This has gone on for far too long.

To end the pandemic, we need to harness the most powerful force this country has,
not guns, not grit, not “Christian love,”: white social judgment.

It is past time for white people, especially white men, to step forward and do what we are best at:
Treating things we don’t like as a grave moral failure and pressuring everyone to conform.

I have already started. I stay home as much as possible, and when I am invited to dinner, to a work party, or to a wedding reception, I decline in the most judgmental but polite way possible. I treat unmasked social dining with the same attitude as drunk driving.

Because dining indoors is just like driving under the influence. It’s a risk to me, but it’s a greater risk to everyone else. “I’m sorry. I just do not feel comfortable putting some poor waitress in danger so that I can have a night out.”

We absolutely need to stop framing this as an issue of individual risk. That conception makes it sound like something that can be overcome by bravery.

It is not brave to go to the supermarket without a mask. It is reckless. It is putting everyone at risk and spreading a deadly disease.

I had previously been saying “I don’t feel safe …” and while that is true, it reinforces the idea that the biggest concern should be the risk to ourselves.
This is a societal – a global pandemic. My personal safety is not enough. We need to keep everyone safe.

This social pressure needs also to be extended to mask wearing. My parents are uncomfortable wearing masks because they feel generational social pressure not to. We need to reverse that. And fast.

When I have to go into a store and I see someone without a mask, even though I hate talking to strangers, I talk to them. Hostility will not work, they
get defensive, and you never know who will become violent.

I have found, for me, the best approach is petty. “Hey, man, I’m really sorry. Times are tough for all of us. I have an extra mask if you can’t afford one. Here. Take two. God bless you. Merry Christmas. Stay safe.” This is why I carry a box of surgical masks.

That last part is key in my part of the country. It stops them from arguing with me. They rarely actually put the mask on, but they often stammer out a thank you and are visibly embarrassed.

We need to make going without a mask the same kind of social contract breach that white people feel pressured by and love to enforce. We already confront men for parking in the “expecting mother” spots and shout at people who cut in line. We can apply social pressure to masks.

Together we can get through this. Together we can make everyone safer.

© CEphoto, Uwe Aranas

Arguments for relaxing protective measures during the ongoing coronavirus pandemic often center around the idea of “herd immunity.” In the context of the pandemic, at this point, any discussions portraying herd immunity as a solution are either ignorant or deliberate propaganda. Herd immunity is a concept in vaccination where the very small number of individuals who are unable to be vaccinated are protected from the disease by the vast majority who are vaccinated and immune. The virus has nowhere to spread and the vulnerable are unlikely to come in contact with it. However, there is no vaccine for this new coronavirus. The change in context makes this concept inapplicable and misleading. Herd immunity to the coronavirus is propaganda that serves the economic interests of business owners, portraying dangerous risk-taking as a path to safety.

But let us examine this further all the same. The argument goes that we must relax protective measures for the sake of the economy and that by exposing certain individuals to the virus we will achieve herd immunity and the pandemic will end and everything will return to normal. Now there are a number of important things glossed over in that argument! First, there is no proof that contracting COVID-19 confers immunity. There are reports from around the world of individuals who had recovered testing positive at a later date, possibly having been reinfected. That right there should be enough to nullify any argument for this plan of action. But, there is more.

In order for this to be a minimally effective course of action, our society would need to deliberately select the least vulnerable persons to take up public-facing roles in support of the economy. Put another way, the people who are most likely to overcome infection with COVID-19 would need to be the foundation of the immune herd. In the United States, the people most likely to recover from this infection are wealthy well-educated white people in their twenties. They have the best baseline health and the best outcomes. But, of course, if the government forced wealthy white folks into service roles for the good of the economy, there would be an uproar about the Constitution and civil liberties. Instead, as protective measures are relaxed, the people forced to risk exposure to the virus are those who are most vulnerable to suffering the worst effects: the poorest, most vulnerable Americans with the least ability to access and afford medical care. The result will not be anything like “herd immunity,” but rather suffering and death among our poorest neighbors.

