I think you hit the nail on it's head. Think about it: some countries where these mandates are/were introduced would describe themselves as liberal democracies. We have all these laws that limit the power of government. Forcibly injecting people with the vaccine is obviously not compatible with anything calling itself "liberal".

The ideological weakness is self evident. We can't go door to door with police to give everyone the jab, so we wishy-washy try to force people with other measures. Who can respect an authority that lies and betrays one of its core principles? How can one respect a government that truly tried to outlaw natural human behavior? Talk about heavy handed.

My observation is that the political polarization of the topic came before any government action, and is the more primary cause of the issue. Government action (both heavy-handed and otherwise) sparks backlash because of the political polarization.

Honestly I saw it the other way around, when it was first came out the future was uncertain, and there was a lot of confusion the only data we had was untrusted reports from China, I saw a lot of people band together, people looking out for on another general expressions of concern.

There were politics involved but it was relatively mild, and ignored by many people it was about two or three months in when much of the news around COVID changed to being news about how Trump was doing what about the virus, and congress what congress was saying about responses to the virus and the usual schlop I noticed things started to get polarized at the same time the estimates were being adjusted from 1-9% fatality rates to 0.3% fatality rates.

I feel like I am taking crazy pills the way that many on HN constantly seem to imply that the polarization and politicization of the pandemic was caused by the media, scientists, public health officials or anyone else but the last president and many people in his administration. They were immediately trying to shift blame to anyone but themselves. It was the "China virus" from pretty much day 1. He was literally crossing out "Corona" in his speeches and writing in "Chinese"[1] in mid-March. Or do you remember Trumps "I'd love to have it open by Easter" less than a month after the first lockdowns started? It didn't take "two or three months" for it to be politicized as a reactionary measure against Trump. Trump's first reaction was to politicize the situation.

[1] - https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/03/20/three-pha...

It is interesting you say that because the first notice I saw of it starting to get politicized was people calling Trump racist for attempting to placing a travel ban from/to China, and for using the phrase China virus, when there is a decent history of naming diseases from where they came from. I think in fact your link attests to that because it's not saying anything about COVID it is all about how Trump is being racist for using the word China flu. Personally I can't stand the guy, but if you believe that the entire virus and COVID response was made entirely politicized by Donald Trump, I'd check your medication because you might just be taking crazy pills in that case as you stated at the beginning.

>It is interesting you say that because the first notice I saw of it starting to get politicized was people calling Trump racist for attempting to placing a travel ban from/to China,

Trump has a history of xenophobia. The China ban was viewed as a second Muslim ban. It also appeared to be disconnected from the facts at the time because it was neither a full ban and was only singling out China. So it was clearly going to be ineffective and unfairly stigmatize Chinese people. Considering all of this, it isn't surprising his critics called it racist.

Also now that we are still in a pandemic two years later, it should be obvious that Trump patting himself on the back for this China ban is at best foolish. It was never going to have much of an impact.

> and for using the phrase China virus, when there is a decent history of naming diseases from where they came from.

Just because there is a "decent history" of something happening doesn't mean we should continue it forever. It is known that this type of naming is often wrong (the Spanish Flu likely originated in Kansas) and can lead to unnecessary and unproductive stigmatization. There is already a history of intentionally not using the place of origin to avoid these problems (Ebola was consciousness not named after the village it was found so they used a more generalized area)

> I think in fact your link attests to that because it's not saying anything about COVID it is all about how Trump is being racist for using the word China flu.

Why do you think Trump would consistently use "China flu" other than for political reasons? Isn't it obvious so people blame China for it?

>Personally I can't stand the guy, but if you believe that the entire virus and COVID response was made entirely politicized by Donald Trump, I'd check your medication because you might just be taking crazy pills in that case as you stated at the beginning.

I didn't say he was the only person responsible. I said he was the one who initially politicized it. Once it is politicized, both sides will continue to perpetuate that polarization.

>The China ban was viewed as a second Muslim ban.

...which was also misrepresented in the media. They literally used the same countries the Obama Administration had put on their list with the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015.[1]

Also, the majority of countries on the list weren't Muslim, and the majority of Muslim countries weren't on the list.

