What Will Happen After the Election? Here's What the Experts Say

The country and the world were waiting for the last of the election results to come in while holding their breath. “What will happen after the election?” In fact, the same thing happened four years ago, when Mr. Trump beat out Mrs. Clinton. Everyone seemed to be on the edge of their seat. What makes this election different than the last, you might ask? There’s a little thing — a tiny virus with a big impact on the economy, social integrity, and education, just to name a few. So what will happen after the election? Let’s find out what the experts say.

What’s the Plan?

It’s impossible to say what a politician will do and what promises they will decide to keep or be able to deliver. It’s also impossible to cover absolutely every area of their policy moving forward. However, we’re going to cover what they’ve laid out as candidates regarding COVID-19. This affects what kind of rollout there will be for vaccination and medical supply, as well as economic accessibility to medical care. What are the policies of each candidate?

Mr. Trump

Following convention and tradition, we’ll put the incumbent’s priorities and procedures first. Being an apolitical article, we are just trying to express the facts, here. The truth of the matter is that we’ve already seen the response and heard the rhetoric of President Trump’s plan and felt the results. Because of that, we have a preview of the years to come. On a mask mandate, Trump is extremely opposed and nonspecific about wearing masks, saying “By the way, a lot of people don’t want to wear masks.” While he may speak for many Americans, there are just as many that would prefer people did for the greater good, as in other countries — particularly the Eastern nations. Continuing, he says “You have a story where they want, a story where they don’t want. I’m all for it.” It’s unclear from words alone what Trump is for. Considering his lack of mask usage and initial pushback of wearing a mask, we can only assume he is all for doing whatever you feel like doing, but not mandating either course. On testing, Trump has been very specific in saying that testing should be slowed down. In late August, the CDC updated its testing guidelines to stop recommending people get tested when in close contact with those known to be infected. Previous guidelines stated that it would be recommended for all contact with persons “with SARS-CoV-2 infection.” This would mean testing to make sure someone has it and testing people who have had contact. It’s understandable that there are only so many tests, and priorities should be mandated. It’s important to contact trace and know who is infected so as not to be a vector for further contamination. Testing is crucial to identifying and curbing outbreaks, less is not the answer.

Mr. Biden

On the other hand, we have former VP Biden, who proposes that “every single American should be wearing a mask” for at least the next three months. Also that “Every governor should mandate mandatory mask-wearing.” We have clear answers from experts that even if both parties are wearing a mask, after several hours in the same room speaking loudly without ventilation, you’ll almost certainly get COVID-19. However, if parties aren’t wearing a mask in an enclosed space, they’re almost guaranteed to get it after 15 minutes. Though, Biden is definitely right in saying if they mandate mask-wearing “nationwide, starting immediately... we will save lives.” It is an undisputed fact that putting up a barrier to entry and exit will stem transmission to various degrees. However, it isn’t a guarantee of no transmission. Biden is proposing free and available testing. Instead of the thousands, tests should be in the millions. Drive-thru testing, as well as mobile testing, should be implemented, according to Mr.Biden. Biden has been specific and clear on his plan to fight the pandemic.

At What Cost?

According to the CRFB.org or Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, Biden’s action plans will cost more than four times Trump’s plan for combatting the COVID-19 threat. The question should be posed, though, what the cost of human life and illness will cost the economy if left unchecked. If it costs $870 billion to fight the illness, but there’s no one left under Trump’s plan to bear the cost, is it worth it? Likewise, if we all survive but the nation bears $4 trillion by 2030, is it worthwhile? Maybe we can illustrate this way: If there’s a tree that falls in the woods, and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? It’s a stupid question because it doesn’t really matter, but if we aren’t around does it matter that we saved money on expenditures? If money is being spent on medical testing, staff, equipment, and consumables, that’s $4 trillion going into the local and domestic medical industry. It isn’t evaporating, it’s distributing and providing jobs to healthcare professionals and manufacturers.