Finally, it needs to be restated that the long-term effects of this novel coronavirus disease are unknown. There are viruses like herpes and chickenpox which can lie dormant and then reemerge. There has been no research to prove that is not the case here. Again, we do not know that infection and recovery grants immunity. If there is immunity, we do not know how long it lasts. And we do not know the full aftereffects of this illness. Our hospitals are overwhelmed treating the currently ill. There is no capacity for studying those who have recovered. There are reports of stroke, lung damage, heart problems, immunodeficiency even after a person has recovered from the primary coronavirus illness. The reports of the lasting ill-health of those who have recovered from COVID-19 are so bad that the United States military has banned anyone treated for it from enlisting.

Herd immunity is not a strategy for economic recovery from the pandemic. It is a lie conceived to coerce desperate people into risking their health and their lives for the benefit and convenience of those fortunate enough to have the resources to stay safe at home.

This morning, at 5:55AM Eastern, the President of the United States announced via Twitter that transgender persons will be banned from serving in the armed forces in any capacity. Two things happened immediately thereafter. First, his opponents immediately expressed outrage and dismay at this attack on the rights of a vulnerable group of people. And second, many of his opponents set to arguing among themselves about whether and to what degree this transgender ban was a distraction from the current effort of the United States Senate to fund a taxcut to the wealthiest Americans by slashing healthcare benefits and subsidies to the poorest.

It is a distraction in that it has altered both the media and public discourse to include transgender rights rather than a laser focus on healthcare, and has encouraged infighting among the president’s opponent’s about this issue’s relative importance. However, to call it JUST a distraction is short-sighted. When people say that this or that is “just a distraction” they often mean that it’s “not important to me personally.”

One of the keys to following this presidency is the understanding that nearly everything he says and does is a distraction but also that nothing is. What I mean by that is this: the president and his administration can offer up multiple controversial policies with minimal effort, and if any of them succeed that one will be declared the most important and celebrated as a triumph.

As a political strategy it has the potential to be very effective. It can split the opposition into camps fighting each other about what issues are worthy of focus. It can overwhelm those who are already despairing into feeling that there is too much and nothing can be done. It can goad the opposition to rapidly shifting focus and eroding follow through on prior efforts.

However, what the administration’s strategy offers in breadth it lacks in depth. It’s true that none of us can do everything at once, but all of us can do at least two things. Most of these statements from the president are mere statements and have no orders or legislation behind them. Opposition can be emphatically voiced while work continues on other topics. One effective way to oppose this type of strategy is for each of us to pick two topics to focus our efforts. The first should be some major piece of legislation or policy currently considered by Congress, whether the budget, healthcare, or immigration. The second should be whatever issue is most important to you in your own life or is an immediate concern. Call or write to your Congressional Delegation about each of these. Express your personal connection. Voice your opinion. Avoid arguing with others about what’s most important, they have their own assignments. Focus on what you can do, and do that.

The incoming President of the United States had this to say at the close of 2016:

Happy New Year to all, including to my many enemies and those who have fought me and lost so badly they just don’t know what to do. Love!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 31, 2016

“Happy New Year to all, including to my many enemies and those who have fought me and lost so badly they just don’t know what to do. Love!”

Previous presidents, even divisive figures like Barack Obama and George W. Bush have consistently presented themselves as representing all Americans.  Once the votes are counted, the president has been above the fray; there are no supporters or opponents, only fellow Americans.

This statement may at first seem like an informal off-the-cuff statement not to be taken seriously.  The “just a joke” or “sarcasm” defense has been a common one throughout his campaign. But that defense doesn’t hold water:  Spokespersons for the administration have made clear that tweets will represent official policy.

Richard Nixon kept a list of enemies, but that was a secret – and a scandal. The United States will have a president who publicly holds some number of citizens apart as his enemies. It’s not even the first time the subject has come up.  Before the election, his former reality television co-star and Director of African American Outreach described the president elect as having a long memory and keeping a list of enemies to the Independent Journal Review.

Who are these enemies?  He doesn’t say specifically, but “my many enemies” makes it very clear that he is discussing personal enemies, not the “enemies of freedom” or the “enemies of America” often discussed by George W. Bush. He goes on to address “those who have fought against me and lost.”  The only ones who have “fought against him” are political opponents and those who have campaigned against his agenda.  Prior presidents have stood against those who oppose the American way of life.  This one openly counts Americans and those who speak against him as enemies. In doing so, he, himself, opposes the American way of life.