Im-Politic: Anti-Pandemic Economy Clamps Could Be Strengthening Just as the Virus Threat is Weakening

Tags

Andrew Jackson, Battle of New Orleans, Biden, CCP Virus, CDC, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, coronavirus, COVID 19, data, hospitalizations, Im-Politic, Jobs, lockdowns, mortality, OurWorldinData.org, stay-at-home, vaccination, vaccine mandates, vaccine passports, vaccines, War of 1812, Washington Post, Wuhan virus

What a stunning and thoroughly depressing point the U.S. fight against the CCP Virus may be at. Governments at all levels, private businesses, and non-profit institutions of all kinds are imposing all sorts of vaccination mandates on employees that could result in significant layoffs for the recalcitrant (including those with natural virus immunity) and equally important damage to the economy. And at the same time, the most reliable data now show that the virus’ destructive impact – recently renewed by the highly infectious Delta variant – is easing once again, and for reasons that look completely unrelated to vaccination rates.

Not that the most reliable CCP Virus data are incredibly reliable. As I’ve previously written, there are some awfully dubious definitions of “Covid-related deaths” being used across the country, and major holes in the coverage achieved by the official record keepers. In addition, serious problems have been revealed even in the hospitalization numbers – which I’d considered the most accurate gauge of the virus’ effects on human health.

All the same, the proverbial statistical curve for both indicators is now bending down for the first time since Delta began dominating the American virus scene in mid-summer.

As often the case, my source for the death and hospitalization figures are the Washington Post‘s very user-friendly CCP Virus databases. For this post, I’m also using some hospitalization figures for the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) website. Unless otherwise mentioned, the specific numbers here are changes in seven-day averages (7DA), which smooth out random fluctuations that tend to occur on a day-to-day basis.

Regarding mortality, the 7DA for daily reported covid-related deaths bottomed out on July 6 at 209 and it had plummeted by nearly 30 percent during the previous week. And through July 27, the 7DA stayed below 300. But by August 16, it hit 651 and thereafter began soaring rapidly.

By the 18^th, the 7DA average had jumped by nearly 32 percent week-on-week, and the rate of increase continued surging until it peaked on the 24^th at an appalling 77.90 percent. But thereafter, these increases dropped dramaticaly. A week later, they were down to just over 21 percent. That is, consistent with the “bend the curve” criteria, the problem kept worsening, but it was worsening much more slowly, which counts as welcome progress.

This encouraging development continued through September 9, by which time the 7DA was rising on a weekly basis by just 3.17 percent. In other words, it nearly stopped rising altogether. But this fall-off proved to be a head fake. Almost immediately, the weekly increases in the 7DA for covid-related mortality bounced back, and reached a discouraging 27.49 percent in less than a week (by the 15^th).

Yet another decline has followed, and this one has been considerably deeper. By September 21, the weekly 7DA increase was back below ten percent, and just four days later, hit zero for the first time since the second half of July.

Since then, and through yesterday, the 7DA has not only been decreasing on a weekly basis. It’s been decreasing faster and faster. Yesterday, the decline stood at 6.74 percent.

The hospitalization story has been somewhat different, and brighter, especially since early September. The 7DA for daily new hospital admissions for CCP Virus-related reasons bottomed out on June 25 at 1,824 and at that point, it was down on week by just under 5.20 percent.

By August 9, the situation had turned around completely – and then some. The 7DA had soared by 34 percent. Afterwards, however, came a consistent decline. By the 20^th, the weekly rate of increase in the 7DA had fallen to ten percent, and by September 1, the increases had stopped. The weekly 7DA registered its first weekly decline on September 6 (down two percent), and its first double-digit decrease on the 21^st (ten percent).

Since then through the 30^th, it’s fallen by ten percent or more twice, and the weekly decrease in the 7DA hasn’t dipped below seven percent.

Given the mushrooming of vaccine mandates and widespread claims – including by President Biden – that the nation is now facing a “pandemic of the unvaccinated,” you’d think that the above improvements stemmed overwhelmingly from increased vaccination rates. But the data – in this case, from the OurWorldinData.org website, provide no support for this conclusion.

Specifically, on August 24, when the 7DA of daily covid-related deaths was skyrocketing at that awful 77.90 percent weekly rate, 51 percent of Americans were fully vaccinated against the CCP Virus, and 9.1 percent were partly vaccinated. By yesterday, these figures were only 55 percent and 8.8 percent, respectively.

