Other Covid Legacies

 I seem to be surrounded by Covid pessimism at the moment. We just returned to the US from Portugal, where cases are currently among the highest per capita in the world and where the authorities are gradually imposing more and more restrictions in an attempt to keep hospitals from overflowing.

 

Both in Portugal and in the US, this seems to be a time for a drumbeat of tough Covid messaging. The new US administration wants to demonstrate its seriousness. As the first vaccines are rolled out, both countries want to avoid any premature declaration of victory that might make people lose their discipline.

 

Business owners in affected segments have been holding on in the hope of brighter days ahead, and now wonder again if they can survive long enough to see them. Meanwhile, the perpetual Trump clickbait seems to have been replaced in the short term by lots of marginally fake news about vaccines. The web is full of discussion about which vaccine is better, horror stories about the fates of some early recipients and doom and gloom about authorities messing up their roll out plans.

 

I find all this overblown. Surely, unless we are scientists we should just accept that they are all good enough for us if a reputable body is prepared to inject it into our bloodstreams? Programmes like this are bound to have teething troubles as they ramp up a smooth operation. And scare stories about vaccine safety based on one or two cases are just irresponsible.

 

In the rich world, I believe all this fuss will be behind us quite quickly, and as soon as April it should be quite easy to get vaccinated. The Johnson and Johnson vaccine is close to approval, and having four, or even more, Western vaccines in production should remove the supply bottlenecks quickly, just as logistics ones have been solved.

 

Yes, there are still tough months ahead and we should maintain discipline. Yes, for some businesses this will mean the end. Yes, there will be plenty more setbacks. But overall we can be more optimistic, because the vaccines are coming, and I believe coming quickly.

 

By April, in rich countries we will have transitioned into a new phase. Most vulnerable people will have been vaccinated. Excess deaths will start trending downwards quickly. Businesses will be clamouring for restrictions to be lifted. Airlines and other pressure groups and governments dependent on tourism will join the chorus. And those of us who will have been vaccinated will not want to listen anymore, fatigued of deprivation and ready to party.

 

Yes, I’ll happily wear a mask in crowded places. Yes, I’ll avoid venues with poor ventilation. Yes, I’ll avoid crowded homes. But, with common sense, I will want to party, and so will most others.

 

So the question becomes how authorities react to this new phase. There is plenty of pent-up demand from the public, supported by demand from businesses. The health risk will still exist but be much lower. Should they introduce new constraints, or vaccine passports, or just allow people to use their own judgement?

 

I feel vaccine passports would be difficult in practice, except perhaps in situations like international flights. It is hardly fair to issue passports to some while others don’t yet have access to a vaccine. And do antibodies in those who have recovered count the same as a vaccine, given that the level of protection seems to be similar. And for how long should these passports be valid?

 

In practice I think most of the rich world will quickly evolve into a Swedish type model, with plenty of communication about risks, plenty of encouragement to be vaccinated, activities with very large crowds discouraged, but otherwise reliance on our own common sense. I think we will reach that stage around May 1, much sooner than the general mood currently indicates.

 

I am also optimistic about many of the lingering legacies of the pandemic. The costs have been huge, most notably for those with family members who have died, but there are reasons to believe some lessons will be learned.

 

For me the main lesson will be about how we treat our personal health. I am lucky that I am rarely sick, but I think I will be sick even less often in the future. That is because I understand so much more now about personal hygiene and health risks.

 

My habit of hand washing will become less obsessive after the pandemic, but I will wash more hands more often and more carefully than I did before 2019. I’ll be especially vigilant when entering crowded spaces like the subway or a theatre or airport terminal, probably choosing to wear a mask and certainly sanitising my hands more and avoiding touching nose and mouth. If I am sick I will try harder not to infect others and I’ll be wary of others who appear sick.

 

It makes sense that flu statistics are way down this winter, and I suspect they will be way down next year and in following years too, and the same will be true of other diseases that personal hygiene can impact.

