[teejers1]

Growing concerns ... isn't it reasonable to assume that as the pandemic advances, it will affect urban more than rural populations? Which will reinforce political divisions? And pull the country even further apart?

Seems like rural vs. urban can easily become "pandemic was over-hyped" vs. "reopening too soon was dangerous and irresponsible." And, to make matters much worse, the respective facts in both cases will reinforce their radically different sense of what actually happened. Hospitals struggling in cities, normal in local towns, and all that.

As I write this, April 18, it seems like we can see the politics dividing the same way. Republican governors are the last to close down and the first to open up, and Dems vice-versa. The White House wants to reopen, the opposition calls that dangerous and irresponsible. Trump incites protests (literally, his LIBERATE tweets yesterday) in closed states run by Democratic governors.

And the built-in divides resonate. Fox News pushes reopening soon, while MSNBC pushes staying shut down, and so forth.

And, looking ahead, it seems like there will be ample facts to support both sides. And we, as a nation, become more two different countries at war with each other.

My questions:

1. Does this seem like a reasonable guess?
   
2. If so, is it inevitable?
   
3. How does this impact government now, for the November elections, and beyond?
   

I fear you are right about the political divide, with red governors focusing solely on opening up to boost economy/Trump, and blue governors leaning the other way (having no interest in boosting Trump).  But as someone here said, maybe let the R governors open up (see Florida photo) and hope for virus wildfire.  

I actually think the divide will magnify the haves and have-nots.  Yeah, rich people can be old and in bad health, but they also have more resources to make up for those deficiencies.  Not so the poor.

All I know is (i) you can't recklessly jump the gun on SiP; and (ii) you can't SiP until vaccine is made on mass scale (assuming that takes 1-2 years).  There will be forays that are "successful," (manageable increase in cases) and others that are not and will be short-lived.  That is my guess.

And I'm actually okay with that - particularly because everyone is learning on the fly.

[teejers1]

Growing concerns ... isn't it reasonable to assume that as the pandemic advances, it will affect urban more than rural populations? Which will reinforce political divisions? And pull the country even further apart?

Seems like rural vs. urban can easily become "pandemic was over-hyped" vs. "reopening too soon was dangerous and irresponsible." And, to make matters much worse, the respective facts in both cases will reinforce their radically different sense of what actually happened. Hospitals struggling in cities, normal in local towns, and all that.

As I write this, April 18, it seems like we can see the politics dividing the same way. Republican governors are the last to close down and the first to open up, and Dems vice-versa. The White House wants to reopen, the opposition calls that dangerous and irresponsible. Trump incites protests (literally, his LIBERATE tweets yesterday) in closed states run by Democratic governors.

And the built-in divides resonate. Fox News pushes reopening soon, while MSNBC pushes staying shut down, and so forth.

And, looking ahead, it seems like there will be ample facts to support both sides. And we, as a nation, become more two different countries at war with each other.

My questions:

1. Does this seem like a reasonable guess?
   
2. If so, is it inevitable?
   
3. How does this impact government now, for the November elections, and beyond?
   

I fear you are right about the political divide, with red governors focusing solely on opening up to boost economy/Trump, and blue governors leaning the other way (having no interest in boosting Trump).  But as someone here said, maybe let the R governors open up (see Florida photo) and hope for virus wildfire.  

I actually think the divide will magnify the haves and have-nots.  Yeah, rich people can be old and in bad health, but they also have more resources to make up for those deficiencies.  Not so the poor.

All I know is (i) you can't recklessly jump the gun on SiP; and (ii) you can't SiP until vaccine is made on mass scale (assuming that takes 1-2 years).  There will be forays that are "successful," (manageable increase in cases) and others that are not and will be short-lived.  That is my guess.

And I'm actually okay with that - particularly because everyone is learning on the fly.