total disregard of what will happen when this spikes again.

---

Yes, I understand its not a left/right issue for you (and all else you said). And I agree especially with the underlined part.

However, that doesn't answer the broader question. I know you are speaking for you. And everyone can speak for themselves. But when you take a 30,000 foot view of it...there is something to it that more left leaning folks tend to want the more patient approach. And the more right leaning folks are more encouraging of lifting restrictions sooner. And its nearly unanimous (it is on this board as well).
Why is that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KSRBEvans

I consider myself a conservative but no longer a Republican. So I kind of speak the language a little, even though I'm no longer fluent. ;)

The best argument I've seen for why we should be reopening even though cases and deaths have plateaued goes something like this:

--We isolated on the premise that doing so would prevent our hospitals from being overrun. That succeeded.
--Now a new premise is being put forward for continuing isolation: to minimize deaths as much as possible. Minimizing deaths is good, but we're never going to get a reduction to 0 or close to 0 under the current state of care (low testing, low tracing, no therapeutic treatment, no vaccine). As a society we can't stay isolated long enough for those things to change. We shouldn't wreck our economy by long-term isolation to achieve what are minimal reductions. Individual states (or even counties within states) should be free to choose how they operate. Montana shouldn't have to live by California rules.

Something like that.

---

I understand. But why do you think most viewpoints tend to be almost unanimously predictable by their political leanings?

Sort of going in order...

Personally I don't believe the left and liberal media downplayed it any more than anybody else. I do think the left and media are presenting that to hurt Trump...just as the right would do were it Obama or Clinton in office. That is where the politics come in. There is a tendency to say that anybody who is conservative or side with Trump does so because they watch Fox news. I had somebody blast me recently for "Listening to Hannity". I think Hannity is a self absorbed jackass, and a lot like Trump. Personally I pride myself in being a free thinker who takes a point and stands by it, even if it differs from the party line. For example, I am free choice and pro gun regulation (moderately--not banning them). I am not a fan of simply following the party line. I am also not a fan of congress people who are elected yet unable to think for themselves and simply vote "party line"

As for the leanings of the board, I'm not sure what can be done. I will say that I seldom talk politics outside of this board for the literal FEAR that I will be attacked, called every name in the book, etc.... Look at my facebook. I rarely talk politics. Seldom talk it at work either. My wife has forbidden me from buying a red hat. This is the reason the polls that show Trump will lose in Nov are wrong. Most consevatives in general, and Trump supporters in specific simply do not participate in polls (I get calls and hang up) etc..... Here, I feel somewhat isolated from the world and know you or Dave are not going to call me a xenophobic, homophobic racist. And I refrain from calling those on the left baby killers. Can a liberal feel outnumbered? Sure but that is how I feel outside of this site.

I don't believe anybody wants anybody to die, this despite one poster here claiming "I wanted their grandmother to die". I don't believe progressive want crime anymore than I want "dirty water/dirty air" nor have I ever pushed any grandmother off a cliff. To me that is argument is too easy and too lazy. I do think the left relishes this as an issue for Trump. The right would do the same for the previous admin. Sure, many republicans took a bit of joy in the Deepwater Horizon oil spill despite it being a tragic environmental issue where many were financially affected and serious damage done to the ocean ecosphere. Likewise many on the left took a bit of joy in seeing NOLA devastated by because it harmed Bush. So to answer the question: "what is at the core of why something so non-political....divides so extremely on political lines?" is quite simple...POWER. The democratic party wants Trump out and have since day one. They spent 3 1/2 years with that goal in mind. Was little or no attempt to work with the President for the common good. Not much different than the right did under Obama, although I think the right was not a ruthless about it. What I find interesting its the often contradictory stances taken. The left is proabortion-my body, my choice..yet proposes to force their form of medical care on me. Likewise many on the right are Pro-life yet are pro-capital punishment. So why are nonpolitical issues divided along political lines? Because it can be used to distinguish one side from the other in an effort to gain power. As another example--the current Tara Reid accusation against Biden. Clearly the left pivoted from believe all women, he is guilty, men should shut up, etc.... to he should be afforded due process, we believe him because he is a good guy, there is no proof, etc... all for political power. The true belief has nothing to do with it. It about taking the White House, the Senate, the House.... and putting "your" judges on the SCOTUS.