 

There will be other positive legacies from this time. Education will be a stronger mix of online, remote and in-person tuition. Healthcare will benefit in the same way. Administrative work will find a happy balance between co-location in offices and working remotely at home. The balance will vary according to the need of the business and the preference of the individual, and all parties will benefit, even those of us trying to use roads or subways at busy times.

 

I am less optimistic about more fundamental changes, because memories can be short. We all cheered health workers by banging pans on our balconies last spring, but that is not likely to translate into better pay for those same workers once things have returned to normal. We can wish for less inequality and be made aware of people reliant on food banks, but such concerns will probably be overtaken by selfish priorities quite quickly.

 

In the same way, we can promise never again to lose touch with loved ones, and to remember to count the blessings of movement and culture and family, even to think of our neighbours, but such promises will probably be soon forgotten once life returns to normal. Heck, it won’t be long before people will be happy to vote for populist incompetents again.

 

Some changes will be subject to waves. The pandemic has opened our eyes to the stresses of a city life and the benefits of lower rents and easier commutes farther away from population centres. That will rebalance rents for a time, but then there will be a wave in the opposite direction, when youngsters will crave the excitement of city life once again. Don’t take predictions of the end of cities or theatre or tourism too seriously, people and markets will find ways to make a comeback before too long.

 

But before any of these good or bad things can happen, we have to get through this winter and wait for the vaccination programmes to gather momentum. For people in developing or poor or badly run countries, the wait might be longer. But I am optimistic for May, or even April, to see the start of the rebound in rich countries. And then the parties will be legendary – in a cautious way of course.

The Mob, C'est Moi

 The Economist included a neat short essay this week about mobs. It included some ancient history, starting with the ancient Greeks and moving through the French and American revolutions. One basic message was that it is too easy for us to become complacent about mobs and the dangers they pose.

 

We should always start and end at a personal level. When we watch the ugly scenes at the US Capitol, our first tendency is to label the perpetrators as people not like us. Surely I could never do anything so reprehensible?

 

Indeed, I can’t see myself in a MAGA hat or supporting QAnon. I could not join that mob. But it is sobering to realise that there are other mobs I could easily join. The Trump crowd like to conflate their insurrection with the BLM protests during 2019. Their argument in terms of the cause is threadbare, but in terms of the mob behaviour, they have a point. Protests in Portland and elsewhere did turn violent and threatening. There were several Sunday mornings we drove through Manhattan to observe the after-effects of destructive riots.

 

Ah, we say, complacently, that misses the point. Even if we proclaim that violence is not acceptable, even when history shows that violence against blacks has been ever-present and that only violence has led to change, we should recognise that the violence was only committed by a tiny minority in what were otherwise peaceful protests, that the police and infiltrators were probably inciting it, and that tiny minority could never include me.

 

Well, I confess, actually it could. I did not join any BLM protest in 2019 (I wish I had), but if I had, I might have joined in the violence. I reach this conclusion based on experiences from my past.

 

The nearest parallel for me was regularly attending live soccer matches at West Ham, a poor suburb on East London, during the 1980’s. I always chose to join the crowd standing in the cheap part of the ground behind the goal, not to save money and certainly not for the view (I always prayed the action was at my end, because I sure could not see much at the other end), but for the atmosphere. We chanted, we swayed, and we reached peaks of ecstasy and anger. We belonged to the tribe.

 

As an experience, it was wonderful. But looking back on it, I very easily became part of a mob, and could easily have been swept into reprehensible mob behaviour. Hurling racist and hurtful chants at opposition players and referees was bad enough, but often after the game the crowd on Green Street would swell and become threatening, and I could easily have joined in. It does not take a lot to become part of a mob – a situation, some adrenaline, and a desire to belong to a tribe.

 

A sports crowd is the nearest parallel, but others come close. I could too easily become a bully at school, and perhaps in adulthood too at work. That is not crowd violence, but it has many similarities. When we sit on our intellectual high horses, we should all remember our most tribal moments.

 

Going back to the more comfortable arena of The Economist, risk of mob rule has long been seen as the dark side of democracy. Democracy offers some power to the people, indeed it demands that the people to an active role. What if the people do not do a good job? What if our majoritarian, angry, mob tendencies come to the fore?