On August 9, when the 7DA for covid-related hospitalizations was growing by 34 percent week-on-week, half of Americans were fully vaccinated and 8.5 percent were partly vaccinated. Through yesterday, those numbers hadn’t changed dramatically, either.

Could mask-wearing be responsible? Trouble is, I haven’t seen any figures on how this practice has changed in recent months. (If you have, let me know.) As far as I’m concerned, the real reasons for this good CCP Virus news have to do with rising levels of natural immunity (especially important given Delta’s virulence), the distinct possibility that the CCP Virus is one of those pathogens whose lethality wanes as it mutates (an important Delta consideration, too), and the nation’s better treatment record – due to a combination of more experienced doctors and new therapeutics.

In early 1815, then-General Andrew Jackson led American forces to a great victory over the British in the Battle of New Orleans. But due to that era’s painfully slow communications, the triumph came about two weeks after the United States and Great Britain signed the treaty ending the War of 1812.  It makes me wonder how long the U.S. public and private sectors — which don’t have the communications excuse — will keep threatening the economy’s recovery with redoubled anti-virus measures just as the pandemic tide appears to be turning.   

Following Up: A Pathway Out of the History Wars

Tags

African Americans, American Museum of Natural History, Andrew Jackson, Christopher Columbus, Confederate monuments, Following Up, imperialism, Lafayette Park, Matthias Baldwin, Native-Americans, racism, slavery, The New York Times, Theodore Roosevelt

I wasn’t originally planning on returning to the Confederate monuments/history wars issue so soon, but it’s the gift that keeps on giving for a blogger, and the last day or so has been filled with new developments.

Oddly, I’m going to tack positive today – despite the continuation of attempts at vandalism and mob violence (as took place in Lafayette Park, right across from the White House, last night); despite the recent example of both vandalism and rank stupidity in Philadelphia; despite the ongoing pigheadedness and possibly worse of the stand-patters, who seem to believe that removing memorials on public grounds even to the vilest racists always amounts to an “erasure of history”; and despite the virtual certainty of more of all of the above to come.

I’m feeling optimistic today because my beloved native New York City, and an institution that gave me some of my most terrific childhood memories, has just pointed the way toward a genuinely adult way to handle these contoversies.

As you might have read, the City’s American Museum of Natural History has just decided to take down the statue of Theodore Roosevelt that’s stood in front of its Fifth Avenue entrance since 1940. The rationale – flanking the mounted T.R. are statues of a native American and an African warrior whose depiction on foot supposedly symbolizes white supremacy and imperialism.

During all my years living in and around Manhattan, I never regarded the statue as a symbol of anything except the 26^th President’s well known egotism and conspicuous lionization of “the strenuous life,” as well as of the central role played by his family in establishing the museum and turning it into a world-class institution to begin with. And I certainly never looked at the native American and African warrior figures as T.R.’s inferiors. In fact, they each struck me as being handsome and dignified.

At the same time, the more I’ve thought about it, the more dubious and specifically paternalistic the whole tableau has appeared (and I am a huge Theodore Roosevelt fan). So I can understand how others, especially non-whites, could be deeply dissatisfied and downright offended.

So I’m far from condemning the museum’s decision as yet another monument to stupidity or political correctness run riot, or what have you. But the more I read about these moves, the more encouraged I was. First, the museum (which is privately run, but receives some funding from the City and New York State, and therefore is partly accountable to the public), didn’t simply resolve to haul the statue away. In order to honor Roosevelt’s justified reputation as a conservationist by adding an entire exhibit hall to the parts of the museum already named for the former President In other words, the museum recognized that T.R., like many of the relatively easy History War cases I’ve written about, was more than an imperious explorer and white hunter.

An even more promising strategy for honoring such figures has been suggested by Roosevelt’s descendants. As reported in The New York Times story linked above, one of his great-grandsons, a museum trustee, issued this statement on behalf of the entire family:

“The world does not need statues, relics of another age, that reflect neither the values of the person they intend to honor nor the values of equality and justice. The composition of the Equestrian Statue does not reflect Theodore Roosevelt’s legacy. It is time to move the statue and move forward.”

