More COVID fake news in the NY Times -- Party affiliations determine pandemic concerns

Last update: Tuesday 2/1/22

People used to say that reasonable minds could disagree. Nowadays too many of us seem to have forgotten that we can't have reasonable disagreements unless each of us really tries to see the rationality in the other's positions. So today's tale of fake news at the NY Times is a recent article by David Leonhardt, one of its best reporters, an article that interprets some unexpected findings from a NY Times survey of people's concerns about the pandemic.

Here's a link to David Leonhardt's article:

• "Good morning. We walk through the results of the first Morning newsletter poll — on pandemic attitudes.", David Leonhardt, NY Times, 1/25/22 

His article merits close examination because it provides an excellent example of mainstream media's fundamental dogma that anyone who disagrees with mainstream media's interpretations of the facts is irrational. 

Most people lament the ever widening political divisions within our society. Given that mainstream media is predominantly liberal/progressive, its dogmatic interpretations of the facts alienate conservatives, thereby contributing to these widening divisions. On the other hand, conservative media's repetitions and amplifications of blatant lies are far more divisive. Therefore toning down the dogmatic condescension of mainstream media's interpretations of the facts is our best hope.

The following paragraphs consider three of the survey's findings. Each finding is followed by Leonhardt's interpretation that the finding was unexpected because it was unreasonable. Then the editor of this blog offers an alternative interpretation that suggests that the finding should have been expected because it was reasonable.

1. Worry about getting sick from Covid-19 

• Findings
  According to Leonhardt: "Old and young people express similar concern about their personal risk from Covid. By some measures, young people are actually more worried"

• Leonhardt's interpretation
  According to Leonhardt: "The most plausible explanation for this pattern is political ideology. Older Americans, as a group, currently lean to the right, while younger generations lean to the left. And no other factor influences Covid attitudes as strongly as political ideology, the poll shows."
  
  
• An alternative interpretation
  The table clearly shows that the responses of all four age groups were about the same.
  
  The first column shows that about 20% of all four age groups were "Very" concerned, with the youngest group being 23%, a little bit above 20%, and the oldest group being 17%, a little bit below 20%. 
  
  -- For example, some young people have frequent contact with older relatives, e.g, they may have older relatives living in their homes. This will make them very concerned about getting sick because they don't want to spread the virus to their vulnerable loved ones
  
  -- The oldest groups in our society are also the most highly vaccinated. Given all the hype about the effectiveness of our vaccines and the high priority given to vaccinating our oldest group, is it really surprising that a slightly smaller share of our oldest group might not be as "Very" worried about the virus as other age groups?
  
  The last column shows that about 14% of all groups were "Not at all" concerned about getting sick, with the oldest group being a little bit lower at 10%. 
  
  -- Indeed, the same explanation offered for the first column applies here. The oldest group in our society are also the most highly vaccinated. Is it really surprising that a slightly smaller share of this oldest group might be "Not at all" worried about the virus as other age groups?
  

2. Huge partisan gap

• Findings
  According to Leonhardt: "Many Democrats say that they feel unsafe in their communities; are worried about getting sick from Covid; and believe the virus poses a significant risk to their children, parents and friends. Republicans are less worried about each of these issues."

• Leonhardt's interpretation
  According to Leonhardt: "Who’s right? There is no one answer to that question, because different people have different attitudes toward risk. An acceptable risk to one person (driving in a snowstorm, say, or swimming in the ocean) may be unacceptable to another. Neither is necessarily wrong. But the poll results suggest that Americans have adopted at least some irrational beliefs about Covid. In our highly polarized country, many people seem to be allowing partisanship to influence their beliefs and sometimes to overwhelm scientific evidence."

• An alternative interpretation
  Before addressing Leonhardt's charge of "irrational beliefs" we need to acknowledge the clusters of personal values and interests that influence a person's decision to vote for one party's candidates over the other's. Most democratic countries have three or more major parties; ours only has two. This requires that both of our parties become "big tents" that cover a wide range of values and preferences. 
  