As specifically for the coronavirus, I suspect many (I hope not any on this site) have the attitudes they do because of who resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. For me, I look at it as choice. I don't want the government limiting my choice. I have said from the get go, you want to wear a mask then do so. If you are afraid of getting it then stay indoors. I don't want somebody telling me what I can and can not do (its why I am PRO-CHOICE, that isn't pro-abortion, its pro-choice). Telling me to "wear a mask" or to close my business or stay home etc.... flies in the face of that. We now have a president who can close the nation on a whim, governors who can close the state on a whim, mayors who can close a city on a whim...and do so under the guise of science and safety. IMO the science is wrong on many aspects. Example--closing parks is STUPID. I said it from day one. Best preventative is fresh open air. The gov't response, close parks, prevent boating, etc.... Others hold the philosophy that the government is there for your best interests. Most who hold that philosophy tend to be democrats. If you want to sequester indoors then do so but don't require me to. I should note that I don't think the other side is awful. I just disagree with that approach.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KSRBEvans

--Now a new premise is being put forward for continuing isolation: to minimize deaths as much as possible. Minimizing deaths is good, but we're never going to get a reduction to 0 or close to 0 under the current state of care (low testing, low tracing, no therapeutic treatment, no vaccine).

---

And with isolation it will never get to zero or near zero. My 22 year old son is in essence quarantined despite him being in an EXTREMELY low risk group. As of 2 weeks ago, there were 306 deaths in his age group nation wide. So why is he isolated, unemployed and and going broke? Would be much better were he out working, potentially getting exposed and let it run its course. That or a vaccine is the only way you get to zero and considering a vaccine is months to years away, its unlikely that a vaccine is going to be the immediate answer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StuBleedsBlue2

So, there's no right/left issue for me, it's (and always is), doing things intelligently, empathetic and understanding the risks and potential consequences. We have the opposite of that. Decisions are being made under emotions, a careless thought extends to "how many people are we comfortable with dying", and total disregard of what will happen when this spikes again.

---

So who determined that your approach is the intelligent one? I don't think hole-ing up in your house for 4,5 or 6 months is intelligent at all. Those who disagree are using emotions and being careless? Okie dokey.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ukpumacat

Yes, I understand its not a left/right issue for you (and all else you said). And I agree especially with the underlined part.

However, that doesn't answer the broader question. I know you are speaking for you. And everyone can speak for themselves. But when you take a 30,000 foot view of it...there is something to it that more left leaning folks tend to want the more patient approach. And the more right leaning folks are more encouraging of lifting restrictions sooner. And its nearly unanimous (it is on this board as well).
Why is that?

---

You could’ve read between the lines, but I can elaborate. A left thinking mind tends to focus on pragmatism, science, facts, empathy for others, a notion that we are all in this together. Almost that the world is grey, not black or white.

Right leaning minds tend to be more focused on a smaller units, family focused, I can take care of myself, I don’t need your help, so you won’t get mine, almost a survival of the fittest mentality, susceptible to fear and emotion, to which religion plays a part especially when it comes to decision making and policy. Faith over science. Things are black or white, there’s little middle ground.

You can look into pretty much any reaction to this pandemic, or really anything, and trace it back to these very generic qualities.

I have a whole lot of friends and family on both the left and right and they all fit into these generalizations quite nicely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doc

So who determined that your approach is the intelligent one? I don't think hole-ing up in your house for 4,5 or 6 months is intelligent at all. Those who disagree are using emotions and being careless? Okie dokey.

---

It’s a highly contagious disease. If I get it, there’s a decent probability that I die. You may not think that is intelligent, but I do. That’s not being emotional, that’s the advice given by my doctors. Consultation, research and coming to a conclusion based off the best evidence.

