President Trump is such an unusual politician that people (myself included) have trouble seeing him clearly. For instance, Trump is often seen as an opponent of lockdowns. But while he did often speak out against lockdowns during the waning days of the campaign, he actually supported them during the period they were most restrictive. Here’s a NYT headline from April 22:
Trump Criticizes Georgia Governor for Decision to Reopen State
“I think it’s too soon,” said the president, who joined several mayors in questioning Gov. Brian Kemp, a Republican, who had said some businesses could resume on Friday.
And here’s a tweet from April 30:
And it’s not just lockdowns. I could easily dredge up Trump quotes for and against masks, for and against testing, or for and against any of a number of other policies.
Trump needed substantial votes from two groups that had very different views on Covid-19. One group, mostly made up of his “base”, included small businesses worried about the economic effects of lockdowns, libertarians opposed to mask mandates, and Hispanic workers who lost jobs due to lockdowns. Another group included moderate Republicans in the suburbs with professional jobs, who were economically insulated from the crisis but worried about the effects on their health.
It seems to me that early on he sensed that there was a risk of going too far “right” on the issue, losing those swing suburban voters. Later in the year, it became clear that the problem wasn’t going away and indeed was picking up again. At that time, he decided to go down the final stretch by appealing to his base with an anti-lockdown message.
I’m not sure that Trump had any good options politically (once the epidemic was out of control), although it’s intriguing to speculate as to what would have happened if he had followed me in questioning the experts’ (skeptical) view on masks back in early March. The actual issue in which Trump questioned the experts (chloroquine) didn’t seem to pan out for him in the end, but by late April, experts throughout the world had basically decided that masks were indeed the way to go. It might have been a big political win for Trump if he’d been ahead of the experts. In addition, masks are a more attractive solution for small businesses than lockdowns. In conservative Mission Viejo, almost everyone wears mask when in stores. In contrast, very few people in North Dakota wore masks, and now they are paying the price.
When politicians encourage people to voluntarily wear masks, they are actually promoting liberty. That’s because the more people that wear masks, the less political pressure there will be for lockdowns.
READER COMMENTS
Mark Bahner
Nov 11 2020 at 4:54pm
I think I see him clearly. I think when he campaigned in 2016, at every minute he said and did what he thought would get him elected. Then, from day one of his term in office, he said and did whatever he thought at that very minute would get him re-elected. Now, he is saying or doing whatever at every minute he thinks might allow him to stay in office.
Based on his behavior to this point, I think starting on January 20th of next year, he will say and do anything he thinks at that very minute will get him re-elected in 2024.
The key is that he says or does anything that–at that very minute–he thinks will advantage him. So he can easily say something only days, hours, or even minutes later that is the exact opposite of what he said before. And he feels absolutely no need to be consistent or truthful. (Especially not truthful!)
Phil H
Nov 11 2020 at 7:48pm
The horrifying thing is that while Trump has lost, the Republican Party as a whole does not seem to have done too badly from his presidency. I see the problem as a structural/organizational issue with the Republicans/right wing generally: they’re just not set up to bring high-quality people to the top at the moment. And unfortunately, this latest episode does not look like it will push them to do so.
Mark Bahner
Nov 11 2020 at 11:24pm
It’s difficult to know what the 70+ million people who voted for Republicans for the U.S. Senate and House were trying to say, but it seems to me that a resasonable interpretation would be that they wanted to make sure both houses of Congress were nearly perfectly divided, so that Joe Biden can’t actually achieve all of the absolutely insane things that Democrats were calling for the federal government to do (e.g., ban fracking, and carry out the Green New Deal).
But maybe I’m just projecting what I basically hoped would happen did in fact happen.
Michael Sandifer
Nov 12 2020 at 2:27am
How can they bring in high quality people when they only appeal to the lowest common denominator?
Zeke5123
Nov 11 2020 at 8:42pm
I was a proponent of lockdown in the early part of the year when many things about the virus was unknown (I also was a very early adopter of masks).
Now, I’m an avid anti-lockdown proponent.
The difference? We know more about lethality (this thing won’t be killing millions in the US). I’m reminded of the quote:
When the facts change, I change my mind. Tell me sir what do you do?
Scott Sumner
Nov 12 2020 at 12:52am
Actually, I don’t believe our view of the lethality has changed all that much, certainly not my view.
Zeke5123
Nov 12 2020 at 8:08am
Well that is dubious thinking in that case. Early in the year we didn’t have…almost a year of data.
There was a lot more guess work in March compared to today in November. Even if you suspected lethality to be the same a precautionary principle should apply with respect to a novel virus.
Alan Goldhammer
Nov 12 2020 at 10:31am
We still do not know what the case fatality rate is for the virus. The extrapolated value based on documented infections is still above 2%! Obviously, we don’t expect this number to hold up. The current projection for deaths is to again pass the 2,000/day over the next several weeks.
