Deflating morale after scoring a win is a tactic to win more in the future, and we must rise above that.
Coaches and generals know you can lose a battle, but win a war, be losing at halftime, but win the game.
1/
And this happens in politics too. Clinton was winning early in 2008 but did Obama buy into losing or did he claim underdog momentum?
Trump (a sad example) was heavily down in polling to Clinton in 2016 but he quit or did he push forward?
2/
So yes we’re down but it’s not over. Yes we’d prefer to be doing better at this point but frankly it’s amazing that Sanders is doing this well.
We decide where we go from here.
Individually we decide our own level of action.
This is a gut check for us.
3/
And, to me, for all scenarios, it makes sense to fight hard.
Here’s why:
4/
We need Sanders to do as best as possible for a host of reasons and scenarios.
First, regardless of who wins, we need Sanders campaign to help down ballot progressives in upcoming primaries. 5/
Second, if Biden wins the primary we need concessions (VP, #GreenNewDeal, #MedicareForAll) and how much we continue to show up influences the scale of those concessions. 6/
Third, if Biden or Trump is president, we need the organizing capacity we’re building along the way to resist the harmful parts of their agenda. 7/
Fourth, if Sanders wins it all, we need that organizing capacity to pass #MedicareForAll. 8/
And lastly, to still help Sanders win this primary, which is still in play, we must help him endure long enough through Biden’s successes now, bc there are paths to winning in the possibility of a Biden collapse or simply by generating more and more support for Sanders. 9/
So know that optimism and pessimism are less relevant than productive action and for all those reasons we need you MORE active now.
"Protecting the vulnerable"
"Protecting hospital capacity"
"Preventing variants"
Are good rhetoric, but do the policies make sense for these goals? Are these goals enough?
No. A mini-🧵.
The policies don't live up to the words once we consider the realities of:
– US healthcare inaccessibility
– pre-/asymptomatic spread
– people living with others
– chains of transmission
– exponential growth
– levels of immunity
This doesn't even include the issues with the continued shifting of responsibility to states, municipalities, and individuals, and the delay in implementation and effects of implementation once supposed policy/behavior triggers are met by indicators.
1) Hospitalizations lag test positive cases which lag actual cases
2) Guidance based more on hospitalizations means willfully abandoning critical windows to act
3) So this guidance is less about new science or better public health, and more about…
... both justifying the relaxation of public health protections now and about justifying too little, too late policy responses in the future when surges re-emerge.
This is – in contrast to "evidence-based policymaking" – policy-based guidancemaking.
It is irresponsible and inappropriate for health experts and public health authorities to create this or champion it in their messaging work.
War is bad for everyone except the wealthy and powerful.
It's pathetic and tragic that most of humanity has little it can offer except condemnation.
We deserve democratic global institutions capable of preventing and dealing with conflict. 1/
Borders and nations are artificial.
Powerful nations and the powerful within all nations use to these constructs to their advantage.
But there are other constructs that show how ridiculous this is. 2/
To me this invasion is as preposterous as Florida invading Georgia.
Just as one US state invading another is essentially inconceivable and impossible in 2022, we need democratic and representative global institutions empowered to prevent and deal with international conflict. 3/
Let's highlight how "civility politics" operates in pandemic discourse. 🧵
1) Highly platformed health "experts" drive policy negligence with their incorrect, harmful messaging. They get bylines, journalist interviews, TV appearances, book deals, and wide rightwing celebration.
2) The health "experts" face a backlash. Some of it is admittedly unkind and personal, but most was civil, valid criticism or very fair sharing of real and raw emotion from people who have endured awful policy violence these experts have fostered.
3) These health "experts" have a choice. They can respond to substantive criticisms, they can show up for debates, they can reflect on if their prior predictions were accurate or prior prescriptions worked out well. Or they can seek to deflect the backlash.
Spoiler: incoherence, obfuscation, and omission that feeds pandemic inaction + promoting a data reporting approach that destroys opportunities to save lives and prevent suffering.
First off, why is the NYTimes continuing to platform voices that have consistently been incorrect?
Premature optimism, essentially calling the pandemic over, has driven real harm by degrading policy protections and public behavior.
Who was the editor here?
How's this essay start?
Highlighting Omicron, and what isn't known about.
What's neglected? Omitted? Ignored?
The current surge in *Delta* cases, hospitalizations, and deaths, with 1,000+ deaths most days for months, and projections of another 100,000+ dead in coming months.