Why Conservatives and Liberals Are Not Experiencing the Same Pandemic

It's showed me that the left follows their mainstream media narratives just as much as the right follows their mainstream media narratives.

No checking of data, no looking at alternatives, no risk of group rejection to say 'hey maybe this is overblown or incorrect or other alternatives exist'

It's intellectual laziness to just go with a narrative without questioning it to see if it stands up to scrutiny... and the mainstream media just profits off of the sensationalism so it's not in the business of providing rational level headed analysis.

I really think there are no great choices, only less-bad ones, and even those less-bad ones are a matter of perspective and priorities.

The argument isn't that we can choose between economic shutdown or preventing the spread of the virus. It's that we choose between economic shutdown or the spread of the virus and economic shutdown.

a) The government is violating basic rights in its reaction to Covid-19, and/or

b) Covid-19 is not a significant threat (and may even be a conspiracy); therefore any government reaction is excessive and unwarranted.

I emphatically agree with you that deaths of despair and lack of access to healthcare are both huge problems in the US. Of course, this was clearly true long before Covid-19 existed, though, so I'm going to be a bit skeptical if I encounter conservatives suddenly championing these issues. [0]

0 - Being that, of course, American conservatives typically oppose policies meant to expand access to healthcare or provide relief to those on the economic margins of our society.

The range of government actions taken internationally in response to covid includes, "please stay home" and welding apartment doors shut. I'm not worried about the government welding my door shut, not because I trust my government, but because I know our citizens won't let them. While I appreciate the early lockdowns buying us time in California each park and beach that close scares me more and more, there is no line for those in power they will infringe as much as we let them. I'd rather push back on infringement of liberties too soon rather than too late.

While we don't have to worry about getting our doors welded shut. They government has already shown it can't be trusted to care for us.

The quick money that was promised to go to the people spent a long time working it's way through a corrupt beurocracy as our politicalians all tacked on their agendas and most of it was redirected to line the same pockets the government has for years. People not having money to pay the bills or buy food would be irrational to listen to the government telling them to stay home for their safety.

I think that these arguments sounds empty, because to qualify them we would need to compare them to deaths from pandemic. That is not being done all that much and when being done, the numbers for pandemic unrealistically low.

I would also expect people whose care is well being of poor to promote social distancing measure that does not harm economy - masks, closed beaches, limit amount of people in store simultaneously, mandate hands disinfection upon entering store or other public area.

I would also expect them to support stay-at-home-if-sick policies for workers to protect others. Support people who are old or otherwise at risk and decide they dont want to come to work and replacing them by younger people willing to risk in exchange for more money.

I would expect promoting voting by mail too to avoid crowds to voting stations.

I dont see any of that, I see claims that threat is exaggerated.

> In particular, shutting down our medical system (ex COVID-19) means that large numbers of people will die of other diseases/conditions. Shutting down the economy means that large numbers of people will die of suicide and other syndromes associated with economic deprivation. This isn't just a guess--it's clear and well-documented.

Second, and I see this often in "conservative" postings - this ignores the fact that "the other team gets to bat too". In other words, the virus gets a vote.

There is no evidence that the economy will recover without containing the virus. The economy had already cratered - OpenTable had documented a 74% drop in reservations before the first closure order occured - without public confidence that they won't be acquiring and spreading the disease.

The way to contain the virus is to 1) lock down to reduce the epidemic to a size that is manageable by other means than shutdown, and 2) put in place the necessary staff, technology, and infrastructure to contain it by less onerous means.

"2" means: widespread, no-charge testing with results in hours, not days; very rapid contact tracing, which means large staff doing so; and quarantine of contacts outside the home when appropriate, so that inter-dwelling infection does not occur. This is working in several countries. The US, being somehow exceptional, seems to believe it can't work here.

The problem with the conservative-led "let 'er rip, they're going to die anyway" approach is that it doesn't get the economy back. It just inflames the epidemic, which continues to crater the economy for the next several years.

I don't understand why conservatives can't see these things. I suspect it is some form of motivated reasoning that makes them reject reality in this form.

But IIUC, the study is predicated on research asking about how much of a threat these people feel in the first place. That there are other, significant threats doesn't mean checking the box that says "I don't think COVID-19 is very serious" - or if it does, that's itself interesting.

That said, your post is still important because it's good to remember that even while there are trends, none of these groups of people are homogeneous.

Is there data for this? I remember seeing a study that although suicides and drug overdoses went up in 2008-2009, overall mortality went down.

The only way people will go back to consuming like they did before is if the cause of the lockdown is gone. Releasing the lockdown will make the coronavirus spread more, and in turn could very well make the economic effects worse as people get more scared and consume less and travel less for a much longer period of time, as the virus continues to roam free.

So my anecdotal experiences align with your points pretty well.

Seems like a weird, pedantic half-truth. It's like "I'm not a racist, but ..." except for government. "I don't want increased government intervention... except for the areas of healthcare, housing, education, guns, the economy, free speech, religion, banking, labor, technology and a few dozen other areas, those I do want increased government intervention in".

I get that it doesn't come from "I love authoritarianism and want more of it" but the practical end is the same when the solution to every problem is "More government regulations or interventions"

That is not what word hoax means. Hoax means that the thing does not exists at all and is made up. It does not mean "I personally dont have the very same problem yet, therefore I dont believe you when you tell me it is happening".

There is a similar trend in Canada, Australia, and to some degree the UK.

" After all, the pandemic has thus far tended to hit more liberal regions, like New York, harder than more conservative regions. It is therefore possible that conservative and liberal differences are driven by a divergence in actual experiences with COVID-19"