2021年5月14日 星期五

The Daily: Vaccine Hesitancy in Rural Tennessee

And the fear of losing control.

Hi everyone, happy Friday. Our team has been busy this week, covering the news from Silicon Valley to Jerusalem. On Fridays, we take some time to plan our week ahead. So we'd love to know: What would you like to hear an episode about in the coming days? Let us know here — we always love to hear what is on your mind.

In today's newsletter, Jan Hoffman, our behavioral health reporter, tells us more about the personal stories behind vaccine hesitancy in a small southern town. Then, we preview a new season of Modern Love.

Inside a town of waving strangers and vaccine skeptics

By Jan Hoffman

ADVERTISEMENT

The Rev. Guy Richardson leads Sunday worship at Old Fashion Gospel House in Bulls Gap, Tenn.Erin Schaff/The New York Times

I recently went to Greeneville, Tenn., to speak with people who were skeptical about the Covid-19 vaccine. Polls suggest that resistance is most entrenched among folks who identify as white, rural, Republican and evangelical Christian — a four-square summation of Greeneville, a town of 15,000 in southern Appalachia.

Vaccination ripples protection against a disease outward, from yourself to your family to the people you encounter daily. And in contrast to a large city, where those random encounters can feel anonymous, everyone in Greeneville seems to feel known and connected.

ADVERTISEMENT

Strangers wave at you as they drive by. When neighbors and fellow churchgoers are struggling, people show up in droves to help. Schoolchildren and grown-ups tuck painted stones throughout downtown, hoping that others will find them and impishly hide them in new spots, or that the town's visitors will transport them to faraway places and send photos to the Greeneville Rocks Facebook page.

Rarely have I been to such a chatty, friendly town. Bewildered, I kept asking the many pastors I met: How could people so committed, civically and religiously, to caring for their neighbors refuse to take a vaccine intended as an essential guardian of the community?

They all replied: If you don't trust the vaccine, why would you think that if you got it, you'd be protecting your loved ones?

I learned that the decision about whether to take this novel vaccine often had a great deal to do with the back story each person brought to the decision-making table. Because whenever I asked, people shared fears and traumas, many of which initially seemed unrelated to vaccines.

ADVERTISEMENT

Refusers described their experiences with an ex-husband who had gone to jail for molesting two relatives, a son who had died of an accidental overdose and a sister who had nearly died from anaphylactic shock after a vaccine.

Walt Cross, a volunteer fire chief in nearby Cocke County who had shifted from a career supervising conventional health care clinics to running an herbal and health food shop, told me that the unforeseen consequences of his wife's childhood cancer treatment had recently landed her in the hospital for an extended stay.

Everyone was describing events over which they had felt completely powerless. And so, faced with the uncertainties of the new vaccine, the ability to say no felt like a way to gain a semblance of personal control. Saying no felt like a more straightforward, less risky decision than saying yes. And after what they had been through, mitigating risk just felt right.

But while I met many people — young and old, educated and illiterate, poor and comfortable — who were not going to get the shot, I also found many who had. Bill Jones, whose middle name must be "Extrovert," invited me to lunch with a boisterous crowd of Greenevillians, many retired, most of them vaccinated. It was their first monthly gathering since the pandemic had started. The side room of the Gondolier, an Italian restaurant, was packed with at least 30 friends, many of whom eagerly shared vaccine stories.

Over forkfuls of lasagna, one woman told me she had gotten the shot to help protect her husband, who has advanced multiple myeloma. She put her foot down with her two adult sons, who live in Phoenix and who had refused to get the shots because they believe the vaccine is part of a giant, nefarious plot.

If they don't get the shot, she told them, they won't be allowed to visit their father.

They won't back down. Neither will she.

I asked if she could fathom their viewpoints. She sighed and nodded her head. "I'm a child of the 60s, honey," she said. "We were raised not to trust the government."