Those who tell me that I’m better off not following those recommendations ARE being careless. Since I cannot avoid being out in public, those that choose to not wear a mask because it’s their “choice” and without knowing for certainty that they’re are free from the virus are making a careless choice to put me and others at risk.

LOL....us "we won't help you, the survival of the fittest, emotional bible thumping nonscience believers." conservatives.


so much for avoiding the
https://edsurge.imgix.net/uploads/pr...50&h=150&dpr=1

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StuBleedsBlue2

It’s a highly contagious disease. If I get it, there’s a decent probability that I die. You may not think that is intelligent, but I do. That’s not being emotional, that’s the advice given by my doctors. Consultation, research and coming to a conclusion based off the best evidence.

Those who tell me that I’m better off not following those recommendations ARE being careless. Since I cannot avoid being out in public, those that choose to not wear a mask because it’s their “choice” and without knowing for certainty that they’re are free from the virus are making a careless choice to put me and others at risk.

---

Follow your doctors advice but don't make me. I prefer to follow MY doctors advice. As I stated, initial recommendation were "no need for a mask" and "stay indoors". Also recommending closing Churchs but not abortion clinics. You can certainly avoid being out in public. My late 70's year old parents have and continue to do so.

PS: I had an enjoyable evening at a bar last pm. Not a single sole in there was wearing a mask and I wasn't afraid. I even shook a guys hand...YIKES

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ukpumacat

I understand. But why do you think most viewpoints tend to be almost unanimously predictable by their political leanings?

---

It's really hard to shorthand these things, but generally, I think Republicans believe decisions on governing should be at as low a government level as possible, and are more pro-business and pro-economic growth. On Democrats, my WAG is most are generally more comfortable with planning and regulation at the federal level. I think both sides value prosperity, life and family in their own ways but it gets filtered in a different way.

I follow a guy on Twitter who's a demographer and economist living in Hong Kong. I started following him before all this went down, but he writes a lot about the Covid stuff. He argues the data shows lockdowns don't work. Instead, we should be focusing on centralized quarantine of those who are positive.

It scares me to think he's right, because we will have gone through all this for nothing, and the thing we need to do (quarantine camps, or hotels, or whatever you want to call them) will never happen in America IMHO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ukpumacat

I understand. But why do you think most viewpoints tend to be almost unanimously predictable by their political leanings?

---

People on the right tend to believe in less government intervention in our lives, and less government control. They believe that Constitutional rights are paramount to everything.

People on the left believe in more government and governmental controls, and do not believe that the individual rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights should be viewed as being supreme to the mandates of government.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doc

As for the leanings of the board, I'm not sure what can be done. I will say that I seldom talk politics outside of this board for the literal FEAR that I will be attacked, called every name in the book, etc.... Look at my facebook. I rarely talk politics. Seldom talk it at work either. My wife has forbidden me from buying a red hat. This is the reason the polls that show Trump will lose in Nov are wrong. Most consevatives in general, and Trump supporters in specific simply do not participate in polls (I get calls and hang up) etc..... Here, I feel somewhat isolated from the world and know you or Dave are not going to call me a xenophobic, homophobic racist. And I refrain from calling those on the left baby killers. Can a liberal feel outnumbered? Sure but that is how I feel outside of this site.

---

For sure. And I don't think anything should be done about it on the Board. NO complaint from me. More just fact stating. Yes, depending on where you are in the country you can always find places where a particular viewpoint will be very unpopular.

I respect everyone here and grew up in the South and in a very conservative household. Still have many very conservative family members. So, its easy for me to respect all sides and relate to them. I don't find anyone's viewpoints "crazy". And everyone here is mostly respectful and discuss issues without getting personal.

And even though I care about politics, its amongst many things I care about and not the most important.

Some Chinese Virus numbers for Alabama:

Population = 4,800,000
Active cases = 8412 for 0.18%
Deaths (82% have underlying health issues) = 298 for 0.006%

That death rate is NOT 6%; that is six/thousands of 1%

Meantime, hundreds of thousands of Alabamians are out of work, furloughed, laid off etc.

