(Bloomberg Opinion) — Just days before the U.S. election, speculation is rife as to whether a Joe Biden victory might herald a big leftward shift, or what kind of chaos a second term for President Donald Trump would bring. The immediate task for either president, however, is likely to be more mundane and less ideological — and guaranteed to displease most Americans.
The issue that is likely to dominate political discussion for some while, even before Jan. 20, is how to handle and distribute new coronavirus treatments. These debates will be all the more pressing because it now appears that winter will bring a big uptick in cases, hospitalizations and, unfortunately, deaths.
There is now growing evidence in favor of the AstraZeneca vaccine, and even some talk of it being available in the U.K. as early as November. Should this same vaccine be rush-approved for use in the U.S.?
Note that on vaccine issues, American public opinion does not map neatly along a simple left/right axis. There are plenty of vaccine skeptics (and advocates) on both sides of the political spectrum, so neither Trump nor Biden can expect their usual allies on this issue.
And who should get the vaccine first? The elderly are more vulnerable, but the young are more likely to spread Covid-19. Some recent results suggest it would be better to vaccinate the young first, but that is less politically likely. Again, it is easy to see potential conflicts over this question, cutting across traditional party lines.
An even more complex problem would arise if one good vaccine is available but other, possibly better, vaccines are imminent. Does everyone get the “good enough” vaccine, disrupting the ability to conduct clinical trials to see if the other vaccines are better? How much patience do Americans have, really?
Americans would probably resent having to wait. But if they end up choosing a lesser quality vaccine, over the long run they might be unhappier yet. It is not clear the U.S. public health bureaucracy is up to the task of approving one vaccine and restructuring the other trials (possibly by paying participants more to stay in, or by shifting to other countries for data) so they can continue.
The issues don’t get any easier if you consider therapeutics such as monoclonal antibodies. Likely they have efficacy, but recent evidence shows they cannot be given too late in the course of treatment. In other words, you cannot wait to see which patients are faring badly and then treat them. At the same time, monoclonal antibodies are difficult to manufacture and distribute, and they are expected to be expensive. So how exactly will they be allocated?
One sensible approach is to give them pre-emptively to those working on the front lines, such as nurses and doctors. Still, many more Americans will want them. It will be difficult for any administration to say they cannot have the treatment because they are too far advanced in their coronavirus infection. If you feel bad, you may be desperate to try them (and they probably won’t hurt you); and even if you feel OK, you may think that it is exactly the right time to take them (soon enough to make a difference, and besides, aren’t Americans famous for demanding overtreatment?).
For policymakers this is a Catch-22, and even scientifically literate Americans are unlikely to confront this situation with full rationality. Again, many Americans will walk away unhappy. And if Trump is re-elected, he will regret his promise that the antibodies will be available for free to everybody. That just won’t be possible, at least not for a long time.
There is also the prospect that the antibodies will become the province of the very wealthy or the very conscientious. Imagine that you are rich enough or careful enough that you test yourself virtually every day, doing retests to rule out false negatives and false positives. If it turns out you have Covid-19, then you would rush to get your monoclonal antibodies.
Good for you — but that probably won’t be most Americans, even if issues of cost and access are taken care of. Unfortunately, the U.S. is not preparing itself for a system in which most people get tested every day. The result is that the split in health outcomes between the conscientious and the non-conscientious will grow wider yet. And again, the winners and losers will not fall into the standard political coalitions.
With the election in just a few days, most political commentary is focused on ideological polarization. Soon enough, the biggest conflicts could be over the time-honored issues of life and death.
This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
Tyler Cowen is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist. He is a professor of economics at George Mason University and writes for the blog Marginal Revolution. His books include “Big Business: A Love Letter to an American Anti-Hero.”
Quebec legislature member Youri Chassin has announced he’s leaving the Coalition Avenir Québec government to sit as an Independent.
He announced the decision shortly after writing an open letter criticizing Premier François Legault’s government for abandoning its principles of smaller government.
In the letter published in Le Journal de Montréal and Le Journal de Québec, Chassin accused the party of falling back on what he called the old formula of throwing money at problems instead of looking to do things differently.
