
Why Conservatives and Liberals Are Not Experiencing the Same Pandemic - privong
https://heterodoxacademy.org/social-science-liberals-conservatives-covid-19/
======
downerending
Interesting, but I think misses a major point: Many conservatives are not
_apathetic_ , nor do they feel less _threat_. Rather, they see a different
_balance_ of threats.

In particular, shutting down our medical system (ex COVID-19) means that large
numbers of people will _die_ of other diseases/conditions. Shutting down the
economy means that large numbers of people will _die_ of suicide and other
syndromes associated with economic deprivation. This isn't just a guess--it's
clear and well-documented.

For some reason, these factors seem to be being currently discounted by the
Left. I cannot understand why.

~~~
michaelbrave
I can somewhat answer why the left is discounting the economic factors. The
short answer is there is historic precedence that taking strong action against
a pandemic will help that economy recover quicker than places that took little
to no action. More deaths and a drawn out pandemic had a worse long term
economy than a hard and fast shutdown earlier.
[http://news.mit.edu/2020/pandemic-health-response-
economic-r...](http://news.mit.edu/2020/pandemic-health-response-economic-
recovery-0401).

~~~
downerending
It's possible that a long, hard shutdown will result in a better economic
result. Looking to 1918, though, raises a lot of questions. It's a small
amount of data points from a time when far less reliable information was
available.

Perhaps more importantly, it doesn't help us much in determining the _total_
number of excess deaths from these alternatives. I'm guessing that few were
even thinking about that question back then.

~~~
edmundsauto
The larger point, IMO, is that it's not in evidence to assume that it's a
tradeoff between saving lives and the economy. It's possible that prioritizing
life saving, even at the expense of a worse economy in the short term, saves
lives and spurs a better economic recovery.

Edit - for clarity

------
mindslight
Ideology may set rough attractors and no-go areas, but it's naive to think
that our current battle lines have been drawn by individuals independently
pondering their own positions.

At a deep level, our experience of reality has become wholly moderated by mass
media. Reds and Blues are watching different channels, and thereby
experiencing different realities. It's as simple as that.

Nonconformance to a media narrative is punished by all, in a distributed
fashion. If you express an independent point in a Blue flavor, you will be
attacked by both the ever-present Reds as well fellow Blues for breaking rank
(and vice-versa, obviously).

Even this comment itself would be better if I tied in some basic examples. But
they would inherently reflect my own filter bubble, opening my point up to
partisan scrutiny looking to reject self-reflection xor continue
caricaturizing the others.

------
dllthomas
> Note that our results cannot say which of these is happening in greater
> measure.

That's okay. Every reader can figure it out.

~~~
lolsal
I couldn't; could you help me figure it out?

~~~
dllthomas
It's the other team.

My comment was a joke, pointing at my expectation that most readers _will_
come to a conclusion despite the warning.

------
JamesBarney
> Out of six, the strongest effects emerged for goals that involved
> government-imposed social distancing rules. Conservatives oppose the
> government telling them when they can or cannot leave their homes; liberals
> support such policies. Because a threatening disease might validate
> government interventions that conservatives dislike, conservatives appear
> motivated to downplay the severity. Or conversely, because a threatening
> disease might validate government interventions that liberals do like,
> liberals seem motivated to magnify the threat.

Ugh I hate when people do this, it seems like lazy thinking. Decreased
government intervention is a terminal goal for many individuals, but increased
government intervention is not. Liberals are more willing to trade government
intervention for lives saved.

> We found that the general effect of ideology on perceived COVID-19 threat
> significantly decreased at higher levels of experience with COVID-19.
> Conservatives view the disease as less threatening than liberals, but this
> difference shrinks among participants who have been more impacted by the
> disease.

Looks like the divide is not entirely different values, and that it's at least
partially driven my misinformation.

* I know there are probably some liberals for who this is a terminal goal but it's a vanishingly small amount.

~~~
floor2
> increased government intervention is not

Seems like a weird, pedantic half-truth. It's like "I'm not a racist, but ..."
except for government. "I don't want increased government intervention...
except for the areas of healthcare, housing, education, guns, the economy,
free speech, religion, banking, labor, technology and a few dozen other areas,
those I do want increased government intervention in".

I get that it doesn't come from "I love authoritarianism and want more of it"
but the practical end is the same when the solution to every problem is "More
government regulations or interventions"

~~~
davidwitt415
It can be seen as a corrective to 'let the free market decide everything,'
which is clearly showing its limitations in responding to the COVID-19 crisis.

------
mixmastamyk
I think the post is on the right track, but fails to even mention the
urban/rural divide in the US, which is heavily weighted liberal/conservative.

The two groups are experiencing differently—to rural folks describing it as a
non-problem is largely accurate, to inner-city liberals the catastrophe is
accurate as well.

Combine that with a distrust of government in rural areas and you have a
pretty solid case. It's clear that attempts at "one size fits all" policy
making across a country the size of the US is problematic. States the size of
California are also approaching the limits of governability in this situation,
see the unrest between different counties.

~~~
watwut
> The two groups are experiencing differently—to rural folks describing it as
> a hoax is largely accurate, to inner-city liberals a catastrophe is accurate
> as well.

That is not what word hoax means. Hoax means that the thing does not exists at
all and is made up. It does not mean "I personally dont have the very same
problem yet, therefore I dont believe you when you tell me it is happening".

~~~
s1artibartfast
It depends on what you define as _The hoax_, and there is a great diversity of
opinions.

It can mean the virus doesn't exist

It can mean the virus isn't as bad as claimed

It can mean the virus mitigations aren't worth the tradeoff

------
thomascgalvin
> First, might conservatives actually be less threatened by the current
> pandemic? After all, the pandemic has thus far tended to hit more liberal
> regions, like New York, harder than more conservative regions.

And conservative regions that are hard-hit, like Florida, are actively
suppressing information on how bad the outbreak is.[1][2]

It'll be interesting to see how the conservative narrative changes as the
outbreak becomes undeniable. The CDC projections are pointing toward 100,000
dead sometime in June[3]. That's a _lot_ of parents and grandparents. At some
point, it will be almost impossible to not be personally affected.

[1]:
[https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020/05/01/flor-m01.html](https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020/05/01/flor-m01.html)

[2]: [https://www.tampabay.com/news/health/2020/04/29/florida-
medi...](https://www.tampabay.com/news/health/2020/04/29/florida-medical-
examiners-were-releasing-coronavirus-death-data-the-state-made-them-stop/)

[3]: [https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-
data/forecas...](https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-
data/forecasting-us.html)