Darryl

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darryl

Some Chinese Virus numbers for Alabama:

Population = 4,800,000
Active cases = 8412 for 0.18%
Deaths (82% have underlying health issues) = 298 for 0.006%

That death rate is NOT 6%; that is six/thousands of 1%

Meantime, hundreds of thousands of Alabamians are out of work, furloughed, laid off etc.

Darryl

---

That is a 3.8% death rate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ukpumacat

That is a 3.8% death rate.

---

The death rate is per person living in this state.
That is much more accurate because NO ONE has any idea how many people are actually infected.

Darryl

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ukpumacat

I understand. But why do you think most viewpoints tend to be almost unanimously predictable by their political leanings?

---

Honest answer?

For many, not all, they are both symptoms of the underlying psychology of the person. They are both symptoms of that, not causative but correlated.

Liberals, and this isn't to sound insulting, tend to value security over liberty. Conservatives, and this isn't meant to be insulting either, value liberty over security.

That fundamental balance is at the heart of the American Experiment, and it's a thread that runs through cultures and thus helps define what kinds of government people tolerate. Cultures with higher needs for security tend to tolerate more totalitarian regimes, and that's also why we see them rise to power in times of turmoil and crisis as more and more people put more value on security over liberty.

The irony of this of course is that 250 years ago we called everyone by the opposite name, so it's better to say that "classical liberals" who generally oppose government tend to value liberty over security, and classic conservatives who look to government for action and responsibility tend to favor security over liberty.

Now, there is also a contemporary component to it. I agree with you about people on here, but the leaders of our respective political groups absolutely would not want to see their opponent elected if it somehow solved this problem. That's cold but I think it's true.

As I linked, many left leaning leaders are calling this an "opportunity", when the correct word may be "tragedy". But it's an axiom of radical politics on both sides that you leverage a crisis to help move the pendulum from the middle to an extreme. As I said, the rise of groups like the Nazis are all predicated on some kind of social/economic/political crisis that helps to radicalize people to more extreme responses.

So I dont' think the average American is rooting for this to get worse so Trump loses, but it sure seems many in the media and many political leaders feel that way based on their tone and words, and likewise I'm sure many on the other side feel the same way about Biden et al.

But I do think there is an inherent bias in people to lean to either liberty or security that does influence their politics and also thus influences their reaction to this kind of crisis.

As for me personally I made my peace with Death a long time ago. He will come for everyone, there is no point in fearing him or living your life trying to stave him until the last possible moment. If you do you'll probably forget to actually live life in the time you do have, so live your life, don't be stupid, take basic care of yourself and the rest is simply not in your power to control.

So I'll wear my mask, wash my hands a heck of a lot, try to be smart, and hope for the best, but I will not fear this virus or any other thing on this earth.

And I will not give up my liberty in the long term in order to avoid it either, esp. when it seems to be an inevitable and inexorable act of nature which we can only hope to slow, not stop. Eventually we will either all get this or all get vaccinated for it b/c it seems very much that virulent. So the only thing to do is for us to get it slow enough we still have hospital beds and medical staff for those who need it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darryl

The death rate is per person living in this state.
That is much more accurate because NO ONE has any idea how many people are actually infected.

Darryl

---

That is not how death rate is calculated by any Scientist or organization anywhere in the world. Yes, more people are infected than we have tested...we have talked all of that to death. I do not think the death rate in Alabama will turn out to be 3.8%

There isn't a person on Earth that thought the death rate was 6% and meant "per per person living". Its always referred to how many have the virus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KeithKSR

People on the right tend to believe in less government intervention in our lives, and less government control. They believe that Constitutional rights are paramount to everything.

People on the left believe in more government and governmental controls, and do not believe that the individual rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights should be viewed as being supreme to the mandates of government.

---

Exactly this. I hadn't read down far enough yet to answer puma. :)

It's liberty versus security. It's unfathomable to me, but many look to government for solutions to problems. My view is that government generally is the cause of most of our problems and if it would go away we'd be better off.

You see it in the socio-economic battle in the country between individual liberty and "social justice", the currently popular way of saying "equality of outcomes" versus the equality of opportunity in which I believe.