At another table, I asked Dave Hinchy, a retired aviation technician who had also gotten the vaccine, whether he'd heard any talk about microchips and tracking devices in the doses. He had, of course, especially from buddies who were veterans and adamant refusers.

But he had longed for his Gondolier gatherings. "I'm almost 78," he said. "Track me. I don't care. I don't get out that much anyway."

Talk to Jan on Twitter: @JanHoffmanNYT

A new season of Modern Love

Brian Rea

The Modern Love podcast is back, and it's back with a loaded question: Why do people get married?

On the season premiere, a man in his late 20s wrestles with the news that his 80-year-old grandmother is getting married — for the third time. (There's a twist to his grandmother's choice in partner, but you'll have to listen to the episode.) While he's fearful of coupling up and losing his identity, he wonders why his grandmother is trying at love again, knowing she'll lose it once more.

The Modern Love podcast, based on the beloved column (now in its 17th year), explores the love lives of real people through personal essays and interviews. This season, in addition to a heartwarming story about love-struck 80-year-olds, you can expect to hear "a deeply painful story about divorce from a famous comedian, a delightful story about trusting fate and a strange one about getting close to an online scammer," Julia Botero, a producer, told us.

And as always, the season will examine love in all its complicated forms — friendships, meet-cutes, the bond between a parent and child and even the perspective of the youngest writer ever to be published in Modern Love.

"The podcast this season truly represents the best of the Modern Love column, and I'm so excited to give each essay a new life in audio," Julia said.

Tune in on Wednesdays for new episodes. You can listen wherever you get your podcasts.

On The Daily this week

Monday: We go inside a community in rural Tennessee where vaccine hesitancy has proved hard to shift.

Tuesday: The latest chapter in the long-running cold war between Facebook and Apple.

Wednesday: What Liz Cheney's ouster from Republican leadership tells us about the state of the party.

Thursday: The worst violence in years has erupted between Israel and the Palestinians. Why? And how much worse could it get?

Friday: How an inside joke in the cryptocurrency world quickly became a serious path to wealth.

For your weekend listening

That's it for The Daily newsletter. See you next week.

Have thoughts about the show? Tell us what you think at thedaily@nytimes.com.

Were you forwarded this newsletter? Subscribe here to get it delivered to your inbox.

Love podcasts? Join The New York Times Podcast Club on Facebook.

Need help? Review our newsletter help page or contact us for assistance.

You received this email because you signed up for The Daily from The New York Times.

To stop receiving these emails, unsubscribe or manage your email preferences.

Subscribe to The Times

Connect with us on:

facebooktwitterinstagram

Change Your EmailPrivacy PolicyContact UsCalifornia Notices

LiveIntent LogoAdChoices Logo

The New York Times Company. 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018

2021年5月13日 星期四

Wonking Out: Return of the monetary cockroaches

Old fallacies make a comeback, this time with added technobabble.
Doomu, iStock/Getty Images
Author Headshot

By Paul Krugman

Opinion Columnist

Alert! Wonk warning! This is an additional email that goes deeper into the economics and some technical stuff than usual.

Some years back I tried to make a distinction between zombie ideas — ideas that should have been killed by evidence, but just keep shambling along, eating people's brains — and cockroach ideas, false beliefs that sometimes go away for a while but always come back.

And lately I've been noticing an infestation of monetary cockroaches. In particular, I'm hearing a lot of buzz around how the Fed's wanton abuse of its power to create money will soon lead to runaway inflation — or maybe that we're already experiencing high inflation, but it's being hidden by dishonest government statistics.

There was a lot of talk along those lines a decade ago, but it faded out as it became obvious to everyone that hyperinflation just wasn't happening. Now it's back, I think for a couple of reasons.

For one thing, we are seeing some actual inflation as a recovering economy runs into bottlenecks — shortages of lumber, shipping containers, used cars, etc. I believe, and the Fed believes, that these shortages are temporary, that this is only a blip and that inflation will subside; but we could be wrong, and at least there's some substance to this concern.

