5X5: #3--The Antithesis

Virus-related Dialectics
Trump is doing no more than fulfilling the necessity of his historical role in the global event.  It was down to him to be the leading voice* of those resisting the prescriptions of the scientific community to dampen the severity of the virus outbreak.  The "Yes, but..." of those for whom unpleasant truth is unacceptable.   He staked out his stance of reluctant cooperation with the experts' pleas for physical distance, but his posture was leaning forward and outward, against all logic, at all times.

Trump is not just playing devil's advocate, which would be appropriate, particularly if no one around him is doing it. Neither is he just trying out new lines--I think he's now into his facile blame  GHINA/WHO/'BAMA one, where I think it will stay.

Instead, he is gambling once again:  first, he gambled this viral outbreak, like previous ones, could be contained within Asia and a spot or two here or there.  He lost that one--the New York Metro area is a bit more than a spot, and there are plenty of others--but that has not stopped him from gambling again.

The arguments to do more than just remain inert, a policy currently allowing economic activity around the world to continue to sink, they speak to all of us and demand consideration.  The smart play would be to help provide the specifics--logistics, counsel, analysis, and above all, money and political cover--to allow the governors to roll out operations for the full variety of business and service activity, within that framework that Drs. Birx and Fauci outlined the other day.   Instead, he promises having stadiums full of a hundred thousand fans, "and very soon!", and imagines all will be well if he doesn't bother to have any of that preparation done.

Now, I do believe that day with large-scale crowds is going to happen someday soon, and I hope to be around to see it and more, to survive the consequences of that, but Trump is not going to be President when that happens.  So I pray.

In the meantime, he has identified his role as pushing forward for targets that are inconsistent with his team's recommendations, disregarding the risk of proceeding to open in areas that have neither proven to have survived an outbreak nor tested their populations for infection or antibodies.  He is surprisingly comfortable with his role as th`e antithesis to the Enlightenment's thesis that truth is empowering and the scientific method can discover truth. 

---

That stance differs from how Trump's governance has been antithetical to Obama's.  Whatever Obama was doing, Trump has done the opposite--it was a very easy rule to follow.  The path Trump is trying to follow with the coronavirus is more complex, as some of the time he must restrain himself, even show some nodding agreement, and some of the time jump in (such as when questions irritate him), but it all lines up with his role of the great Doubter.  Politically, the synthesis somehow resolving the contrast between Obama's "Hope and Change" (moderately progressive, globalist) thesis and Trump's reactionary "Make America Great Again" antithesis is nowhere in sight.  Biden as national candidate does no more than re-state the Obama thesis.

With Covid-19, we are searching for the synthesis, the rules of the road ahead. Unlike our political stalemate, there will be a resolution of some form, forced by us.  Our shared, pent-up desire to get out will make us do things that the public health community's shared thesis argues against.  We will be opening up, in some states and communities, without the systematic, comprehensive testing capability that they urge.

---

A few comments/predictions about how that movement will play out:

Separation of those infected from those free of coronavirus can not be sustainably maintained.  Neither group can be identified reliably enough, and that may be true even when we do have enough testing data.  Evidence is emerging that the number of people exposed is several times greater than we know, and that those people may be contagious while asymptomatic, and that they may or may not have immunity from re-infection.

Vaccination may end the prolonged crisis, once it is sufficiently rolled out (and we should not expect that will happen very quickly, once it is available), but the best hope for something like "the new lifestyle" emerging sooner than that will come when we have treatments that are proven to save lives of those seriously afflicted.   There, I see some hope:  more with antivirals than with Trump's favored malaria treatment (which is somewhat brutal on the system for anyone taking it).  If it is true that we can keep those with serious infections from worsening irrecoverably, and that most people's exposure does not result in severe illness and respiratory failure, then the risk of being with others will drop enough for activity to commence.

---

Some final observations:

I am guessing Steve 'Race' Bannon himself came up with those "Liberate __(fill in name of Dem.-governed state)"  incitement-to-riot tweets in MI, VA, and MN.   Real cold-blooded, subversive provocation with clear political intent (to challenge polling deficits in states the Republicans would like to open up for competition this fall).

I find the current, revised curves produced by IMHE and used by the government to forecast to be too optimistic, particularly with regard to forecasted trends on Covid deaths.  The projections are nice negative exponential curves, but they are too contemporaneous with the hospital usage curves (deaths will lag for weeks), and they decline too sharply for those states at, near, or beyond their peak.  Just look at the actual curves for New York, or for the hardest-hit European nations.  There is not any sharp decline, but instead a plateau lower than the peak period.   As for those states not yet peaking, the curves are very optimistic (and will have to be changed once stay-at-home orders are relaxed).

Who is 'Race' Bannon?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ToQ-S1g8CJM


*Bolsonaro is another.  Boris "TheSpider" Johnson played with the notion, before failing spectacularly.  Sweden provides a different example, an alternative approach (not requiring social distancing in normal interactions) that may end up being much like the US' variety of outcomes, once we relax strict guidelines.

Re-edited 4/21.