I do think there's a role for government in this, but yes I'm naturally very suspicious of their actions and decision making ability. I support some kind of restrictions, but I also think Swedish authorities are right that this will be with us longer than a few months so we'd better be working on the 9-12-18 month scale for how to function versus the 30-60-90 day scale.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ukpumacat

That is not how death rate is calculated by any Scientist or organization anywhere in the world. Yes, more people are infected than we have tested...we have talked all of that to death. I do not think the death rate in Alabama will turn out to be 3.8%

There isn't a person on Earth that thought the death rate was 6% and meant "per per person living". Its always referred to how many have the virus.

---

And we still have no clue where it is really. Some estimates have it down near the flu at 0.5%, some at 1%, which while twice as bad as the flu still isn't the 3-4% of some estimates, which is obviously very deadly compared to a flu.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ukpumacat

That is a 3.8% death rate.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ukpumacat

That is not how death rate is calculated by any Scientist or organization anywhere in the world. Yes, more people are infected than we have tested...we have talked all of that to death. I do not think the death rate in Alabama will turn out to be 3.8%

There isn't a person on Earth that thought the death rate was 6% and meant "per per person living". Its always referred to how many have the virus.

---

Put it this way; a person living in Alabama has a 0.006% chance of dying from COVIT-19 complications. I suspect I understand these numbers quite well as I run a home Health company and have worked in Hospitals here in Birmingham for 43 years.

People need to be careful; people also need to be back at work.

Darryl

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenBBN

Honest answer?

For many, not all, they are both symptoms of the underlying psychology of the person. They are both symptoms of that, not causative but correlated.

Liberals, and this isn't to sound insulting, tend to value security over liberty. Conservatives, and this isn't meant to be insulting either, value liberty over security.

That fundamental balance is at the heart of the American Experiment, and it's a thread that runs through cultures and thus helps define what kinds of government people tolerate. Cultures with higher needs for security tend to tolerate more totalitarian regimes, and that's also why we see them rise to power in times of turmoil and crisis as more and more people put more value on security over liberty.

The irony of this of course is that 250 years ago we called everyone by the opposite name, so it's better to say that "classical liberals" who generally oppose government tend to value liberty over security, and classic conservatives who look to government for action and responsibility tend to favor security over liberty.

Now, there is also a contemporary component to it. I agree with you about people on here, but the leaders of our respective political groups absolutely would not want to see their opponent elected if it somehow solved this problem. That's cold but I think it's true.

As I linked, many left leaning leaders are calling this an "opportunity", when the correct word may be "tragedy". But it's an axiom of radical politics on both sides that you leverage a crisis to help move the pendulum from the middle to an extreme. As I said, the rise of groups like the Nazis are all predicated on some kind of social/economic/political crisis that helps to radicalize people to more extreme responses.

So I dont' think the average American is rooting for this to get worse so Trump loses, but it sure seems many in the media and many political leaders feel that way based on their tone and words, and likewise I'm sure many on the other side feel the same way about Biden et al.

But I do think there is an inherent bias in people to lean to either liberty or security that does influence their politics and also thus influences their reaction to this kind of crisis.

As for me personally I made my peace with Death a long time ago. He will come for everyone, there is no point in fearing him or living your life trying to stave him until the last possible moment. If you do you'll probably forget to actually live life in the time you do have, so live your life, don't be stupid, take basic care of yourself and the rest is simply not in your power to control.

So I'll wear my mask, wash my hands a heck of a lot, try to be smart, and hope for the best, but I will not fear this virus or any other thing on this earth.

And I will not give up my liberty in the long term in order to avoid it either, esp. when it seems to be an inevitable and inexorable act of nature which we can only hope to slow, not stop. Eventually we will either all get this or all get vaccinated for it b/c it seems very much that virulent. So the only thing to do is for us to get it slow enough we still have hospital beds and medical staff for those who need it.