ADVERTISEMENT

But a lot of the money-printing panic is, I believe, coming from the crypto crowd. I've been in a number of extended (and determinedly civil) discussions with boosters of Bitcoin etc., doing my best to keep an open mind. What happens in these discussions is that skeptics like me keep pressing for an answer to the question, "What problem is cryptocurrency supposed to solve, exactly?" And at some point the answer always devolves to some version of "Fiat money is doomed because the Fed won't stop running the printing press."

So it seems to me that it would be useful to talk about why that's a really bad take, and has been a bad take over and over again for the past 40 years.

To be fair, printing huge amounts of money to pay the government's bills does in fact lead to high inflation. Take the example of Brazil in the early 1990s:

Yes, printing money can cause inflation.FRED

But nothing like that has happened in the U.S., even during periods when monetary aggregates like M2 have increased dramatically. Anyone claiming that big increases in M2 presage surging inflation was wrong again and again since the 1980s. I mean really, really wrong:

ADVERTISEMENT

M2 hasn't been much use for decades.FRED

Why?

There are actually two big fallacies in the "printing press goes brrr -> inflation" story.

One of them is what I think of as the doctrine of immaculate inflation: the notion that an increase in the money supply somehow translates directly into inflation without causing economic overheating along the way. Many people have fallen for that fallacy over the years. Among them was no less a figure than Milton Friedman. He looked at rapid growth in M1 during the early 1980s:

ADVERTISEMENT

Friedman's mistake.FRED

And from 1982 to 1985 he repeatedly predicted a resurgence of inflation: 8 percent for 1983, double-digit for 1984, 8 to 10 percent for 1985.

Obviously none of that happened. Instead, a slack economy with high unemployment led to declining inflation over the whole period:

Inflation, not immaculate.FRED

Today's inflationistas, however, don't know anything about that history.

The other fallacy of the modern inflationistas is that they don't understand how the role of money changes in a world of very low interest rates, even though we've been living in that kind of world for a very long time.

Before 2007 it was expensive for people to hold money, because cash yielded no interest while bank deposits paid less than other assets like Treasury bills. So people held money only because of its liquidity — the fact that it could readily be spent. When the Fed increased the money supply, this left the public with more liquidity than it wanted, so that the money would be used to buy other assets, driving interest rates down and leading to higher overall spending.

But when interest rates are very low — which they have been for years, basically because there's a glut of savings relative to perceived investment opportunities — money is, at the margin, just another asset. When the Fed increases the money supply, people don't feel any urgent need to put that cash to more lucrative uses, they just sit on it. The money supply goes up, but G.D.P. doesn't, so the "velocity" of money — the ratio of G.D.P. to the money supply — plunges:

Money just sits there these days.FRED

These aren't new insights. I wrote about all of this in the context of Japan back in the 1990s, and even that was mainly a formalization of insights many economists had held for decades. And while it took a while, my sense is that by 2014 or so the great majority of economic commentators had accepted that looking at the money supply in the U.S. context offered basically no information about future inflation.

But now we have a new crop of financial types, especially, as I said, people associated with crypto, who don't know about any of that and, as so often happens with money people, assume that they already know everything. So we're having a fresh infestation of monetary cockroaches, and everything has to be explained again.

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

New York Times Opinion highlights a range of perspectives and voices. This work is made possible with the support of subscribers. Please consider supporting The Times with this special offer.

Need help? Review our newsletter help page or contact us for assistance.

You received this email because you signed up for Paul Krugman from The New York Times.

To stop receiving these emails, unsubscribe or manage your email preferences.

Subscribe to The Times

Connect with us on:

facebooktwitterinstagram

Change Your EmailPrivacy PolicyContact UsCalifornia Notices

LiveIntent LogoAdChoices Logo

The New York Times Company. 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018