There might be a much better term for this, but it refers to the predisposition of the aristocratic or wannabe aristocratic academics, public servants and politican commentators to maintain strategic positions of plausible deniability, especially at the moment that the crux of the matter, elucidating the rationale for conflict of perspective, is presented to them.
This is not a type of behaviour that need be partisan, and it should not be expected to take place among all sorts of people, but it is, in my opinion, more likely to be performed by the demographic in question, even in such instances where there is no public consequence.
Why would this be?
That perpetual motivation - we must even be thankful to learn from it, if even en route to ridding ourselves of it (there are better and more precise teachers). Progressive means socially progressive, and thus suggests that the person is not only supportive of, but also expectant of and personally interested in the growth of the state insofar that it is better able to provide expanding and social servces.
There is a mindset which accompanies cheerleading for expanding state services, because it automatically expands the expectations of what humans are not expected to be personally accountable for. Yes, it is of benefit to have fewer people suffer needlessly, and there are some services which might not best be provided by a corporation, but increasing dependence on a system of behaviour which lends to decreased accountability or expectation of accountability, should be assumed to yield a misery of its own. Even all of these forms of rendering a service, or a right, to humans is done so ostensibly for the purpose of enabling a capacity or a resource which allows them to perform actions that they wish to perform.
If we assume to know precisely what they want to perform, while also removing their ability to perform an action, or simply assuming that their capacity is not worthwhile, much work away from infection, but also that the capacity for symptoms.