REALITY COMES FOR URBAN PROGRESSIVE PRIVILEGE.

Saturday Night Live had a skit last week that might have told its audience the two weeks to slow the spread have finally ended.

It might have been more convincing if the performer who cited something in Bloomberg had said "I heard on NPR," but perhaps Bloomberg provide promotional consideration.

Reason's Eric Boehm notes, "Mocking COVID public health theater is finally going mainstream," although he qualifies that later, noting that the mockery finally dawned on metrofexuals in their bubble.  "It's an unexpectedly subversive sketch from a show that rarely aims its fire these days at the liberal political consensus. It's five minutes of saying aloud thoughts that a lot people have been condemning as off-limits." Outside the bubble, it's another matter. "These are, of course, questions that a lot of us have been asking for months, even years."  Yup.

Pajamas Media's Megan Fox is less disposed to be charitable.

In the skit, several obvious COVID-19 panic-porn lovers are sitting around a dining table discussing how awkward they all feel to be realizing they were the ones who overreacted and treated everyone around them like garbage. While it’s satisfying to watch them realize that their support of policies that made innocent blue-collar folks lose their jobs was wrong, it’s also maddening.

The reckoning for the corona tyranny is one of several long overdue reckonings for our smug Credentialed Elite.

Imagine what it must feel like to be one of these people who bought this crap hook, line, and sinker and then you wake up to the realization that it was all for nothing. You and I have known this for two years, so we are just angry. But they are truly feeling like they are chewing on shattered glass. They know we know they know this is their fault, and they are squirming.

She continues,

But you know what would be worse? If they continued to pretend that they all did the right thing. They know. We know. And it’s better they admitted it late than never.

Yes, one of the virtues of living in an open society is that when the evidence is contrary to your strongly held beliefs, it is better to accept the evidence.  Where your authority depends on the consent of the governed, it is better to "pivot" (I think that's the right word) rather than stick to your position and pretend that's being principled.

But where we have a choice to vote for officials who took a better position from the beginning in preference to officials who are pivoting, ought we not reward the principled stance that is supported by evidence?