Dispatch from Coronaville: Polarized

In scouring the internet for a good lead-in image for my post, I ended up reading the source article for this image. The article in Behavioral Scientist is a fascinating look into the nature of polarization and a different (but I think connected) conclusion than mine about how it might be combated.

I don't know if you've noticed but the views on the pandemic have become increasingly polarized. I find that very strange, to be honest.  You would think that there are certain things that are just beyond the reach of the left-right battle lines.  A disease knows no ideology right?  And yet he were are, with everyone digging in to their usual trenches (well, not everyone.  I do have some conservative friends who seem to be taking the coronavirus more seriously and I have some more liberal friends who refuse to wear a masks).

We tend to think of polarization as developing because two sides hold very strong, opposing views.  But I'm coming to believe that polarization doesn't come from fiercely held views. Instead it comes from defining the opposition's views for them (inevitably in the worst, most ridiculous way) and then opposing that.

We see this in politicizing of wearing or not wearing masks. People who are anti-mask define their opponents as scared and eager to do whatever the government demands. The reality is that most mask wearers don't wear their masks for their own safety.  They do it out of consideration for the people around them. Since it is believed that many cases of COVID-19 are asymptomatic, it's possible that one could have the virus and not know it.  It's been widely acknowledged from the outset of this pandemic that masks (particularly if they are not medical grade N95 masks) provide little protection for the wearer. This was the reason, at least in part, that the initial recommendation was not to wear one. They do however, provide some protection for the people around the wearer.This virus travels on droplets. If your cloth mask gets hit by spray from someone's cough or sneeze, it's not going to do much.  But if you cough or sneeze, those droplets can't travel very far, thus protecting the person nearby. So next time you see someone wearing a mask, know that they are doing it because they believe it will keep you a little safer.

Likewise non-mask wearers are not "selfish." I do not believe that a person who won't wear a mask just doesn't care what happens to the people around them.  When we define them that way its easy to get angry and judge them. I don't believe that people who wear mask are "better human beings" or more considerate.  They just hold a different set of beliefs.  The vast majority of people who won't wear masks believe there is no danger.  They believe the risks of COVID-19 are overstated, the case and death numbers are exaggerated, and thus the safety protocols are excessive and unnecessary. If you believed that would you wear a mask? I wouldn't. (As to why they believe there is no danger, well that's a topic for another blog!)

The solution to polarization then is not to get everyone to agree, but instead to get everyone to correctly understand the position the other side holds.  We will likely still disagree but maybe then we can do it with a little more patience and civility.  And let's face it if there is any hope of ever changing anyone's mind, a less polarized environment has to be a starting point.

On another note (but a related one): here's a link to a great post about how the choice between the economy and saving lives is a false dichotomy.

And now to the numbers. I was so exhausted last night that I was only able to gather the data.  Writing the above was just too much (in fact, in the morning light I ended up writing about something different than I had originally planned). So while today is Saturday, the numbers from below are from Friday.

To my surprise, as of Friday night, our total cases and deaths had increased more than I predicted.  We registered a 5.4% increase in the number of cases for a total 1,449,829, outdistancing my prediction by 13,000.  Deaths were up 6.1% for a total of 87,385, just about 1400 more than I anticipated. Based on these new rates of increase I would expect 1,528,120 total cases by Monday, May 18 and 92,715 total deaths.

Ohio and Florida's new cases continue to yo-yo. It makes me wonder if it has to do with their methods of releasing data or something. It's weird. Since May 6 the two states have been alternating between increasing and decreasing numbers of cases. This time it's Florida's turn to mark a small increase while Ohio decreases.  The overall pattern does appear to be suggesting a possible decline though. It's hard to say whether we have reached a point of more less steady numbers of new cases or are witnessing part of a gradual decline.  By the end of May we should have a better picture.  Here's the summary on total cases for each state:
Florida: 44,130 total cases, 0.20% of the population.
Ohio: 26,956 total cases, 0.23% of the population.
Nebraska: 9,772 total cases,  0.5% of the population, now outdistancing the nationwide percentage 0.4% of the population known to be infected.

All three states showed increases in the number of new deaths, with Florida and Nebraska showing the most dramatic increases. Nebraska's 20 deaths over three days is the largest number of deaths in a three day period that they've had since I began keeping records.  This could likely be the outcome of that big spike in cases there back at the beginning of the month. On May 3, Nebraska recorded it's largest number of new cases: approximately, 1,450. Let's say that everyone who died of COVID-19 over the past three days was part of that May 3 cohort.  That's a death rate of 1.4%, not too far from the overall death rate that Nebraska has shown.  Here's the summary on total deaths:
Florida: 1,916 total deaths, a rate of 4.3%
Ohio: 1,581 total deaths, a rate of 5.8%. It's interesting to note that Ohio for the last week or so has had more new deaths than Florida.
Nebraska: 123 total deaths, a rate of 1.3%