THE PANDEMIC ISN’T OVER: KEEPING OUR EYES ON THE PRIZE

Despite much progress, a threat has appeared that could derail solving the pandemic problem. That threat compels us to join those sounding an alarm.

To some extent, the coronavirus pandemic has always been about numbers. We know many of the painful ones – 29.2 million infections

and 530,000 deaths by the first week in March; about 22 million jobs lost or diminished; 328.2 million (in other words, everybody) lives disrupted. And now, another set of numbers offers hope for an end to the madness – decreased cases, over 59 million people who’ve had at least one shot of vaccine, maybe 255 million people (every adult in the country) vaccinated by summer.

The problem lies in the fact states have started opening their economies by lifting restrictions on capacity in public venues, making social  distancing harder, and eliminating mask requirements. It’s a trickle

now, but it could soon become a flood. As one doctor warned, don’t spike the football after making a few first downs, wait until you’re in the end zone.

 

What’s Happening

Republican governors in Texas and Mississippi announced recently they’re ending statewide

mask mandates and limits on occupancy in eating places and other businesses, steps already taken by Florida’s Republican governor, Ron DeSantis.  GOP chief executives in Iowa and Montana ended mask requirements in February. Republican governors in Arkansas and Alabama said they’d suspend mask orders in late March and early April, though that move in Arkansas depends on testing results and hospitalizations.

One Democratic governor, Connecticut’s Ned Lamont, kept the mask requirement in place, but eliminated indoor dining capacity limits. He also expanded how many people can attend sporting events.

Different motives likely lay behind these moves, some probably benign, some likely cynical, and some perhaps the result of citizen pressure. Benign explanations included increasing vaccination rates and a declining number of infections. Continuing politicization

of the  pandemic by former President Donald Trump and his allies made it likely some GOP governors simply sought political favor with Trump supporters who never liked masks, social distancing, and other anti-COVID 19 measures. Texas Governor Greg Abbott, in particular, wants to position himself for a presidential run in 2024 and drew blowback from Texas Democrats who suspected a political motive in his roll back order. These actions place political interests above those of the citizenry. 

We admit public pressure could affect some governors. Americans, even those who support mask wearing and other anti-COVID 19 safety measures, are tired of how the virus has disrupted their lives. They want a return to normal, even despite evidence the fight isn’t over. We think such an attitude equates to taking a cast off a broken leg before the bone heals because the patient finds the cast inconvenient. In this instance, removing the cast could have deadly consequences.  

Neanderthal Thinking

Orders issued by Abbott and Mississippi Governor Tate Reeves didn’t go unchallenged. President Biden, who has garnered 70% public approval (44% of Republicans) for his handling of the pandemic, called the moves “Neanderthal thinking.” The president said of the crisis, “It’s not over yet.” He urged that Americans, “Stay vigilant.”

Rochelle Walenski, director of the Centers for Disease Control, expressed “deep concern”

about the trajectory of the pandemic, and added, “Now is not the time to relax critical safeguards.” Other public health experts like Dr. Anthony Fauci also warned against prematurely discarding masks and social distancing requirements. 

 

A Personal Story

One of us, Rob, suffered a severe case of COVID 19 last fall, spending five days in a hospital, three of them on oxygen, though not a respirator. After a harrowing day of hallucinations (“I thought I was walking on the ceiling,” he said), his condition dictated treatment with experimental drugs and steroids. Almost as bad as the hospital time was the recovery. Unlike the recovery from other illnesses in a life of almost seven decades, this recovery featured not a smooth road back to good health but resembled a discomforting trek along a jagged, uneven path littered with rocks and boulders. For every two steps forward, the route required at least one backwards. For the better part of a month after the hospital, nothing tasted good, not even water. The sense of smell vanished. Yes, some people suffered mild forms of the illness, but no one should underestimate the perils of even a moderate case. This isn’t the flu. Rob’s advice: Do everything possible to avoid getting this disease.

 

A War Metaphor

After a vigorous discussion, we found ourselves agreeing with Woodson’s label of

“irresponsible” for those who give in to impatience and prematurely discard measures that health experts know stop the spread of

COVID 19. He  has a point that this is a war, as 

the infection and death numbers show. An army can’t quit before winning the war, especially not with victory in sight, when a loss could decimate the entire army.

Through the efforts of scientists, we

have vaccines that work. Thanks to now having a president who takes the issue seriously, vaccine distribution works. The president says by the end of May every adult American, about 255 million people, who wants a vaccination can get one. That’s a real win. We can lose now only by giving the game away. No reason exists for doing that. We can make the numbers work now.  

                

   

LET THE DEBATE BEGIN: HOW MUCH ‘‘SOCIALISM’’ IN AMERICA?