 

Our attitude to this dilemma often comes down to whether we have an optimistic or pessimistic tendency. Optimists tend to believe that our better natures, combined with improving education and knowledge and fair institutions, will avoid bad outcomes most of the time, and enable the fastest rate of progress. Pessimists argue for more controls, either because they fear the risks of mob rule, or they don’t trust themselves or (more often) others to get things right, preferring instead to rely on elites (often people like them).

 

I have always been an optimist in this question. For me, progress is the most important thing, so maximising creative potential and education is more important than avoiding risking control. I see the balance as a race, with education and technology and communication constantly raising the bar, usually fast enough to smother the downside risks. Even the rapid rise of China has not changed my fundamental philosophy, impressive though that rise has been and seems set to continue.

 

But those risks are present, and perhaps now are growing too quickly for education to outpace them. Communication allows for diversity and learning, but also for fear and tribalism, gives a ready voice to populists and plenty of ammunition and airtime to conspiracy theorists and resentments. And three quarters of a century without war might have led us into entitlement and complacency. We should cheer that many of the old control valves have been displaced – religion, class and national propaganda don’t work as reliably as they once did. But it does create more potential virality for mobs. We have to learn how to dampen these risks, especially the new media landscape.

 

However, The Economist makes another excellent point. Social media and rapid communication can form a breeding ground for mobs, but a well-run democracy can usually stop the mob at source by generating a positive narrative of its own, based on fair, incremental progress. And this narrative has become weaker since around 1980.

 

We can argue that Reagan and Thatcher started a process that led to the capture of US and UK democracies by a rent-seeking elite, one that has only becoming greedier over time. When one faction loses all pretence of seeking incremental fair progress, it is no wonder that the institutions start to break down and eventually that this faction itself can be captured by fanatics.

 

If this analysis is even partly correct, the dominant priority of democrats everywhere has to be to restore its commitment to fair, incremental progress. That would involve renewed focus on education, a more progressive stance on taxation, and a leg up for those people and places left behind. There is scope to debate the balance between a more socialist stance and a traditional conservative one emphasising reward for endeavour. But when much of the debate is swallowed by bigotry and resentment as a masquerade behind greed and rent seeking, we cannot be surprised if the result is an unleashed mob.

 

The Economist concludes its essay with an uncharacteristically blunt statement that democratic naivety died on January 6^thin Washington. It calls for a more sophisticated democracy, defending institutions and respecting the imperative to deliver fair progress. I found this a compelling message. I am as susceptible to joining a mob as anybody else. We need to collectively remember how to nurture our better instincts, and quickly.

At last a possible Epiphany

 The momentous events in Washington on Wednesday had a chilling effect on me, even safely distanced in Portugal. We can be shocked. We can be saddened. But I find it hard to understand how anybody could be surprised. A poison has been at work in the body of USA politics, in plain view. And, like many poisons, the only way to eliminate its power is to wait until it strikes and be ready with an antidote.

 

As so often, Nancy Pelosi said it best with her reference to the day as a possible epiphany. She cleverly drops references to her Catholic faith into her speech, not in a proselytising or grandstanding way like Pence or Pompeo, but gently signalling her belief. January 6^this the Christian feast of the Three Kings or Epiphany, and that word has come into everyday language to mean a moment when you suddenly feel that you understand, or suddenly becomeconscious of, something that is very important to you. If things turn out well, we could well look back on the riot of Washington in precisely those terms.

 

I applaud the Democrats for having been so patient. Attack a poison like this too early and too aggressively and it only becomes stronger. Pelosi did not want to impeach Trump and only did it when his actions became too egregious to overlook. Throughout the 2020 drumbeat of undermining trust in a fair election, and the subsequent “stop the steal” movement, I have often become frustrated at the lack of any fighting back. But they understood, and remained disciplined. Deny the conspiracy, seek to punish its perpetrators, and it only grows, and creates martyrs in its wake.

 

Instead, the affected parties have to see the poison for what it is themselves for it to lose its potency, and that is why Wednesday was a potential epiphany. Congratulations, Joe and Chuck and Nancy, you showed far more patience than I would have been able to muster, and you deserve your reward.

