A lesson I've learned is that a large fraction of the American people do not believe that "saving lives" automatically wins an argument. e.g. reopening schools. The Right was cold-hearted towards those more at risk to the virus. But the Left precluded legitimate conversations about the trade-offs. I think this helped deepen the schism an…
A lesson I've learned is that a large fraction of the American people do not believe that "saving lives" automatically wins an argument. e.g. reopening schools. The Right was cold-hearted towards those more at risk to the virus. But the Left precluded legitimate conversations about the trade-offs. I think this helped deepen the schism and increased distrust by the Right of the medical establishment.
So perhaps a willingness to be honest about trade-offs should also be on the list.
I completely agree that honesty about trade-offs is necessary. However it's a mistake to draw political lines. It's also a mistake to condemn a large swath of the population for being cold-hearted.
I am curious to know how and why you have concluded that those who argued for schools to remain open were all or mostly on the "Right". I have many friends on both sides of the political spectrum that overturn your generalizations here.
There were models, that started in the George W. Bush era, looking at the next respiratory pandemic. Because coronavirus wasn't on their list, they were thinking in terms of pandemic influenza (H5N1) . One of the ways the model data suggested would markedly reduce transmission of a respiratory virus was to close schools. Closing schools wasn't due to mass hysteria but rather, by implementing a portion of the best prior planning we had at the time. I'll note that the incumbent administration had scattered the people responsible for pandemic planning to various departments and agencies, eliminating a cohesive working group, or had simply eliminated those positions.
And lest you attempt to cherry-pick the conclusion, as a long-time numerical modeler, I can tell you models are not real-world, but are often the best tool we have to determine what is likely to happen. Models are often incorrect but are also often very useful.
A lesson I've learned is that a large fraction of the American people do not believe that "saving lives" automatically wins an argument. e.g. reopening schools. The Right was cold-hearted towards those more at risk to the virus. But the Left precluded legitimate conversations about the trade-offs. I think this helped deepen the schism and increased distrust by the Right of the medical establishment.
So perhaps a willingness to be honest about trade-offs should also be on the list.
I completely agree that honesty about trade-offs is necessary. However it's a mistake to draw political lines. It's also a mistake to condemn a large swath of the population for being cold-hearted.
I am curious to know how and why you have concluded that those who argued for schools to remain open were all or mostly on the "Right". I have many friends on both sides of the political spectrum that overturn your generalizations here.
There were models, that started in the George W. Bush era, looking at the next respiratory pandemic. Because coronavirus wasn't on their list, they were thinking in terms of pandemic influenza (H5N1) . One of the ways the model data suggested would markedly reduce transmission of a respiratory virus was to close schools. Closing schools wasn't due to mass hysteria but rather, by implementing a portion of the best prior planning we had at the time. I'll note that the incumbent administration had scattered the people responsible for pandemic planning to various departments and agencies, eliminating a cohesive working group, or had simply eliminated those positions.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4022492/pdf/pone.0097297.pdf
This work was done in the White House, but was claimed en masse by HHS.
And lest you attempt to cherry-pick the conclusion, as a long-time numerical modeler, I can tell you models are not real-world, but are often the best tool we have to determine what is likely to happen. Models are often incorrect but are also often very useful.