Betsy McCaughey, If She’s Writing                        She’s Lying

06/14/2024

     The generally prevaricating Betsy McCaughey seldom deviates from form and today’s column is no exception. Her propose, apparently, was to dull our recall of just how shameful Donald Trump’s response to the Covid epidemic truly was in the wake of the Congressional MAGA grilling of Dr. Fauci. Her methodology was a typical and unsurprising GOP “but whaddabout?” approach.

I’ve mentioned the “whaddabout defense” several times in earlier essays, but for any newbies, it refers to the practice of attempting to deflect mention of a screwup or gaffe by mentioning another’s error, frequently unrelated. An example of this might be a MAGA acolyte responding to mention of Trump’s felony conviction with, “Oh yeah? But whaddabout Hunter Biden?

In today’s column Ms. McCaughey homes in on Dr, Fauci’s concession to his inquisitors that there was no scientific data (as in peer reviewed study) to corroborate the commonsense imposition (or really just strong suggestion, as there was no mandate) for strongly recommending social distancing. Ms. McCaughey spins that factoid into a statement implying that it was ineffective and constituted federal overreach. Recommendation, remember?

So where in the world did this idea come from…that staying away from sick persons might be a good idea?

Going back to 1665, we see the realization by some of those who could do so, that distancing oneself from London was a promising idea, since the bubonic plague, which had killed 25% of all Europeans in the 14 century, was back in town. This time around the death toll was somewhat less, about 100,000 in London. Since no preventative or cure was known, those who could, principally the upper classes, distanced themselves from the source.

        One such individual, of whom you may have heard, was Isaac Newton who, in 1665, with plague stalking London, eschewed an advanced degree at Cambridge and returned to his parents’ country home. Had he not practiced social distancing, perhaps someone else would have had to formulate the laws of motion, advanced optics, and refined calculus, all done while he was social distancing.  

          New Orleans was a city of epidemics, and yellow fever was the worst, with outbreaks occurring almost annually after 1825. It was thought to be caused by miasma—humid air acting on filthy, undrained soil. The theory led residents to burn tar and shoot cannons into the air as preventative measures to “purify” it. Another idea, known as importation theory, held that the disease was spread by contact with individuals who came to the city aboard ships and railway systems. This belief led to strong anti-immigrant rhetoric and an insistence that locals were unaffected. In truth, although no one knew it at the time, the transference of infected blood by Mosquitos was a primary factor, but inter-personal exposure was also a problem. Many wealthy New Orleans families went north of Lake Pontchartrain during epidemics, practicing social distancing.

        In the 1918 global epidemic, the spread of flu was slowed by identifying suspicious cases through surveillance and voluntary and/or enforced quarantine or isolation. Because no vaccinations or antivirals were available at the time, these public health initiatives were the only effective weapons against the disease.

        My point? Social distancing was/is not new, and criticizing its recommended use against Covid, which is aerosol and flu-like in transmission (aerosol) as well of the use of masks to minimize spreading was and s sound advice. Those who rail against such measures are a large part of the problem. Those who use the bully pulpit of a syndicated column to derogate such good faith measures are little better than those who refuse to vaccinate their children and send them to school to share their measles, as has happened in Oregon over the past several years