---

Great thoughts. I am not sure "Security" is the word I would use at the heart of most liberals and why they vote how they vote. I will come back when I have a better one. Ha

I do think personal liberty is at the heart of why most conservatives are usually on the side of lifting restrictions. Also, a general lack of trust/respect for big government (whereas liberals might tend to trust more).

Great answers and thoughts from many of you on this.

I do think there is something to what Stu was saying as well as far as communal care. Or as you say, personal liberty vs social justice. I think for many liberals, government is a means to an end....but not the end. That is something that is often misunderstood.

I think at times conservatives tend to be more pragmatic (yes, people will die which we don't want but people also need to work to live) and liberals can tend to be more idealistic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ukpumacat

That is a 3.8% death rate.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ukpumacat

That is not how death rate is calculated by any Scientist or organization anywhere in the world. Yes, more people are infected than we have tested...we have talked all of that to death. I do not think the death rate in Alabama will turn out to be 3.8%

There isn't a person on Earth that thought the death rate was 6% and meant "per per person living". Its always referred to how many have the virus.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenBBN

And we still have no clue where it is really. Some estimates have it down near the flu at 0.5%, some at 1%, which while twice as bad as the flu still isn't the 3-4% of some estimates, which is obviously very deadly compared to a flu.

---

Look at any death totals with skepticism. The higher the numbers the more some profit from them.

Darryl

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ukpumacat

Great thoughts. I am not sure "Security" is the word I would use at the heart of most liberals and why they vote how they vote. I will come back when I have a better one. Ha

I do think personal liberty is at the heart of why most conservatives are usually on the side of lifting restrictions. Also, a general lack of trust/respect for big government (whereas liberals might tend to trust more).

Great answers and thoughts from many of you on this.

I do think there is something to what Stu was saying as well as far as communal care. Or as you say, personal liberty vs social justice. I think for many liberals, government is a means to an end....but not the end. That is something that is often misunderstood.

I think at times conservatives tend to be more pragmatic (yes, people will die which we don't want but people also need to work to live) and liberals can tend to be more idealistic.

---

Oh, I'm sure it's a means to an ends for liberals. Where we disagree is that in my view liberals ignore the simple maxim that power corrupts.

Liberals seem to expect that we can continue to concentrate power in the state and that the state will continue to operate as a servant of the People and act in our best interests, not its own. They tend to see government and legal authority as a way to create the society they prefer and, when we try that and it fails, it only failed b/c we didn't have enough government.

But it's definitely a means to an ends. That ends is prioritization of outcomes rather than liberties.

And yes, I see my liberal friends as simply idealistic. They tend to think that government agencies will operate with altruistic and selfless motives, that people will generally do the same, etc.

Conservatives tend to be far more cynical about people and certainly about institutions. Power corrupts, period, at every level. The more powerful government become the more those in charge of it think they know what is best for us.

And that's another thing about liberals that frightens me. They really think they know what is best for others. yes sugary drinks are bad for us, but where did the right to save people from themselves get crayoned into the Constitution?

hate speech is another example, and a shift among "liberals" in the last 40 years. 40 years ago it was liberals defending civil liberties, including the ACLU defending the nazis. Now the ACLU is calling for regulation of "hate speech". WTH?

But I do think it's just a matter of people's psychology. I do think liberals tend to be more idealistic, more optimistic, about people, institutions, etc.

As the saying goes, a liberal is just a conservative who hasn't been mugged yet. :)

The irony of that above btw is that conservatives are in the opposite way wanting to see more power in the individual, even though we think less of them, and liberals generally want more control over the individual even tough they think more of them.

Weird huh? :)

Great stuff guys. Really enjoy reading everyone's point of view on things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ukpumacat

That is a 3.8% death rate.

---

You illustrate a significant point. The statistical data on the pandemic is a farce. Everyone has their own take. In the beginning there should have been a target for what needed to be achieved and reports on it every day during the lockdown. Absent a clear target the numbers ( not yours) are manipulated at will. Consequently, the American public have grown weary of numbers being reported with no measure of progress, if any. At best we have a misunderstood objective of what we are trying to achieve. There is no universal understanding. Most of the politicians are afraid of the truth and scared chitless of failure. People are fed up!

