I think this likliehood is higher than most expect because this disease is extremely deadly to children, while adults don't get as seriously ill. My main holdout againts YES is not that there would be lockdowns in a pandemic, but that this disease might be contained by ring vaccination.

In our society, while people claim that "everyone is equal," in reality children's lives are treated as much more valuable than those of adults. We can see this in how speeding fines are three times higher in school zones compared to zones in front of workplaces, and how prisoners shun people involved with child pornography and tolerate adult rapists. I've seen several instances on my block where parents acted completely out of control when a kid was missing, and yet were calm when a husband died of a heart attack.

Because this disease is so deadly to kids, I expect that if it spreads widely, the complete opposite reaction to COVID-19 will occur. Republicans will claim that anyone who opposes restrictions are against family values, while Democrats will be more tolerant of individual choice. But, overall, the drive for restrictions will higher than it was in the last pandemic.

The idea that Republicans will finally support mandates when kids are at risk is contradicted by their opposition to the HPV vaccine requirement for girls. HPV is primarily an STI, so the requirement was seen as accusing their daughters of risky or immoral behavior. Instead, these parents felt responsible to take unilateral action to "protect" their children.

I put "protect" in quotes because I think it's more accurate to say that children are treated as sacred rather than valuable. A parent needs to feel (and needs others to see) that he is doing the morally correct things to defend the child's innocence. This motive tends to produce different actions than someone calculating the child's future health and well-being.

In a local Mpox outbreak, I'd expect conservative parents to take unilateral action in basically the same ways as during Covid, but with sex-ed culture war overtones. Homeschool or private school if possible. Demand that schools put space between desks and clean thoroughly. Restrict the teaching of STI prevention in favor of moralizing. Oppose any mandates that make calculated tradeoffs, or that implicitly question the virtue of parent or child.

I don't know about that. HPV isn't meaningful for most people and when it does cause problems, the issues present 50 years later.

That's quite different from monkeypox, where the disease develops over the course of 28 days and has a 10% fatality rate, compared to the extremely low risk of dying of cervical cancer.

The key difference is that people seem to respond quite strongly to images of kids dying. Look at reports of Gaza, where protestors count the number of children who have been killed rather than the number of people.

If an outbreak occurs, the headlines will be "protect the kids" and there will be interviews with mothers whose kids died due to a school outbreak when a lot of kids touched the same playground equipment. You don't see Republicans suddenly turning on principals and teachers in that case, claiming that they failed to protect their kids by sanitizing surfaces and not shaking hands?

Oh they will definitely blame the school administration. And it's true that more-kids-being-alive is about as Republican as a stance can get.

Then surely (we say) the situation would be gut-wrenching enough to justify mandatory testing, tracing, no-touch, lockdown, or vaccination? But here's the thinking of some conservatives: by forcing me to do these things, you are shifting the blame and punishment for the sins of others onto me. The worse the outbreak is, the more perverse this burden is. It's "two wrongs don't make a right" logic. On top of that, some think the mandates are totally ineffective—a pure authoritarian power-grab.

Now, moderates may believe that the mandate is effective enough at stopping the disease to outweigh the burden. Maybe enough of them will shift the overall support in favor. But the idea that polarization of this issue will completely flip based on the intensity of emotional distress? It doesn't fit with my sense of the foundations of conservative values (per Jonathan Haidt, Loyalty, Authority, Sanctity, and Liberty).

I think that the measures that stop this disease are different than the ones that stop COVID-19, so the outcome would be different.

The masks needed to protect against COVID-19 are a symbol to people who worry about how they are perceived by others. Nowadays, masks can even imply to these people that you are sick, even if you're only trying to protect yourself. Masks themselves aren't difficult or uncomfortable to wear; I would prefer it if people wore them here like they do in Japan. To Republicans, it's about what people look like wearing them.

But since airborne transmission isn't the primary route with this new virus, I see Republicans being more supportive of control measures. Republicans claim to be for individual liberty, but in reality they look down upon people who don't conform. This is why they have such an issue with transgender people so much more than gays or lesbians - because transgender people have an obvious appearance that doesn't conform with their group.

In this case, the disease is invisible on surfaces. The control measures are invisible - paying janitors to clean the school after hours, washing your hands in the bathroom, and the use of hand sanitizer that evaporates in a few seconds. Because these measures are invisible, I believe that Republicans won't shun them.

Mask mandates or lockdowns would not be beneficial since it only spreads via very close (skin) contact. However the government could do some sort of testing mandate or contact tracing mandate, would that count?

https://www.cdc.gov/poxvirus/mpox/if-sick/transmission.html

Any sort of mandate would count per the rules.