[1] https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2017/01/29/news-bull...

The list of countries was less important the the universal nature of the Muslim ban. It was kind of the opposite of the China ban. When it comes to disease, we need to act decisively and universally with care not create loopholes that allow people to pass through. When we are talking about terrorism, banning an entire country doesn't make sense. There has to be some type of vetting for exceptions.

The Muslim ban included people who had already been living in the US for years. These are people who have lives, families, and jobs here. But if they happened to be outside the US when the ban went into effect, they couldn't reenter the country. If they already were in the country, they couldn't leave. They couldn't have their friends or family from back home visit them. There is no logic to a ban of that scale when it comes to preventing terrorism. That is the type of universal ban one creates to stop a pathogen. Except the China ban was full of holes and thousands of Chinese nationals continued to travel to the US. That isn't a plan based on science.

The motivations for both these moves was not rationale. Considering they both came from the same person, a person who has a long documented history of other bigoted actions, his critics connected them with the shared thread of xenophobia.

>There is no logic to a ban of that scale when it comes to preventing terrorism.

Sure there is, it was specifically related the inability of the countries on their list to demonstrate proper port/airport screening & security. The reason most Muslim countries weren't on the list is because most Muslim countries took security seriously enough. This is also why the non-Muslim countries that were on the list were on there.

I feel like I am taking crazy pills the way that many think Trump was the source of the polarization and not a reaction to it.

Are you talking about in general or in relation to the pandemic?

In general it was both. Trump was both a reaction to polarization and helped increase it.

With the pandemic, I don't think there was an polarization beforehand. The US usually rallies around even unpopular leaders during trouble. 9/11 is the obvious example. Who specifically do you think caused the pandemic polarization?

> Who specifically do you think caused the pandemic polarization?

The progressive left saw it as a strategy to attack an opposing party president in an election year. The pandemic was their only real hope of election success. Their candidate field was weak. The economy was strong leading up to 2020. The president was polarizing, but was immensely strong among his base and had cross over appeal to the blue collar middle class and increasing support of other demographics that usually vote Democrat.

I think there is no doubt in my mind that no pandemic Trump would have easily won a second term. You can argue that the pandemic polarization strategy was successful in that Trump lost, but there was a cost. Also considering the significant lack of success that the Biden administration has had managing the pandemic, too, I am of the opinion that the cost of the increased public polarization may not be worth it.

Yes, maybe you are taking crazy pills.

Propaganda works, unfortunately — especially on people who self-identify as smart.

Imagine, for a moment, the change in reactions had Trump & company declared a "War on Covid".

We love wars. A vast majority of Americans have historically gotten behind wars. Wars on drugs. Wars on terror.

I dunno how things would have turned out, but it makes me wonder.

I can imagine how every TV comedian would have had a recurring "War against common cold" segment, CNN had a ticker with the current economic damage from lockdowns, ACLU suing against mask mandates in every court and FB/Google/Twitter censoring everyone who dared to doubt that chicken soup does really cure viral infections.

Even if this were true, it's irrelevant. If a government initiates action that sparks a backlash, the government is responsible. If the government didn't also anticipate that backlash, it's incompetent in its duty to its citizenry.

And if it did anticipate it, well that's just worse.

Yes, politics is downstream from culture.

Policy in a representative government tends to come from established interests.

People Don't realize that Quebec is banning unvaccinated people from many stores including big box stores (Walmart etc) [0]. The punitive nature is a side effect of creating this new authoritarianism. If you could have new authoritarianism more effectively without punitive measures, I'm sure that's what we would see.

0. https://youtu.be/PtTqEV5aWWY

We had a big issue way before the vaccine mandates thanks to the absurdity of right-wing media and right-wing politicians' conspiracy theories. And subsequent pushing of ineffective treatments. There are still people here in the US who believe that ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, z-packs, and steroids will save them if they get it. And they're unvaccinated.

My friend's sibling just died two months ago. Otherwise healthy and everything. Not old. But in a red county with lots of Fox News watchers, so they'd avoided the vaccine. Sad thing is, the rest of the family finally talked them into getting it and they were scheduled but got Covid the week before. Dead a month later.

