Thread by @davekarpf

Bret Stephens is a mewling coward, part 17,053,849.

This article presents Stephens’s “the real threat from global warming is that we’ll OVERPREPARE for it” argument and applies it to coronavirus.

It makes his usual sloppy mistakes.
(1/x)

nyti.ms/3bicD2D

He begins with a gloss that includes a fundamental error. He says that politicians aren’t penalized for overreacting to a crisis.

That’s wrong. Completely wrong.
(2/x)

In 1976, the government mobilized the country in response to a potential Swine Flu pandemic. People died from an undertested vaccine, and the pandemic never materialized.

The public outrage was intense. It was a costly overreaction.
(3/x)

discovermagazine.com/health/the-pub…

That’s just one case (which I was taught as a frickin’ college sophomore — proving yet again that Bret is a dumb guy’s version of a smart guy).

You could also just think it through: IF there are only a few hundred deaths from COVID19, how do YOU think people would react?
(4/x)

Let me go out on a limb, after week 1 of enforced claustrophobia and frantically inventing new ways to entertain a toddler, and say THERE WOULD BE A PUBLIC BACKLASH if this all blew over.

Of course there would. Consider the possibility that your instincts are wrong, Bret.
(5/x)

There are 3 points Stephens wants to make:
(1) we can’t shelter in place forever.

(2) the economic aftershocks of the pandemic might be bigger than the pandemic itself.

(3) there’s an article that says we might be overreacting.

A better writer could do somethjbg with that.6/x

He could write about the tradeoffs between personal freedom and shared responsibility.

He could write about the values that we must hold steadfast in this time of crisis.

He could warn against sheltering-in-place becoming a stepping stone to government intrusion.
(7/x)

He could write about the need for mass testing as the only path forward for a speedy return to normalcy.

We aren’t going to shelter in place for 18 months. Mass testing is the way out. Why are we so slow in getting there?
(8/x)

He could write about the loss of trust in government (a topic that is actually in his wheelhouse!), and how it exacerbates the crisis and creates additional dangers and threats.
(9/x)

Or he could write about the Ioannidis article, but actually WRITE about it.

The article is worth reading, but it is hardly authoritative. Bret treats it as authoritative because engaging with the substance isn’t his style.

Here’s the article:
statnews.com/2020/03/17/a-f…
(10/x)

And here’s a rejoinder to the article.

You should probably consider BOTH before writing on the topic for the New York Times.

(11/x)
google.com/amp/s/www.vox.…

Do we need more and better data? YEAH.

Is it a scandal that we don’t have it? YEAH.

Should we be worried about the aftershocks of the pandemic? OF COURSE!

But Bret isn’t able to do anything interesting with those premises, because it would take too much work.
(12/x)

So instead he rehashes his same argument that was widely ridiculed about climate change.

“It might not be that—>we shouldn’t overturn our lovely status quo unless we’re SURE—>let’s all be reasonable and do nothing until we’re sure—>it won’t be too late, just because.”
13/x

That’s a morally ghastly argument, because it never grapples with the possibility that *he is wrong.*

(This coming from the guy who loves to chide other people for being too certain.)

If the models are right, 2.2 million Americans die. Bret waves that terror away.
14/x

He can get away with this sleight-of-hand a little more easily with his climate change essay, because climate change is a slower-moving apocalypse.

It’s the same gaping hole in his argument, but it’s easier to step around.

(15/x)

But with the coronavirus, he doesn’t have the luxury of time. We make these hard decisions NOW or people die en made SOON.

And Bret Stephens’s reaction is to write an article saying “no, none of this is real! I shouldn’t have to do things I don’t want to do!”
(16/x)

And hey, I get it. Sheltering in place bugs Bret Stephens.

It bugs me too.

I’d love it if this was all a government overreaction.

But wishing it doesn’t make it so.
(17/x)

Bret starts from a bad premise, lazily rehashes an argument he’s made before, doesn’t read deeply about the subject matter, and produces another piece saying that people-like-him should never be inconvenienced. Same as always.

But this time: he’s also a public health risk. (Fin)