Today’s missive from Erick Erickson is an illustration of why I wouldn’t consider subscribing to his paid newsletter (the one I receive is free and I am on it involuntarily):
I asked over the weekend if anyone knew any of the champions of “herd immunity” who’d gone out to get the virus. I actually really was curious. But my question was met with outrage as if I was insulting people. I actually really am curious. I hear so many conservatives advocate herd immunity, oblivious to what it would entail, I presumed some had. Thankfully, they have not.
I say that because the model for herd immunity has been Sweden, even as the Swedes deny they are pushing herd immunity. Well, things are not going well in Sweden. They have a 12% mortality rate and, per capita, have way more infections than the United States — in fact, the sixth worse on the planet right now. All the worst hit places on the planet are in Western Europe. Yay socialized medicine!
My point isn’t to gloat on any of this.
And, yet, you just did. Gloat, that is.
Second, the Covid-19 national strategy of any country is not driven by the economic form of medical service, although it may be constrained by it. To prove it, we could do – and why didn’t Erickson? – a side by side comparison from this Johns Hopkins site that provides data. For example, tonight (it’s updated on a daily basis, I believe) it shows Sweden’s case-fatality rate at 12.2%, the United States at 5.8% – and Norway at 2.7%. Finland 4.5%. Germany 4.2%. France 14+%! I believe, besides the United States, those are all socialized medical services. Wait, which medical economic system is best again?
But Erickson – and I – are wasting our breath. Dude, you know better than to trust these numbers! The uncertainties around virtually the entire Covid-19 phenomenon is what’s driving Trump’s terribly inappropriate economic optimism, his disbelief at the bad news that came our way and is still coming our way, and all the rest. So why are you being so quick to attack socialized medicine based on untrustworthy numbers?
This is really all about politics, from how Covid-19 national strategies are chosen, how much testing is performed, to why – especially! – Erickson shoots his mouth off, and it really makes him untrustworthy. Politics is Erickson’s prism, and I think it prevents him from presenting the best possible analyses of issues. Indeed, I wonder why he didn’t mention the pastors who claimed they’d not become ill, or would be cured by God … and are now dead of Covid-19. More of his political prism?
It’s too bad, because this is not far off the mark:
The fight that must be fought now is on reopening. We inarguably flattened the curve. The virus is inarguably going to be around. So how do we reopen?
Unfortunately, many of the very same people who demanded we shelter in place to flatten the curve are moving the goalposts. We have gone from flattening the curve to “crushing the curve” or eradicating the virus before going outside.
The virus is not going away. Flattening the curve was never about stopping people from dying. It was about avoiding an overwhelmed hospital infrastructure. We have had time to prepare resources and hospitals. It is time to reopen.
We at least must have a serious conversation of how to do it. I think some of the governors have done so, and are trying to implement some decisions; the protesters are getting in the way, though. But then Erickson gets all starry eyed:
This Sean Trende piece really captures my thinking and I regret I didn’t write it. He is spot on.
This seems to reflect a wider phenomenon of people being driven into “teams” regarding the shutdown. We’ve become polarized on the issue, and indeed this polarization is beginning to reflect our underlying politics. This is an unwelcome development. One of the dynamics about team sports is an inability to see the other side’s point of view; indeed, that is in many ways the point of teams. As this virus develops, flexibility will be crucial in determining how well we come out of it, and a willingness to listen to the viewpoints of those we don’t generally agree with is probably the most important trait we can have. But, as with so many other things, that seems to be one more fatality resulting from this virus.
No, and no, and no. One of the dynamics of a failed team is the inability to see the other side’s point of view. Failed teams go away. Failed teams die.
Successful teams have insight into their opponents. Think of the tapes that NFL teams review prior to game day. That is insight, formalized.
No, what we’re seeing isn’t teams. It’s cults. Absolute belief, often in the irrational, automatic disdain for the other cults. Simultaneously often frightened of other cults. Ready to spread lies about other cults at the drop of a hat. Those are just some of the behaviors we see on both sides.
And it fits cults to a T. Look around and see all the cults, too. Such hermetically sealed cults actually do survive for a long time. Unlike similar teams.
That’s why I have a hard time taking Erickson seriously. He occasionally has something good to say. His dislike of the paranoia of the right goes in his plus column. But his fumbling of details in a non-linear system – and his automatic assign of blame to anywhere but his side of the column – is a whole lot of negative marks.
