My Thoughts On Social Distancing

#277: New Ideas and Observations
........................
#1.  If you've ever tried to extricate yourself from a prior relationship, you know how the insidious habits of yesterday are best conquered by a simple ban.  Rather than moving from intimacies to 'being friends', it's easier to shut a relationship down.  So, too, with social distancing in a pandemic.  Otherwise, the little tells that indicate friendliness, sharing and caring (touching, breathing the same air, removing a mask to smile, laughing excitedly in close quarters) evince themselves out of habit.

#2.  The odds that everyone will isolate are poor.  It would be a miracle if young people, only just discovering their need for another, can stand to cut all physical contact for a month, let alone what may be a year or more.  This is especially true for the physically fit, susceptible to arguments of relative invincibility (that they may become asymptomatic dangers to their parents and grandparents is not a natural first thought).

#3.  There are financial reasons for failures in social distancing.  Those who find themselves at home--or homeless--without an income, are unlikely to worry too much about keeping their distance.  For example, we forget that widespread bribery is a fact of life in many poorer societies.  A person with a fever, who feels he must feed his family, might offer a bribe to the person scanning temperatures at a factory gate.  Or a person in quarantine, feeling asymptomatic, might claim--and demonstrate--perfect health when offering homemade goods to a vendor.

#4.  What if social ritual determines exposure?  When I meet a friend I often raise my hand and greet them from a distance.  But I'm somewhat standoffish.  Many people shake hands as a matter of course, inhaling each other's breath in the process (the next time you're in a crowd, notice when you breathe).  Or, shaking hands involves a half-embrace with faces less than a foot apart.  Or, friends' hands engage in an elaborate ritual of habitual clasping and release in quick succession.  Or, some people have a 'normal' distance when speaking that is truly different; I've known people who thrive on the intimacy of tête-à-tête communication.

#5.  A definition for those 'droplets' that can spread the virus: If you can smell what a person ate for lunch, or what perfume/cologne they wear, you're too close.

#6.  What if anxiety is partly responsible for susceptibility to the virus?  How else to account for the death of the Wuhan doctor, Li Wenliang, just 34, who courageously resisted the State's interest in hushing up the emerging epidemic.  If anxiety were indeed a factor, extending health care insurance (in this country, not all states are participating in ObamaCare's Medicaid expansion) would be a smart move.

#7.  Perhaps the most troubling possibility is that 'immunity' from the virus may be temporary, with the virus more like the common cold, or like HIV, rather than like the measles.  This could, I suppose, mean that a vaccine is problematic, and the virus would then become more than a pandemic.  Covid could conceivably be a permanent presence, requiring massive social change.  Even so, social distancing will be necessary for the foreseeable future, if not for any other reason than to prevent hospitals from being overwhelmed.

One More 'Outside-The-Envelope' Idea

#276: Biden Could Just Wake Everybody Up
.........................
What if Joe Biden took a step back from his presidential run, and said to himself:

"I'm going to do this the easy way.  Forget the impossible VP pick that everybody's telling me I have to make.  I'll just turn it over to the experts, the leaders in my party.  And since I've said I'm picking a woman, the expert panel's all-female.
  * First, I'll vet possible vice presidents, and whittle the number down to three.
  * Second, I'll ask seven female party leaders to pick one.  I'll ask:
     * Michelle Obama
     * Hillary Clinton
     * Nancy Pelosi
     * Stacey Abrams
     * Michelle Lujan Grisham
     * Sharice Davids
     * Tammy Duckworth
  * I get one of the three choices I'm comfortable with, but I don't get any blow-back.  Instead, I'm underscoring that I listen to female voices, rather than it always being the other way 'round.
  * Four votes is all it takes."

Biden's VP: Harris, Klobuchar, Or...?

#275: Experts' Odds Are 45% / 35% / 20%
...........................
I've already suggested that Biden could put his VP choice up for a vote.  But recently, I saw a poll that identifies Elizabeth Warren as the clear first pick for Democratic voters, which suggests that if Warren weren't Biden's favored choice, he wouldn't agree to such a vote.

So, let's re-examine our choices and see where Biden could conceivably be looking.

Of course vetting must occur, and that could take months, with who knows what turning up.  And since we won't have any of that information, this will be big picture only, but I'll touch all bases.

Kamala Harris -- 45% chance
If one reads the expert opinion (here) and (here), it looks like Harris is the one.
Pluses include racial diversity and relative youth; negatives are a disappointing primary campaign, as well as geography--California already being in the Blue column.  

Amy Klobuchar -- 35% chance
Those same expert opinions both have Klobuchar as the second-most likely.
Pluses include geography (the Midwest is must-win) and her appeal to purple/Red voters; negatives are a reputation for moderation, and an all-White ticket.

Someone Else -- 20% chance
Our experts (above links) have a short list of other possibilities, which we won't all examine here, except to say that Elizabeth Warren would claim some of that 20% (along with former Georgia governor candidate Stacey Abrams, and Michigan governor Gretchen Whitmer).
Pluses for Warren include a strong primary campaign, including her crushing takedown of Mike Bloomberg; negatives are her age (70), her Senate seat (a possible Republican pick up), and her strong, some would say strident, views--not what a VP is usually known for.

Who should Biden pick?  If I'm right that the 2020 election will be all about the Senate (see my previous post making that case), here are the relevant numbers: the president's favorable opinion percentage, minus unfavorable, in states with 2020 senate contests (as of 3/31/20):

Maine: -21
Colorado: -16
Arizona: -8
Iowa: -3
North Carolina: -2
Georgia (x2): -1
Texas: +2
Montana: +5
South Carolina: +7
Mississippi: +7
Nebraska: +7
Kansas: +8
Alaska: +9
Alabama: +15
Tennessee: +16
Kentucky: +22

[Note: The argument for a senate focus is that a healthy majority in that body would allow for a successful presidency--otherwise gridlock and failure].

What the above numbers indicate is that Biden could head in two different directions:
A. Inspiring the faithful
B. Appealing to Red and Purple voters

The first possibility would probably mean Harris (or possibly Warren), while the second would almost certainly mean Klobuchar.

Harris would arguably bring out the potential Democratic vote in traditionally Blue and Purple states; Klobuchar in traditionally Purple and Red.  And where are those senate contests?  According to World Population Review, 1 is Blue (Maine), 4 are Purple (Wisconsin, Iowa, Nebraska and Colorado) and 12 are Red.  Which points, rather obviously, to Biden picking Klobuchar.

Ah, but what if the presidential race were close?  What if Biden needed enthusiastic turnout in big cities like Detroit and Philly, and felt he couldn't take a chance on a large senate majority?  After all, the most easily won senate seats, it would seem, are either Purple or Blue (Maine, Colorado, Arizona, Iowa, North Carolina).  So, if Biden decides to forget about the big win, he can all but write off the ten senate contests in Texas, Montana, etc, and instead hope for unexpected wins in Georgia (2).  All of which points to Harris.

Which way will he go?  A lot may depend on the vetting process.  There's also the mood of the country in the weeks prior to his decision.  A devastated economy, voters rallying 'round the flag, and everyone on edge, may mean a more careful approach that turns out just enough sure votes in urban areas to win.  Or, maybe such an anxious national mood would call for a less dynamic pick that would be easier for middle-of-the-road--and low-information--voters to swallow.