 

But will this prove a true epiphany, and will the reward be forthcoming? That depends on the actions of various parties over the coming months.

 

Perhaps of even more lasting significance than the insurrection this week were the senate elections in Georgia, which offer the Biden team a short window to legislate. At the least, that will stop McConnell blocking the most obvious beneficial steps. We can expect the holding hostage of states and cities to stop, so perhaps there can be an effective New York subway system after the pandemic. Probably the most lasting impact will be the climate change agenda, so John Kerry might have a true, satisfying job to do now.

 

Biden is smart enough not to try too much else. Stephen Breyer can safely retire from the Supreme Court, but trying to pack it would surely backfire. Perhaps there will be space and time to build back Obamacare with some improvements over the original. The old chestnut of infrastructure can be enacted, with obvious links to the climate change plan. We can expect a strengthening of DACA, but still no comprehensive immigration reform, and little gun control or police reform either. Biden will not want to create hostages to his fortunes in the 2022 midterms.

 

So Biden’s actions are relatively predictable, and so are Trump’s. He is still playing a long game, with an eye to re-election in 2024. After the setback of this week, he will use his notoriety to build back his cult, and surely will be as effective as ever in generating publicity. Some will be lost to him after the epiphany, but many will return, so long as the conspiracy theories are still out there and the Democrats effectively targeted as hate figures. We should not expect the events of this week to kill the poison, only to delay and weaken it.

 

My guess is that the Democrats will use the moment created by this week to maintain an attack, but then to revert to caution. There will be lawsuits, but there will still be Trump, his health permitting.

 

I believe we need to look closely at the actions of two other groups, for both of whom this week may be a turning point.

 

The first of these is Rupert Murdoch. How will the uncomfortable marriage between Donald Trump and Fox News evolve? It was already strained before the election. Fox is facing a changed media environment, Murdoch is trying to protect his legacy and hand over to his family, and Murdoch will not let his own brand become too wedded to Trump’s. Trump himself will try to cash in on his brand value, perhaps with his own TV channel.

 

Trump’s brand would look very different without Fox News. He has alternative outlets, but further from the mainstream. With Fox, he can aim for fifty million moderately obsessed fans, without it maybe ten million more extreme ones. The first scenario feels like material for a new presidential run, the second more like a dangerous outsider group. In the end it will be Rupert Murdoch’s decision.

 

The second group are mainstream Republicans, epitomised by Mitch McConnell. We can characterise McConnell as spineless over the last four years, but in reality his options have been limited. It is credible to take the opposite view and assess his performance as deft – after all, there has been no nuclear war and the constitution has largely held up, while the business elite that is his true constituency has prospered under Trump.

 

But this was always a fraught path, and McConnell knows this as well as anybody. His own performance on Wednesday, rather statesmanlike, is interesting. With two or four years to rebuild and Trump’s brand wounded, he may want to rebuild his party around another direction.

 

McConnell knows also that he is playing a dangerous game trying to mount a coup. As has been the case for the last four years, anybody attempting a coup is dead meat unless the coup succeeds, and the odds of success have so far been small. No we face a moment of opportunity. Will he grasp it?

 

I don’t think so. McConnell is inherently cautious. His own following among politicians is wafer-thin and among the public even less so. The new congressional caucus will be more pro-Trump than the outgoing one. And what alternative platform does he have? Traditional Republicanism is pretty well bankrupt.

 

On balance, I am sticking to my prediction from November. Trump will learn from Wednesday and promote a less extreme path for a time. The Democrats will return to caution. Trump may start is own media outlet, but he will realise he still needs Murdoch and Fox will largely stay in his stable. McConnell will observe this and there will be no party coup. The events of this week will recede into the background. The poison will emerge more strongly than ever, and will have a credible chance of regaining power in 2024, reverting to bleating about immigrants, China and Biden’s perceived weakness.

 

I’m sorry that this is not an optimistic projection to start a new year, or even to duly recognise the feast of Epiphany. I hope I am proved wrong.