Agree Mick. We needed clear guidance and leadership as to what the goals were.

Another day here in the Gallatin with no new cases. 146 cases, last one almost two weeks ago, one death, 145 recovered. So That is what is happening here. I also know almost every politically active person here in my town. And much of what motivates them.

Democrats are unwavering in their hatred of The President and will do anything to defeat him. Republicans are mixed but almost unanimously disliked the policies of the previous eight years as well as the tyranny of identity politics, the Title IX debacles, the declining morality of society. There is none to very little middle ground in these two points of view.

The virus is the biggest issue since, well, that I can remember. It is here at a time when we are least likely to ever agree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ukpumacat

That is not how death rate is calculated by any Scientist or organization anywhere in the world. Yes, more people are infected than we have tested...we have talked all of that to death. I do not think the death rate in Alabama will turn out to be 3.8%

There isn't a person on Earth that thought the death rate was 6% and meant "per per person living". Its always referred to how many have the virus.

---

Death rates are generally calculated on a per million people basis for comparisons.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ukpumacat

Agree Mick. We needed clear guidance and leadership as to what the goals were.

---

We have a fractured medical community, one that operates too much in the theoretical and not enough in reality. We also have a media, bereft of any analytical ability, reporting mindless numbers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darryl

Put it this way; a person living in Alabama has a 0.006% chance of dying from COVIT-19 complications. I suspect I understand these numbers quite well as I run a home Health company and have worked in Hospitals here in Birmingham for 43 years.

People need to be careful; people also need to be back at work.

Darryl

---

Perfect!

Quote:

---

As specifically for the coronavirus, I suspect many (I hope not any on this site) have the attitudes they do because of who resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. For me, I look at it as choice. I don't want the government limiting my choice. I have said from the get go, you want to wear a mask then do so. If you are afraid of getting it then stay indoors. I don't want somebody telling me what I can and can not do (its why I am PRO-CHOICE, that isn't pro-abortion, its pro-choice). Telling me to "wear a mask" or to close my business or stay home etc.... flies in the face of that. We now have a president who can close the nation on a whim, governors who can close the state on a whim, mayors who can close a city on a whim...and do so under the guise of science and safety. IMO the science is wrong on many aspects. Example--closing parks is STUPID. I said it from day one. Best preventative is fresh open air. The gov't response, close parks, prevent boating, etc.... Others hold the philosophy that the government is there for your best interests. Most who hold that philosophy tend to be democrats. If you want to sequester indoors then do so but don't require me to. I should note that I don't think the other side is awful. I just disagree with that approach.

---

Spot on commentary Doc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darryl

Put it this way; a person living in Alabama has a 0.006% chance of dying from COVIT-19 complications. I suspect I understand these numbers quite well as I run a home Health company and have worked in Hospitals here in Birmingham for 43 years.

People need to be careful; people also need to be back at work.

Darryl

---

I agree with the last line.

That number of course is with severe lockdown measures.

The most accurate way to calculate the actual % of chances someone has to dying from this:

4,800,000 living in Alabama
70% of people likely to be infected over time without social distancing measures (there are all kinds of studies about this...some say 60%, some say 80%. So I landed on 70% which is not a firm number of course.
0.5% death rate (again, we don't know yet. ACTUAL numbers show 3-6%. We know there are more cases than tested though. 0.5% is a number I have seen many times so going with it here. Of course, if the virus spread quickly, hospitals would become overrun and the death rate would go up. But we will land here for discussion.

4,800,000 in Alabama
3,360,000 likely to be infected
0.5% of those could die = 16,800 deaths

Based on this, people in Alabama have a .35% chance of dying from Coronavirus.

Of course, those numbers are a general consensus. If you are above 60 years old, your chances are FAR greater. And under 60, much less. Which leads to my next post. Ha

It hasn't helped that, as Doc and Bigsky and others have said, the approach is NOT some pursuit of pure science, and is arbitrary in many ways.

Golf courses are closed but Home Depot is wide open. Huh? Parks, boating, fishing, those things are socially distanced by their nature. Why close them? Sure some golfers won't be distanced, but no worse than the line for paint at Home Depot.