  The GOP usually captures the support of voters whose personal values and preferences include a) "libertarians" =  free markets, low taxes, few regulations, minimal government ... and b) "pro-business" = low taxes, anti-union, high tariffs, deregulation ... and c) "religious right" = pro-life  and anti-LGBTQ ... and d) pro gun rights.  Libertarians and pro-business voters tend to express more risk tolerance and greater confidence that they can "make it" in the world with little or no government support or regulation. Being more risk tolerant, these GOP voters will be more likely to continue their normal behavior in the face of Omicron
  
  The Democratic Party's tent is wider than the GOP's because it covers a wider range of values and preferences. Most Democratic voters endorse most of these issues, but different voters may assign different priorities to each issue. Here's an abbreviated list of issues cited in some Democratic party campaigns: a) pro-choice b) pro gun control  c) pro-union d) pro diversity, equity, and inclusion policies that benefit women, racial minorities, and LGBTQ  e) pro affordable health care and e) pro government regulation.
  
  The members of these overlapping clusters tend to be more risk averse than GOP supporters, perhaps because they don't feel as confident that they can make it on their own in the face of the nation's systemic impediments to success and satisfaction. Being more risk averse, Democratic voters will be more likely to change their normal behavior in the face of Omicron to behavior that they believe will entail lower risk.
  
  The point of this discussion is simple: When Leonhardt proclaims that "In our highly polarized country, many people seem to be allowing partisanship to influence their beliefs", he's the one who is being irrational because people's beliefs, i.e., their values and preferences, determine their party affiliations. If a major party changes its platform too much, some people will switch their affiliations to the other party, while others will declare that they have become "independent". If they move to another country they will affiliate with the party that best articulates their values and preferences.
  
  

3. Children getting sick in school

• Findings
  The survey found (graphs not shown here) that Democrats and Republican are more or less equally concerned that remote learning is causing children to fall behind. But strong disagreement occurred with regards to whether in-school learning should be replaced by remote learning in order to avoid the occurrence of infections in school. 
  
  
  
• Leonhardt's interpretation
  According to Leonhardt: "Many Democrats are effectively dismissing these costs and instead focusing on the minuscule risks of Covid hospitalization or long Covid among children. Most Democrats, for example, say they favor moving classes online in response to Omicron, despite widespread evidence that remote school has failed and little evidence that shutting schools leads to fewer Covid cases. Closed schools almost certainly do more damage to children and vaccinated adults than Omicron does."
  
  
• An alternative interpretation
  If Democrats, on average, are more risk averse than Republicans, their calculus will involve minimizing regret. The survey found that they agreed with Republicans that remote learning was causing their children to fall behind. Let's also assume that they know that their children are at very low risk of becoming severely ill or dying if they become infected while attending in-person classes. 
  
  As much as their children falling behind upsets them, this upset pales into insignificance when compared to the profound regret they will feel if their children become severely ill or die from infection that occurs while attending in-person classes, no matter how unlikely these worst case outcomes were estimated to be. Therefore as rational decision makers, they minimize their expected regret by keeping their children home and making every possible effort to limit their children's contact with people outside their home.
  

Narrowing our political divisions

As noted in the introduction to this blog note and as illustrated by its subsequent examination of Leonhardt's NY Times article, conservative media's tendency to distort the facts is matched by liberal/progressive media's tendency to assert dogmatic interpretations of the facts, interpretations that could be challenged by reasonable minds. Each repels the holders of the other political persuasion thereby widening our political divisions. 

As the nation's primary gatekeepers to the lion's share of the facts about the pandemic, our mainstream media might entice larger readership among conservatives if they imposed a stricter separation of their reporting of the facts from their interpretations of the facts. Conservatives could then read the facts and ignore the liberal/progressive interpretations. Discussions between these political communities would become more civil and more productive because they would be based on a shared body of facts.

_____________________________

Links to related notes on this blog:

• "COVID fake news in the NY Times -- Missing the forest for the trees", Last update: 1/24/22