As I have consistently noted in my newsletter and on blog posts I expect the CFR to eventually fall to between 0.3 – 0.6%. Using that value, it’s pretty easy to calculate what the total number of fatalities might be in the absence of a vaccine. The equation is: mortality = infection rate * fatality rate. If you are a ‘herd immunity’ believer, you plug whatever number you like into the IR. Certainly, it is not 20% which some papers had argued several months ago as areas that experienced that level of outbreak are seeing new cases in this current wave. Is it as high as 70% which is the top of the published range in various models. Let’s assume for the sake of argument that it is 50%. Based on 330M population we get: 330M * 0.5 * 0.005 = 825K deaths. Your calculation may come up with a differ3ent value.
The bottom line is we are not anywhere close to herd immunity nor do we have a clue what the fatality rate is based on current data. Everything is still in the ‘best guess’ category.
zeke5123
Nov 12 2020 at 12:49pm
The idea that we have the same amount of info today as 6 months ago isn’t true, and it isn’t what you are saying. The idea that there is still more to learn is of course true. But the idea that we would adjust our response based on more info is of course reasonable.
Alan Goldhammer
Nov 12 2020 at 2:16pm
The appropriate response was always straight forward from the beginning of April onward. As the signature on my daily newsletter states: “Stay Safe, Mask Up, & Wash Hands” That so many in the US seem not to comprehend this simple message is indeed baffling.
BC
Nov 12 2020 at 3:59am
“it’s intriguing to speculate as to what would have happened if [Trump] had followed me in questioning the experts’ (skeptical) view on masks back in early March….by late April, experts throughout the world had basically decided that masks were indeed the way to go.”
I think it’s quite plausible that, had Trump backed masks early and strongly, then conventional wisdom turning to favor masks would have been much delayed. He would have been criticized for once more going against The Science (TM) and causing harm by encouraging people to hoard masks. Every PPE shortage for health care workers would have been blamed on Trump. Once locked into that stance, “experts” — and certainly mainstream media — would be much more reluctant to cite or do research that indicated masks were effective. Just look at how many people turned anti-Vax — including many who probably were for mandatory vaccination in other contexts — after Trump elevated the importance of releasing a vaccine quickly. Now, unfortunately, it looks like mass roll out of a 90%+ effective vaccine will occur primarily after a fall/winter surge rather than before.
Scott Sumner
Nov 12 2020 at 1:12pm
You said:
“I think it’s quite plausible that, had Trump backed masks early and strongly, then conventional wisdom turning to favor masks would have been much delayed.”
I doubt that, especially experts in foreign countries, who presumably don’t much care what our president thinks. They would have invented some other excuse, like “we were just trying to preserve scarce masks for medical personnel.”
Mark Z
Nov 12 2020 at 2:55pm
Even assuming that American experts pay due heed to foreign experts and thus domestic expert consensus is ultimately invariant to domestic politics (which I think is doubtful; American experts have done 180s on things like whether mass protests are dangerous or not purely based on the happenings of domestic politics), politicians often do care more about domestic politics than expert consensus, e.g. the governors of New York and California have suggested they’d restrict the roll out of vaccines in their states apparently just to spite the Trump administration (their excuse, that the FDA approval process has been irredeemably tainted by Trump and thus cannot be trusted for another 3 months, rings pretty hollow to me; it just seems purely political).
Scott Sumner
Nov 13 2020 at 1:15am
I don’t believe your claims about California are accurate.
Mark Z
Nov 14 2020 at 2:58pm
Newsom has said that any FDA approved vaccine will have to be subject to additional approval by a state review board.
https://timesofsandiego.com/politics/2020/10/19/newsom-state-will-independently-review-any-covid-19-vaccines-okd-by-fda/
Shane L
Nov 12 2020 at 7:44am
I agree with Mark Bahner above – I think Donald Trump will say anything, absolutely anything, that appears to promote his interests in the immediate moment.
By the way, the US has done shockingly poorly in controlling this Covid pandemic, it really is a tragedy and a catastrophe. People have been comparing the US with Europe, where many countries now have surging numbers of cases. That’s true, and a major failure in those countries, but in terms of cumulative deaths there is no comparison. As of November 10th, the death rate is 717.8 per million in the US, versus 443.8 in the EU as a whole.
Here in Ireland the government imposed what they call “Level 3” restrictions on October 6th followed by more severe “Level 5” restrictions on October 21st. These steps were taken because of a rapid and sudden increase in Covid cases in October, and they appear to have been successful. The contrast between Ireland, where cases have fallen by about 66% since the peak in late October, to either the US or the EU as a whole, where cases are soaring, is stark.
I imagine it might be harder for a big continental country to successfully impose Covid-reducing restrictions than a little country that is largely surrounded by sea. Ireland does share an open border with the UK through Northern Ireland, however, so it seems that countries can impose successful lockdowns, even when rates of Covid are rising in the bordering country.
robc
Nov 12 2020 at 12:35pm
It looks like Ireland’s decreasing started before the level 5 lockdowns were imposed or had an effect.