Other than striking an unusually wise and magnanimous tone, the statement suggests the following exciting possibility (and one I also hinted at in my discussion of the Pierre Beauregard statue in New Orleans): Why not replace the current statue with one that’s not a “relic of another age” and “move forward: with one that reflects the dimensions of Roosevelt’s legacy (in this case, his devotion to naturalism) that no patriotic American could possibly question?

Moreover, why not use the same approach to the Abraham Lincoln statues in Boston and in Washington, D.C., which have been criticized because they include a kneeling newly emancipated slave? Wouldn’t such monuments better honor Lincoln if they portrayed the freeman figure standing up and, perhaps, shaking the former President’s hand?  

As for statues of more legitimately controversial figures, they should be seen as candidates for more somber modifications that would nonetheless both accomplish needed educational aims without overlooking the case for singling them out for public display.

For example, it’s true that Christopher Columbus literally expanded humanity’s horizons and helped set in motion the long sequence of events that led to the United States’ founding. But he and his brother also mistreated the peoples they found in the Caribbean brutally, and (inadvertantly to be sure) opened the door to centuries of mass death, oppression, enslavement, and other forms of misery for the Western Hemisphere’s entire indigenous population. Maybe representations of these crimes and tragedies, which sadly are baked into U.S. history as well, could be erected besides Columbus statues? 

And why shouldn’t the various monuments to Andrew Jackson (like the statue that attracted the Lafayette Square vandals’ ire) similarly be replaced with a representation acknowledging that he was not only a national military hero and savior of the union (during the 1832 nullification crisis), with some legitimate claim as an advocate of working class Americans, but also, as critics charge, a slave-owner and active supporter of such servitude – not to mention an almost inhuman scourge of native Americans. 

When it comes to public art, for the sake of the nation’s spirit and self-respect, there’s nothing wrong with and indeed considerable value in a little romanticizing or glorification of individuals meriting much credit for creating an American national story that’s unmistakably a success story from every possible standpoint. But where the legacies are less overwhelmingly positive, it would be equally worthwhile to develop ways of displaying major virtues alongside important warts in statues, monuments, and plaques.

The challenges to be met are preserving the symbolic power of displays commemorating figures as genuinely heroic as inherently flawed human beings can possibly be, courageously facing facts about more ambiguous legacies, and calling and weeding out genuine villains such as traitors.

That is, all involved in creating America’s public art – which should be all Americans and their elected representatives – should avoid the temptation to champion the kinds of caricature bound to fuel considerable disillusionment and even contempt. And by meeting this challenge, today’s Americans would leave an invaluable legacy of their own for future generations.

Im-Politic: The Meaning of Trump-ism

Tags

2016 election, Andrew Jackson, Barry Goldwater, big government, Donald Trump, establishment, Franklin Roosevelt, free trade, Hillary Clinton, Im-Politic, Immigration, internationalism, Jacksonian Democracy, Mainstream Media, middle class, New Deal, Open Borders, Populism, presidential debate, protectionism, Ronald Reagan, Sun Belt, working class

On the eve of what could be an historically transformational debate for American politics, I’m still struck by (a) how mysterious to the nation’s chattering classes Donald Trump’s appeal to so many Main Street Americans remains; and (b) how vividly the elites’ befuddlement at – and clear disdain for – the maverick Republican presidential nominee keeps signalling their (witting or unwitting) cluelessness about life outside their increasingly chichi urban bubbles.

First, though, I’m serious about the importance of tonight’s debate between Trump and his Democratic counterpart, Hillary Clinton. His insurgency against an entire, bipartisan national political power structure may be no more sweeping than Ross Perot’s in 1992. But having captured one of the two major parties, he faces none of the so-far insuperable institutional obstacles encountered by third party candidates in presidential politics. As a result, Trump’s odds of victory in November seem solid, and it’s at least arguable that this event would produce the greatest shock to America’s political culture since the Jacksonian revolution of the 1820s.

Of course, American political history has been dotted with other strong candidates for the mantle of revolution (at least by the nation’s admittedly moderate standards). Ronald Reagan originally came from Hollywood, and promised to kill off the post-New Deal model of mixed capitalism that even a critical mass of Republicans had embraced since the Eisenhower era. But Reagan was strongly backed not only by big segments of middle- and working-class Americans who felt neglected, and on the tax front, even exploited, by Big Government politicians. He would never had made the White House had he not also championed a counter-business establishment that had risen outside the Northeast, and especially in a Sun Belt region that styled itself as the embodiment of traditional American rugged individualism.

