Policy being driven by science, risk tolerance (1 Viewer)

[UncleTrvlingJim]

So, I've noticed what seems to be a correlation between conservative and liberals and their willingness to adhere to scientific experts. It appeared to me (totally anecdotal with no actual survey), that conservatives were much more willing to downplay the threat of COVID-19 early on than liberals were despite the vast majority of experts on epidemiology and pandemics making claims to take this seriously very early (mid-February). I'm obviously drawing a correlation between this and global warming, where liberals seem much more willing to accept scientific consensus and their recommendations than conservatives are.

Is that accurate, or am I misreading?

Would it be more accurate that conservatives require a much higher threshold of proof? It always seems to me that the threshold is it has to already be happening (and thus too late to prevent) before they're willing to accept anything. Or are they more risk tolerant?

 

[The moose]

Whether you agree or disagree, we have a perception that:

1. The majority of the media can not be trusted in general;

2. The media loves to find fault in Trump, to the point they would overplay a crisis if it met that end; and,

3. The media loves to go into crisis mode because it is good for ratings and it is cheap to produce programming around (think hurricane coverage).

I am glad that my Lord and Saviour Tucker Carlson was waaaaay ahead of the field on this. I suspect he was ahead of the other networks. He brought the story credibility to conservatives who trust him with all our heart and soul.

Bless you!

The diversity in this country is what makes us great.

The other thing is the freedom to believe what you want.

Lord and Saviour Tucker Carlson that is priceless.

You should use he full name Tucker Swanson McNear Carlson.

Yep our Lord and savior is a Swanson frozen food guy. Water to wine is real close to frozen tv dinners!

Enjoy your day!

 

[SystemShock]

So, I've noticed what seems to be a correlation between conservative and liberals and their willingness to adhere to scientific experts. It appeared to me (totally anecdotal with no actual survey), that conservatives were much more willing to downplay the threat of COVID-19 early on than liberals were despite the vast majority of experts on epidemiology and pandemics making claims to take this seriously very early (mid-February). I'm obviously drawing a correlation between this and global warming, where liberals seem much more willing to accept scientific consensus and their recommendations than conservatives are.

Is that accurate, or am I misreading?

Would it be more accurate that conservatives require a much higher threshold of proof? It always seems to me that the threshold is it has to already be happening (and thus too late to prevent) before they're willing to accept anything. Or are they more risk tolerant?

I think there are 2 very simple catalysts that form the basis that makes your stereotypical conservative be reluctant of accepting certain science.

When it comes to climate change, it is simply that Al Gore brought it up in the late 90's, and the "fathers of modern conservative politics" had to go against it, on principle. Since then, for your stereotypical conservative, climate change has been a hoax.

Then there is religion. Science continues to debunk the myths of religion, and those who believe in religion, as your stereotypical conservative does, have to go against the science that continues to falsify their claims.

 

[JimEverett]

I am not sure I buy the scenario set up.
As an example - I live in one of the most conservative and/or REpubican counties in the country. We have two school districts in the county and both shut down school on March 5.
By the beginning of the next week the county was issuing recommendations to stay home and work from home.
Contrast that with New York City - their schools would not close until almost a week and a half later, on March 16 -and they still were requiring teachers to come to school even though students would not.

Look at New Orleans and what was happening on Bourbon street, certainly not anything like that going on in the more conservative counties of middle Tennessee - and I mean even scaled down to reflect the population differnces.

Those are just two examples, but I am sure we could find more. I mean some beaches in California remain open and residents are using them as of Sunday - I am presuming in that state its not conservatives keeping them open and certainly some liberals, at least, are going out and using them.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

I'll be curious to see how the individual states react in the coming weeks. Will some states go away from social distancing and lockdowns?

 

[Beach Friends]

I'll be curious to see how the individual states react in the coming weeks. Will some states go away from social distancing and lockdowns?

That's going to be a very tough call isn't it? If you wait for the all clear, you may not go back for months thus killing the economy. If you go back earlier than that you risk a resurgence and any positives after that point will be laid at your feet.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

That's going to be a very tough call isn't it? If you wait for the all clear, you may not go back for months thus killing the economy. If you go back earlier than that you risk a resurgence and any positives after that point will be laid at your feet.

Yes, and if you decide to lockdown, but a neighboring state doesn't, does that change the effectiveness of your strategy? It's going to be a tough call.

 

[surada]

So, I've noticed what seems to be a correlation between conservative and liberals and their willingness to adhere to scientific experts. It appeared to me (totally anecdotal with no actual survey), that conservatives were much more willing to downplay the threat of COVID-19 early on than liberals were despite the vast majority of experts on epidemiology and pandemics making claims to take this seriously very early (mid-February). I'm obviously drawing a correlation between this and global warming, where liberals seem much more willing to accept scientific consensus and their recommendations than conservatives are.

Is that accurate, or am I misreading?

Would it be more accurate that conservatives require a much higher threshold of proof? It always seems to me that the threshold is it has to already be happening (and thus too late to prevent) before they're willing to accept anything. Or are they more risk tolerant?

I wasn't aware that conservatives were downplaying the virus threat.. That seemed to me to be the a matter limited to Trump's scope of influence. Sadly, a lot of regular conservatives seem to be fearful of incurring Trump's wrath if they cross him or even dispute his hunches.

 

[surada]

You would think, but the audience lapped it up.

Why did he even need to say that in the first place? If you are going to have free abortions, what difference would it make if it was a transgender man (assuming that is what he actually meant) seeking treatment?

I think the bigger issue is that it is not really clear he misspoke. That's how crazy people have become. It's not doing anyone any good - perhaps especially the people who are actually dealing with those issues.

Free abortions? Even in the clinics I think its based on sliding scale.