Assuming Ivor Cummins can be trusted. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mboEkVl9ooc&feature=emb_logo
Shane L
Nov 13 2020 at 5:02am
Robc, I think that analysis by Ivor Cummins is pretty ridiculous, with lots of cherry-picking. The timeline is as follows:
September 18th: Level 3 restrictions for Dublin
September 25th: Level 3 restrictions for counties Donegal
October 6th: Level 3 restrictions for whole country
October 21st: Level 5 restrictions for whole country
Between the 18th September and 19th October, rates of daily new Covid-19 cases rose by 473%. The peak was at 19th October, two days before the Level 5 restrictions. Presumably the Level 3 restrictions for the individual counties and for the country as a whole were already having an impact. Probably the Level 5 restrictions helped to speed the collapse in Covid rates. (It’s a bit hard to tell without more sophisticated analysis because there will always be a bit of a lag between diminished activity and falling Covid rates.)
Meanwhile Sweden, which Ivor is positive about, continues to see soaring rates, with new daily rates on November 11th nearly eight times higher than Ireland. In terms of deaths, Ireland is a relative success story in Europe (see the map here), which is incredible considering the generally questionable state of our public health system.
The simplest explanation is that the lockdowns were successful: when the state imposed restrictions, Covid fell. American governors could absolutely do this if they wanted to.
Greg G
Nov 12 2020 at 7:57am
Nice post Scott. Trump thinks that the virus hurt him politically. And it did, but only because he bungled the handling of it so throughly. It has been a festival of incompetence.
The overwhelming majority of world leaders enjoyed a big increase in their popularity from the virus due to the natural tendency of people to rally behind their leaders in a crisis. If Trump had merely told the truth about the virus, and endorsed the best medical advise available as he best way to avoid lockdowns and economic damage, it would have increased his popularity. His followers would have stayed with him as they always do and fighting the virus could have been part of his brand.
Instead, he has been a fountain of misinformation and inconsistent messaging throughout. For a full month after he told Woodward he understood how dangerous the virus was he denied it was a real threat while the number of cases was doubling every few days. Then he reversed course and declared that the virus made him a “wartime President” in a war so urgent that he had to go on TV everyday to give us updates.
Then he decided it would all be over by Easter with the churches full again. Then he went AWOL in what he had described as a war and continued to trivialize the danger. He was for masks and social distancing and lockdowns before he was against them. Then back to trivializing it again. Then claiming we wouldn’t hear a thing about it after the election while hosting as many super spreader events as possible.
The only consistency in his messaging has been an impulsive insistence on saying the thing that he thinks will be the most popular with his base on that given day with a childlike inability to consider longer term consequences. When you elect a reality TV star President, you get a reality TV star President.
IVV
Nov 12 2020 at 2:38pm
Absolutely bungled. To be honest, Trump should have been in the perfect position to win the election, thanks to the pandemic. “Never let a crisis go to waste,” and all. He didn’t even have to be particularly successful at containing it; he just had to be a voice of reason, a rallying point for our efforts against it, and he’d have been a shoo-in for another term.
But that takes leadership, constancy, and compassion. Not much, but some.
J Mann
Nov 13 2020 at 9:31am
Yeah, through May or so I expected Trump to do something similar to Cuomo – pivot to consistent messaging that this was an emergency and that he and his team of crack experts were doing everything possible, but needed the nation’s help. (While denying any previous mistakes).
Instead, he just kept tweeting whatever came into his head. I don’t think he can stay on message to save his presidency, and he certainly didn’t.
Oleg
Nov 12 2020 at 4:19pm
I’m wondering where’s the real world evidence that widespread mask use is effectively suppressing the spread of COVID. By real world evidence, I don’t mean studies showing aerosol dispersion on a masked person using laser light or anecdotes about masked nail salon employees not spreading the virus, I mean population wide use corresponding to reduced cases in a given populace. Here in Toronto, mask use is pretty much universal. Restaurants are closed. Offices are empty. Nevertheless, cases are rising relentlessly. Same in Italy. Same elsewhere.
Point to the jurisdiction that shows this work, and I’ll begin to believe.
Scott Sumner
Nov 13 2020 at 1:13am
You asked:
“Point to the jurisdiction that shows this work, and I’ll begin to believe.”
Taiwan and South Korea?
I will say that areas where people wear lots of masks seem to do better than areas where they don’t. Compare Vermont and North Dakota, for instance.
Oleg
Nov 13 2020 at 8:15am
This does not follow at all. S. Korea and Taiwan squashed all early cases through mass testing, tight border control and quarantine. The presence of the virus in those communities is extremely low – i.e., close to elimination low – so whether you wear a mask in those places or not is irrelevant. I would say the same is likely true for Vermont. Nova Scotia in Canada is a similar outlier to Vermont (it further has tight controls on who can in fact enter the Province at all). Can I then say: “Almost no reported cases, so, obviously, masks work” (???).
Can you blame me for being skeptical if this is the “evidence”?
Comments are closed.