- The tangible vs. the digital: Why physical reading still holds its ground (8/23/24)
- Consolidation, choice and tax relief (8/16/24)
- Transparency and accountability (8/2/24)
- Fences, politicians, tradition and ambition (7/26/24)
- Community, transparency and value (7/19/24)
- Stranger than fiction (7/12/24)
- Josh the Otter and the Chevron Decision (7/5/24)
Opinion
Pandemics, politics and manners
Friday, July 24, 2020
I had a conversation with a family member this week that was thought-provoking. We were talking about new masking requirements in retail spaces and I was bemoaning the degree to which the issue has become politicized. I’m sincerely troubled by that. As much as I can be a political animal, some things should be off-limits to political spin, but that’s not the world we live in.
Her observation was that people who are vehemently against masks are not following scientific observations, and she is, of course, correct. I was all too happy to agree with her, yet I was quick to say that I can’t, in good conscience, blame anyone for being skeptical about the science. We have received a lot of mixed messages, on masks in particular, but on the pandemic as a whole.
Has the pandemic been over-hyped? Absolutely. Was it out of an overabundance of caution or media sensationalism? I blame both equally. Were the counts of cases overstated? Officials in the medical community have admitted as much. Have they had to reverse a few positions as they learn more about the virus? Frequently. It’s been a poop show, but there’s a reason that it’s called a “novel” virus. We haven’t seen this before.
There was a great documentary online that looked at the pandemic from an international perspective, and while the source of the piece probably leans to the left of me, I found it to be a fairly even-handed piece of journalism (and am always pleased to see evidence that even-handed journalism still exists). In comparing the handling of the virus between countries, our United States were by no means the worst, but we weren’t the best either.
It’s hard to put a scorecard together on this because the variables are many, but I emerged with a few observations. Third world countries with limited resources were clobbered. That’s no surprise. Countries with more advanced economies, yet repressive regimes, were hammered as well. Iran is the poster child for this one. They had a terrible outbreak but failed to marshal their resources. In China, we still don’t know. Of more interest to me was the breakdown between eastern and western advanced economies. Europe, Italy in particular, and the US didn’t do as well as advanced economies in the east.
South Korea seems to be the poster child for pandemic response so far. They had structures in place. They knew the game plan and they kept cases to a minimum. They nailed it. Why? The documentary included outtakes from an interview with the head of their equivalent of our CDC (Centers for Disease Control) and he, very humbly, said that if they hadn’t had their butts kicked by SARS (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome) in 2002, they wouldn’t have been ready either.
That actually gave me a bit of a chill. It reminded me of when our housing bubble burst and markets crashed in 2008. Our Fed Chairman at the time, Ben Bernanke, had studied and written extensively on the great depression of the 1930s. It was his observations for those studies that guided us through 2008. I wasn’t a big fan in 2008, but who knows? It could have been worse. Suffice it to say that the responses to COVID-19, both successes and failures, will be studied and compared for decades to come.
But back to the mask issue. Until Wednesday of this week, I was firmly in the pro-mask camp. Heck, I would wear a Batman costume if it helped get our economy back on track, but I heard one of our local health administrators; the head of a publicly funded agency, on public radio telling the rest of the state what backward, prehistoric rubes we are in Southwest Nebraska. It’s that sort of snotty, arrogant, self-righteous rhetoric that tempts me to join the insurrection.
Her comments were divisive and unproductive. She had a chance to inform and enlighten, but she chose to be a common scold. In her interview, she said that she was “frustrated” with our “compliance” in Southwest Nebraska. She then dug the hole deeper saying, “I think the people of Southwest Nebraska are in complete denial that there is a pandemic.” Well, then we might need to work on our messaging. Hmm?
I want to personally thank her for portraying me and my neighbors in such a negative light, and a similar thank you should be on the way from the economic development community in the nine counties that she serves. I would also like to hear from anyone running for office this fall in the counties that support her interlocal agreement to tell us if they stand by her condescending comments on the radio.
Just a casual note to the medical community and for all those who wish to win the hearts and minds of the free and independent people of Southwest Nebraska: Buy a thesaurus. Perhaps the word “compliance” doesn’t sound as alluring to us as you might think.