Recipe for civil war

In the USA, the pandemic is a politically polarizing event. A major reason for this is that most majors, governors, and public health officials have pursued a containment strategy. On that view the primary threat is the "exponential" infection rate of the virus. So the solution is social distancing, in the form of lockdowns, curfews, face masks, &c. 

If you agree with that, then you view people who don't practical social distancing as a threat to public health and safety. These people are dangerous. 

This gives politicians and public officials an opportunity to play the role of saviors. They wish to be seen as spearheading the deliverance of the population from the pandemic. It's very flattering to cast yourself in the role of a savior for your people.

In addition, lots of citizens want to feel that they are part of a noble cause. So supporting the social distancing protocols makes them feel virtuous. This is their civic duty. They are loyal agents of the common good. They have no patience with dissenters. 

Now it's possible that, at least considered in isolation, the containment police is the best response to the pandemic. And many Americans were initially compliant with that. But it's begun to break down for two reasons:

i) It has catastrophic economic side-effects.

ii) Especially Democrat officials have been fanatical and fascist about the scope of social distancing, viz. using aerial drones to spy on citizens who go for walks or play catch in the backyard. 

But another problem is the suffocating one-sidedness of the message. There's another strategy that operates from the opposite assumption: herd immunity. On that view we shouldn't inhibit the infection rate. Rather, we should let the virus naturally spread and run its course since that's the way for the population to acquire herd immunity. A containment policy is counterproductive. It means the virus will probably come roaring back for a second round because not enough of the population was allowed to develop antibodies. 

The objective of the containment policy is to minimize the infection rate while the objective of the herd immunity policy is to maximize the infection rate. 

Now, I don't have a professional opinion on whether the herd immunity strategy is a better policy, although it doesn't have the devastating economical consequences. To some extent the herd immunity strategy is currently being put to the test in some Scandinavian countries. We'll see the comparative results in a while. Of course, other variables like population density are germane.

But my immediate point is that if you operate with a herd immunity model, then you don't view those who refrain from social distancing as a threat to the common good or traitors to the community. 

So much of the current political polarization is due to one-sided indoctrination in a particular model of how to combat the pandemic. Many Americans are dogmatically convinced that containment is our only hope. If you buck the system, you're the enemy. 

Now it may well be the case that disillusionment with public health officials will settle in after the crisis passes, due to the progressive downgrading of the worst-case scenarios. The "experts" will lose credibility. That's both good and bad since the experts are not monolithic, and some have given better advice than others.