Bret Devereaux

And the sort of publications that speak to the elites have generally been pretty concerned and wanted more substantial measures than what has happened. Clearly, there's been a leadership failure here and it isn't hard to locate it.

And like all leadership failures, it hits the folks with the fewest resources hardest. Which is bad, to be clear!

This is pretty straightforward: if "elites," collectively, really wanted more decisive measures taken, than they would have been, because elites control the state, both personally and as an interest group. The elites who have been saying since March that we need to keep things...

...open for the sake of the economy are not somehow any less elite than the elites who have been stroking their chins in great concern in the pages of the Economist or whatever.

And even sincere concern on the part of some elites doesn't become existential, worth taking drastic action, so long as they're not personally at meaningful risk. It's just a Matter Of Great Concern.

Thinking about 'elites' collectively like that is a mistake though. There are clearly multiple camps of elites on this issue and they are very frustrated with each other. Also, in many cases, elites have tried greater measures and been restrained by non-elites.

North Carolina has a pretty strong mask mandate for instance, but outside of the triangle-bubble, my impression is that it is regularly flouted or left unenforced.

That's because conservative North Carolinians are responding to signals from other elites, both national and local, instead of the governor et al. It's not a sign that resistance to lockdowns flows organically from the demos. Come on.