Chassin says public services are more fragile than ever, despite rising spending that pushed the province to a record $11-billion deficit projected in the last budget.
He is the second CAQ member to leave the party in a little more than one week, after economy and energy minister Pierre Fitzgibbon announced Sept. 4 he would leave because he lost motivation to do his job.
Chassin says he has no intention of joining another party and will instead sit as an Independent until the end of his term.
He has represented the Saint-Jérôme riding since the CAQ rose to power in 2018, but has not served in cabinet.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Sept. 12, 2024.
MONTREAL – NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh says he will not be taking advice from Pierre Poilievre after the Conservative leader challenged him to bring down government.
“I say directly to Pierre Poilievre: I’m not going to listen to you,” said Singh on Wednesday, accusing Poilievre of wanting to take away dental-care coverage from Canadians, among other things.
“I’m not going to listen to your advice. You want to destroy people’s lives, I want to build up a brighter future.”
Earlier in the day, Poilievre challenged Singh to commit to voting non-confidence in the government, saying his party will force a vote in the House of Commons “at the earliest possibly opportunity.”
“I’m asking Jagmeet Singh and the NDP to commit unequivocally before Monday’s byelections: will they vote non-confidence to bring down the costly coalition and trigger a carbon tax election, or will Jagmeet Singh sell out Canadians again?” Poilievre said.
“It’s put up or shut up time for the NDP.”
While Singh rejected the idea he would ever listen to Poilievre, he did not say how the NDP would vote on a non-confidence motion.
“I’ve said on any vote, we’re going to look at the vote and we’ll make our decision. I’m not going to say our decision ahead of time,” he said.
Singh’s top adviser said on Tuesday the NDP leader is not particularly eager to trigger an election, even as the Conservatives challenge him to do just that.
Anne McGrath, Singh’s principal secretary, says there will be more volatility in Parliament and the odds of an early election have risen.
“I don’t think he is anxious to launch one, or chomping at the bit to have one, but it can happen,” she said in an interview.
New Democrat MPs are in a second day of meetings in Montreal as they nail down a plan for how to navigate the minority Parliament this fall.
The caucus retreat comes one week after Singh announced the party has left the supply-and-confidence agreement with the governing Liberals.
It’s also taking place in the very city where New Democrats are hoping to pick up a seat on Monday, when voters go to the polls in Montreal’s LaSalle—Émard—Verdun. A second byelection is being held that day in the Winnipeg riding of Elmwood—Transcona, where the NDP is hoping to hold onto a seat the Conservatives are also vying for.
While New Democrats are seeking to distance themselves from the Liberals, they don’t appear ready to trigger a general election.
Singh signalled on Tuesday that he will have more to say Wednesday about the party’s strategy for the upcoming sitting.
He is hoping to convince Canadians that his party can defeat the federal Conservatives, who have been riding high in the polls over the last year.
Singh has attacked Poilievre as someone who would bring back Harper-style cuts to programs that Canadians rely on, including the national dental-care program that was part of the supply-and-confidence agreement.
The Canadian Press has asked Poilievre’s office whether the Conservative leader intends to keep the program in place, if he forms government after the next election.
With the return of Parliament just days away, the NDP is also keeping in mind how other parties will look to capitalize on the new makeup of the House of Commons.
The Bloc Québécois has already indicated that it’s written up a list of demands for the Liberals in exchange for support on votes.
The next federal election must take place by October 2025 at the latest.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Sept. 11, 2024.
Montreal Mayor Valérie Plante is defending her decision to turn off comments on her social media accounts — with an announcement on social media.
She posted screenshots to X this morning of vulgar names she’s been called on the platform, and says comments on her posts for months have been dominated by insults, to the point that she decided to block them.
Montreal’s Opposition leader and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association have criticized Plante for limiting freedom of expression by restricting comments on her X and Instagram accounts.
They say elected officials who use social media should be willing to hear from constituents on those platforms.
However, Plante says some people may believe there is a fundamental right to call someone offensive names and to normalize violence online, but she disagrees.
Her statement on X is closed to comments.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Sept. 11, 2024.