Moreover, although Reagan also promised a much harder line in foreign policy, in crucial respects his worldview and proposals still fell within the bounds of the strategic ideology that had prevailed in America since Pearl Harbor – which has been dubbed internationalism. Though much more confrontational than his immediate predecessors, Reagan still bought the notion that America’s vital interests still spanned the globe, and the related assumption that active U.S. engagement of some form in even the remotest countries and regions was essential.

Barry Goldwater had run on a similar insurgent platform in 1964, but lost in a landslide – though his nomination victory over that Republican establishment of that era clearly paved the way for Reagan’s far more complete and lasting triumph.

Policy-wise, a strong case can be made that Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal was more of a break with the past than practically anything Trump has proposed. Nor was New Deal innovation restricted to the domestic economy, as its pursuit of trade liberalization reversed a protectionist approach that had reigned in America for most of its history since the founding. In political, social, and cultural terms, Roosevelt’s triumph in 1932 revealed that eastern ethnic cities and their worldviews had supplanted those of small midwestern towns and rural communities. In many cases, moreover, the New Dealers themselves were something fundamentally new – especially the academics. But in an ironically Reaganesque way, they were less outsiders than representatives of an emerging counter-establishment.

As personally flamboyant as he was, Theodore Roosevelt was an establishmentarian at heart as well. In fact, one of his most important – and underappreciated – contributions to American politics was encouraging his upper class patrician peers to stop looking down their noses at public life, take an active role in politics, and make sure that noblesse oblige steered the nation’s course as opposed to the petty concerns of Democratic machine politicians and the ferocious greed of the nouveaux riches Captains of Industry.

So I really do think that you need to go back to Old Hickory to find an American politician who explicitly stood for the rabble and actually won the White House. Will Trump actually follow through with a populist agenda ? I know how many skeptics continue insisting that Trump’s only interest is further lining his own pockets and those of the Wall Street-ers he’s chosen as economic advisers. Since I’m not clairvoyant, I don’t feel confident in voicing an opinion either way. But interestingly, much of the rest of Wall Street doesn’t seem to agree. Nor does Big Business. Further, would Trump excite such vehement opposition from the nation’s offshoring- and Open Borders-happy Mainstream Media and bipartisan policy establishments if he was simply a crook? Their reactions to Trump’s views on national security don’t seem exactly blasé, either.

Which brings us to the combination of bafflement and outrage voiced ceaselessly by these elites regarding Trump’s appeal – which has brought him to within striking distance of the White House. I don’t claim to have all the answers on this score, but here’s one consideration that establishment Never-Trump-ers not only haven’t thought of but seem incapable of appreciating: Their charges of Trump bullying and even Trump business scamming are failing and even backfiring for the same reason that their charges of Trump’s working the system as relentlessly as any other special interest have met the same fate.

Simply put, when many of his supporters hear these indictments, they’re not thinking about whatever rudeness or prejudice or even indecency the relevant remarks allegedly reveal. Just as Trump’s lobbying apparently has prompted hopes that, “Finally! Someone’s going to work the system for me!” the moral turpitude charges suggest “Finally! Someone’s going to be my bully! Someone’s going to be a con man on my behalf!”

And though these aspirations sound odious themselves, it’s revealing – and in my view encouraging – that the two likeliest issue candidates for this Trump approach seem to be trade and immigration. After all, they concern international relations, where for all the talk issuing from the establishment about the importance of and need for norms and rules, power and skill in its use is the paramount currency, and will remain so for the foreseeable future.

Nonetheless, as has been true throughout his campaign, this source of Trump strength has been a persistent Trump weakness – or perhaps more accurately, a foregone opportunity. For as I have long maintained, with just a little more precision, these points could be made every bit as powerfully without slurs directed at largely blameless parties (e.g., illegal immigrants, moderate Muslims), or understandably perceived in this way, and without vulgar sexism (against, e.g., his Republican primary rival Carly Fiorina, or Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly, or even Clinton for taking a lavatory break). Hard-core Trump-ers would have been just as enthusiastic, and many fewer independents turned off.

All the same, since Trump has essentially pulled even in the race, since not trivial amounts of voters remained undecided, and since big turnout questions dog Clinton in particular, his foregone opportunity has not been completely lost. Will he begin seizing it starting tonight?