This was always a gross overreaction in the details. Not in needing to do something, but where I disagree with puma is that a 30 day complete shutdown doesn't really solve the problem, just prolongs the inevitable adjustment to some kind of temporary "new normal" while we learn to live with this for likely at least 12-18 months.

Since we can't shut down that long we might as well get on with figuring out those decisions and risks right now given that we havent' overwhelmed our hospitals.

Restricting our freedoms out of necessity most can live with for a while, but there are some legitimate questions about how much restriction is really sound science and necessary.

Even Puma, who advocated a 30 day shut down, is arguing that beaches are OK to be open. That's the arbitrary nature of these actions in a nutshell IMO.

Large gatherings OK I get it, but this restriction of our rights was WAY too easy for our leaders IMO, and that has people worried, and rightly so. It should have us ALL worried.

Thanks everyone for the interesting dialogue on this. It was just something I found fascinating.

Having said all of that, my attitude towards the lockdowns has shifted (as many of you know). I still wish we had had a National 30 day lockdown. I feel that would have been the best scenario altogether.
At that point, I believe states and regions should deal with it and loosen regulations based on those specific areas. However, I do think they should have to abide by whatever National policies were in place (his phasing plan).

I do think if things spike to the point of overrunning hospitals, we need to immediately shut down again to let them catch up. However, I strongly disagree with lockdowns that prevent people from being outside, especially in places that can allow social distancing (golf, beach, parks, etc.).
I also tend to agree with Doc's POV about it being a personal choice. If someone wants to put themselves in danger and have their hair salon open, they should be able to (same with people willing to get their haircut).
There is always a line to personal liberty (speed limits) and I think at this point, that line should be crowd size. I think anything under 50, 25, whatever seems reasonable.

I posted about Sweden's model early on. I am a fan of it for this new phase we are in.

I think people need to get back to work and building their immunity systems again. And I think those over 65 or with pre-existing conditions (like Stu) should absolutely stay in lockdown (by their choice). But those who have a very low chance of dying should be able to make the choice of....living.
I read an article (may have posted it) when all of this started about the need to flatten the curve. It was called "The Hammer" (flattening the curve...not the article). We did that. It worked. Its transition time.

If it does spike in an area and hospitals begin being compromised, bring the hammer back out. But until then, its time to get things moving imo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenBBN

It hasn't helped that, as Doc and Bigsky and others have said, the approach is NOT some pursuit of pure science, and is arbitrary in many ways.

Golf courses are closed but Home Depot is wide open. Huh? Parks, boating, fishing, those things are socially distanced by their nature. Why close them? Sure some golfers won't be distanced, but no worse than the line for paint at Home Depot.

This was always a gross overreaction in the details. Not in needing to do something, but where I disagree with puma is that a 30 day complete shutdown doesn't really solve the problem, just prolongs the inevitable adjustment to some kind of temporary "new normal" while we learn to live with this for likely at least 12-18 months.

Since we can't shut down that long we might as well get on with figuring out those decisions and risks right now given that we havent' overwhelmed our hospitals.

Restricting our freedoms out of necessity most can live with for a while, but there are some legitimate questions about how much restriction is really sound science and necessary.

Even Puma, who advocated a 30 day shut down, is arguing that beaches are OK to be open. That's the arbitrary nature of these actions in a nutshell IMO.

Large gatherings OK I get it, but this restriction of our rights was WAY too easy for our leaders IMO, and that has people worried, and rightly so. It should have us ALL worried.

---

Ha...just needed to wait a few minutes for my last post. I vouched for the 30 day lockdown early on (the hammer). I think in a country where people travel from state to state as much as they do its better to have everyone as close to the same timeline as possible. Not to mention the access to tv and social media showing people in one state eating out and another in total lockdown. You lose the crowd that way.
I believe a 30 day national lockdown would have shortened the lockdown for many states and people would have been more on board with it since it had a firm date to open back up slowly.
Neither here nor there now. We are past that stage imo.