Some conservatives have complained

about the measures Congress enacted aimed at helping Americans get through the coronavirus dislocation. They label the measures “socialist,” “un-American”,

and at odds with capitalism.  They say

we must get business as usual going or risk having these adjustments become permanent.

The country faces questions about the

appropriate level of government involvement in the economy and other aspects of life. Cries of “socialism” are not new when the government tries helping non-corporate middle America and the poor.

The 1936 Republican presidential nominee, Kansas Governor Alf Landon, attacked Social  Security as “socialism” (Franklin Roosevelt won the Electoral College, 523-8).

New York Governor Al Smith, the 1928 Democratic presidential nominee, wrote that year, “The cry of socialism has been patented by the powerful interests that desire to put a damper on progressive legislation. Is this cry of socialism anything new?... I have heard it raised by reactionary elements and the Republican Party … for over a quarter-century.”   

Many Americans who never thought

they’d seek or accept government assistance found themselves doing just that under the unprecedented circumstances the pandemic wrought. The pandemic exposed flaws in our healthcare and food supply systems. What happens when the

pandemic ends? Is the kind of government assistance provided in connection with the pandemic an outlier or are significant policy changes on the horizon?

Will the nation remedy these weaknesses in our health care system

with new measures addressing some of the systemic shortcomings that made the coronavirus situation worse? Or, will the “socialism” objections prevail and keep the status quo in place?

Harry Truman’s 1945 health care

proposal was defeated in large measure by the American Medical Association’s labeling of the legislation as “socialized medicine.”  Things have changed. A recent Reuters/Ipsos poll showed over 70 percent of respondents favoring universal health care.

                     

That Old Definitional Issue

When opponents leveled charges that Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal programs

were “socialism,” he said in his 1936 State of the Union Address that the proper role of government was “the adjustment of burdens, the help of the needy, and the protection of the people’s property.”

This year, Democratic presidential candidates Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren presented safety net programs aimed at assuring more Americans better access to health care,

child care, and other services. They proposed Medicare-for-All, a federal guarantee of health insurance mandated for everyone that would replace private health insurance. Other candidates, including presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden, also proposed expanded health insurance plans, though not Medicare-for-All.

In light of the virus experience, must we adopt measures that seem like “socialism?” The pandemic exposed three particular shortcomings in the health care system. First, many Americans don’t have insurance

coverage, meaning they couldn’t get adequate treatment if infected. Second, the lack of health care puts some groups at greater risk. Louisiana, for example, became an

early coronavirus “hot spot” because so many of its low-income citizens, most of the people of color, had limited access to health care before the virus hit. They suffered from medical conditions – hypertension, diabetes, obesity - that made death more likely upon contracting the virus. Finally,

health care workers faced massive shortages of equipment and supplies.

Theodore Roosevelt, the 26^th president, responding to charges he was a capitalism obstructionist and opponent of individualism, wrote, “Ruin faces us ... if we permit ourselves to be misled into refusing to exert the common power of the community where only collectively action can do what individualism has left undone or can remedy the wrongs done by an unrestricted and ill-regulated individualism.”

What Will Americans Accept? What do they Want?

Post pandemic life in America probably will look different than life before March

2020.  Until we get a coronavirus vaccine, limits on large gatherings and close personal contact will likely remain necessary. Many won’t like that (sports fans?), but they’ll probably accept it in exchange for re-starting the economy. But what about political changes?  How much government will Americans accept or desire?

Democrats flipped the House of Representatives in 2018, relying on health care as a way of attracting suburban women and people of color. The pandemic assures the push for improved health coverage will play a central role in the 2020 campaign and in the next session of Congress. Once the emergency ends, will Republican resistance to expanded health insurance fade? We don’t know.

                   

Many Democrats will seek a larger

federal investment in the health care system. That means lots of money for assembling and maintaining government stockpiles of medical equipment. Will anybody suggest rolling back the Trump tax cuts for financing such investment? Is doing such a thing “socialism?” 

                                        

What about unemployment insurance?  That’s mostly funded by taxes on employers. In light of the record number of unemployment claims, will

political and business leaders agree on a different way of funding that system? Would using general revenue and assessing higher taxes for that purpose make sense? Debating the issue seems reasonable now.

The Most Vulnerable

Many of these questions center on what America does about issues faced for the first time by middle-class people. How much “socialism” will they accept or want? That’s a political question on

which the spotlight will fall in the months ahead. Another issue, however, lurks beneath the surface. America has a population for whom the issues raised by the pandemic were not new. They live with them every day and have for a long time.

For this group, health insurance often doesn’t exist. Visits to doctors don’t happen except in the direst emergencies. Trips to food banks occur regularly, something middle-class people recently experienced for the first time. These most at-risk Americans need a voice in the political debate about “socialism.” Over the next few months, in this space, we intend to give it to them.