> We had a big issue way before the vaccine mandates thanks to the absurdity of right-wing media and right-wing politicians' conspiracy theories

Honestly, I feel like the pandemic politics predated all the right wing conspiracy theories emergence. The democrats/progressive left/resisters decision to make Covid the central issue to oust Trump is the more likely genesis. Very early on (Jan/Feb 2020) everything the Trump administration was doing was met with immediate 180 degree resistance from the progressive left and the left-leaning media. Including things they later supported—Travel bans, social distancing suggestions and yes, even the vaccine too.

Before I get accused of being a conservative or a Trumpie…I’m not and far far from it. But…I am not willing to excuse problematic approaches that have negative downstream unintended consequences even if the initial intention may have been positive.

Blaming the right is akin to being mad when the person you punched in the nose decides to fight back. How dare they!

> Before I get accused of being a conservative or a Trumpie…I’m not and far far from it.

Your comment history betrays you.

No it doesn’t. I am a classic liberal and an independent and my comment history reflects that.

Just because I don’t hold the established dogmatic progressive opinions on every topic doesn’t mean I am conservative or supported Trump. Don’t make politics a religion.

In a quick browse last night there was anti-Fauci rhetoric, comments about Marxism cities in California, incorrect information about mask effectiveness and anti-mask sentiments, climate change denial-ism, Covid misinformation, etc. In relation to what we're talking about here:

> I suspect that if this omicron had emerged in 2018 at least with the symptoms and lack of severe disease that we have seen so far…it would likely have been described as a virulent common cold and may have gotten an occasional news mention, but zero public and government panic.

This is so wholly inaccurate, it's beyond the pale. Our average daily death rate from Omicron has already exceeded Delta. Omicron 'seems' milder overall due to the high level of vaccinations which prevent hospitalization and death and decrease transmission. If Omicron came out first, our overall death rate would be far beyond the 870,000 US deaths we've seen so far. And there would have been far more refrigerated morgue trucks at the hospital down the street from me in the initial wave.

Ahh yes, because I am critical of Fauci, masking, and the politicization of the vaccines…all sacred dogma to the left, I am a conservative trumpie.

This smacks of a “believe exactly what my church believes or you are going to hell you evil sinner” Zealotry at its finest.

As for your comments about the deaths attributed to omicron… post some statistics. Because what you are saying here doesn’t jive with what I am reading AND more importantly doesn’t jive with what a lot of countries are doing in regards to Omicron. Most notably and recently being Denmark.

It's not dogma. You post factually incorrect 'opinions' pushed by the right. You think 'cloth masks are useless', while science disagrees. A decently fitted cloth mask is far more effective then nothing, but not as effective as a surgical mask, which is not as effective as as N95. As for the death rates 'doesn’t jive with what I am reading', what the heck are you reading? Even the Fox News owned Wall Street Journal reported on Omicron deaths exceeding Delta [1]. This isn't some surprise or hidden statistic where reputable sources disagree.

The overall lower deaths and hospitalizations due to Omicron are due to the vaccines. Generally, if you're vaccinated and boostered, your case of Omicron is relatively mild. Though not always, as my sister's Father-in-law found out winding up with afib in the hospital. If you're unvaccinated, you're not so lucky. Currently 2,000-3,000 daily deaths in the last 7 days in the US as per the CDC [2]. And that's with ~64% of the US population fully vaccinated. If this happened in 2018 with none of the population vaccinated, no knowledge of the spread or how to prevent it, etc... it would have been very bad.

[1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/omicron-deaths-in-u-s-exceed-de...

[2] https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#cases_totaldeaths

I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that someone who seems to think of politics in black and white terms would glob on to a single quote of mine from a couple of weeks ago, quote only half of it completely out of context to the discussion it was in and then use it to make assumptions about the rest of my political leanings.

For what it’s worth here is the quote in its entirety. If you read the parent thread it was speaking to cloth vs N95 efficacy:

“Personally I think cloth masks are worthless for anything but the most casual exposure to the virus, and then for it to maintain any reasonable protective effect, you would need to remove and dispose of the mask as those luckily trapped virus particles can dislodge and infect. Continuing to wear a cloth mask that has accumulated virus particles in it just turns a chance casual exposure into a long term one.”

