Socialists Should Hope Trump Remains Asymptomatic

It would be easy to hope that the odious Trump popped his clogs from COVID19, but completely wrong, for many reasons.  Firstly, Marxists are socialists, and although we base our socialism on the science of Marxism, rather than on the subjectivism of moralists, we do also seek to behave in a moral fashion.  As socialists, that morality means that nothing human to us is alien, and we should not revel in the suffering of any human being, even one as odious as Trump.

More importantly, if Trump remains asymptomatic, or suffers only mild symptoms then, whilst it disproves all of the conspiracy nuts that have claimed that COVID19 does not exist, it will also undermine their inevitable next conspiracy that he was eliminated by being poisoned or otherwise infected by the "deep state".  The last thing we need is for Trump to be turned into a martyr for the forces of reaction.  Trump and the ultranationalist and fascist forces he represents needs to be defeated politically, and currently, despite the abysmal politics of Biden/Harris, it looks most likely that he will be.

Of course, the fact that Trump is so far asymptomatic has been used by those who want to fly in the face of all the scientific evidence to claim that COVID19 affects everyone equally or indiscriminately, when, in fact, we know that the opposite is the case.  On Sky News, this morning, Kay Burley interviewed Professor Sunetra Gupta, and tried moronically to make precisely this case against her, having earlier spoken to a doctor, who, rather idiotically, had made the point that there have been some apparently fit 30 year old men who have died with COVID, whereas here is a 74 year old, obese Trump, who appears not to be seriously affected!

With that kind of logic, you might as well say that there is no correlation between smoking and lung cancer, because there are some 90 years olds who have smoked 20 a day all their lives, and have remained free of cancer, whereas, there are some people who contract lung cancer in their 20's, who have never smoked.  It is a totally moronic approach to take for anyone examining the matter scientifically, and determining the probabilities, which show that elderly people are 1,000 times more likely to die from COVID19 than young people.  Indeed, currently, young people are ten times more likely to die from flu than they are from COVID19!

Burley again moronically tried to demonise the term "herd immunity" which scientists have always used to describe the process by which either natural infection or artificial infection by vaccination prevents the spread of pathogens by a sizeable proportion of the population becoming immune to them.  The fact is, as Gupta pointed out, with a vaccine probably at least another year away, herd immunity is the only way of stopping COVID19 in its tracks, and if in March Britain and other countries had adopted that strategy they would by now have created the required level of immunity to prevent the further spread of the virus, as appears to have happened in Sweden, which followed that course of action.

We know who is at risk from COVID19, it is the 20% of the population over 60, or who have underlying medical conditions.  It is ridiculous to say that its possible to lockdown 100% of the population, but somehow not possible to isolate and protect just this 20%, so as to allow the other 80% of the population to go about the lives as normal, and thereby develop, safely the required immunity.  In fact, as Gupta points out, amongst the 80% there are many younger, but also poorer people, who whilst not at risk from COVID are now at risk from the consequences of lockdowns that are damaging their jobs, their incomes and their lives and health in very real ways that will last for years into the future.  Moreover, because the policies of lockdown and test and trace have not and cannot work to eliminate the virus, it does not protect the 20% of the population actually at risk from it either.