Now, explain how that opinion is in conflict with this CDC mask guidance which is less than one week old:

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-si...

Here’s the NYT reporting on the change in CDC masking guidance:

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/14/health/cloth-masks-covid-...

Here is WebMD making the argument against against cloth masks due to their lack of efficacy:

https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20211229/cloth-masks-vs-surg...

Or this lovely gem from the CDC which basically tells me that, because of my choice of facial hair, pretty much all masks short of a space suit are worthless:

https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npptl/pdfs/facialhairwmask11282017...

If you are going to assume my quote about the worthlessness of cloth masks makes me a conservative trumpie, then you better stop listening to the CDC, stop reading the NYT, maybe boycott WebMD for good measure too. Damn right wing organizations, them.

Also not that it matters, but in terms of public figures, my politics are probably closest to Bill Maher. If you think he is conservative or a Trumpie, well…I suspect anyone short of Bernie Sanders or AOC fails your acid test.

Each time you only respond to 1/2 of what I point out. No defense of your climate change comments, conveniently leaving those out of the grandparent reply. No mention here of the fact that you were wrong about Omicron stats and death rates and wouldn't reveal what sources you use that don't 'jive' with the official statistics.

And yes, the NY Times headline "C.D.C. concedes that cloth masks do not protect against the virus as effectively as other masks" is exactly what I just posted above. We know that. We've known that. And I'll post the exact same thing again. A well fitting cloth mask is far better than nothing but less than a surgical mask which is less than an N95. It's not worthless.

Oh my Goodness…You have exposed me. Yes, I am secretly a conservative whose master plan for conservative domination involves voting for zero republicans for the last 4 decades, contributing financially and physically to liberal causes, supporting liberal politicians, railing against intolerant religious bigots for decades, supporting gay marriage and rights years and years before the Democratic Party did, and my public stance against the death penalty while being secretly glad with every criminal that the state executes.

Damn…40 years of undercover work wasted.

Some states tried using positive feedback in the form of lotteries, prizes, or even just paying people to get the vaccine. I don't think those measures were very successful.

Don't forget the worst gimmick - Krispy Kreme donuts - when we know the vast majority of deaths are in the overweight. These are tricks for monkeys. And a reminder how little they think of you. You know what would have worked? Maybe a little honesty. Maybe treating people as adults and not constantly lying to them, from masks, to virus origin, natural immunity, vaccine risks, and especially treatments. People aren't stupid. I know many who were open to the vaccine once who are digging in to protest now.

The problem is that people think they've been lied to when they largely haven't. They've missed all of the nuance because they're looking for absolutes. Science is nuanced and politics is crude. None of those topics you list are dichotomic in nature, yet our political discussions nevertheless dilute them as such.

I remember in 2020 at the very beginning when people started to panic buy toilet papers, I read something about WHO saying masks should not be recommended to general public to avoid shortage for health professionals. They meant well, but what I saw at the time was a lot of media outlets turning this message into how masks are bad, innefective, and using one in public is the equivalent of wearing a tinfoil hat. This lasted less than a month, but I wonder how much this helped with the "the media is lying to us" sentiment.

The same exact thing later happened with vaccines. They were tested to be effective at significantly reducing the severity of illness and death. Public discourse diluted this to "vaccines prevent covid", and then when people got breakthrough cases, some started claiming they "don't work because you can get it anyway".

I haven't heard of paying people to get vaccinated so I search for it and one of it worked a little bit even when it was a measly $24, which doesn't it really cover the time it takes.

https://www.chicagobooth.edu/review/does-paying-people-get-v...

Where did they do it that it failed?

Several US states struggling with vaccination rates paid people $100 to get vaccinated, for example: Louisiana and West Virginia

https://ldh.la.gov/news/SF100-Extended

https://www.wboy.com/news/health/coronavirus/watch-live-wv-g...

Yet, their vaccination rates still largely follow their political predispositions.

I initially thought these plans were a great idea, but I'm not sure that they've been as effective as I hoped.