It is not true that "99 percent of people" recover from COVID. I think you mean 99 percent *survive*, but even that's iffy, since the case fatality rate changes over time in different circumstances.
But counting the mere fact of survival is a poor measure of this disease's impact. Some number of people struggle with long term illness after passing the critical stage. This can be a debilitating, even disabling illness for some people. who.int/docs/default-s….
Additionally, the impact of this disease is not evenly spread among the population, as I'm sure you know because this has been widely reported for months. The case fatality rate approaches *30 percent* in the oldest age cohorts. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/P…
So to dismiss COVID because "99 percent recover" is factually incorrect, insensitive to its impact on the elderly, and, I have to say, pastorally unkind to those who have struggled with this disease (as some members of my extended family have) or lost loved ones to it.
I also want to push back on your characterization of public health mandates as "socialism." Public health regulation is one of the oldest functions of government. It predates socialism by centuries, if not millennia. Just because govt gives an order doesn't make it "socialist."
Some of the restrictions have been unfair and discriminatory; they have rightly been adjudicated through the courts, like for our friends at CHBC.
The fact that the courts function and are vindicating our rights hardly suggests we are being "ruled" or "muzzled."
It also suggests this is still a free country. We are less free, yes--but that is because we live with a disease for which there is, as yet, no cure and not yet a vaccine. That does limit our freedom, but that is a natural limitation, not a tyrannical one.
This is a frustrating situation and we are all tired of it. But it is entirely possible that it has been so drawn out because our governments and our fellow citizens have been, on the whole, too timid, not too overbearing, in fighting this disease.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Aspiring to be a "public intellectual" or "thought leader" is another way of saying "I want to be famous for being smart," which is ironic because it isn't very smart to want to be famous.
I mean, consider. Wanting to be famous for thinking hard is just obviously prideful--and pride cometh before the fall. You walk around with a target on your back, just begging the twitter mob to catch you saying something dumb or hypocritical or incorrect.
And most fame is mostly unearned. How many public intellectuals really have a true lifelong record of insights and contributions to public discourse? How many are just people coasting off one or two decent books or a sweet deal as a columnist somewhere.
Media watchdog punditry is awful, pointless, and boring, and you should stop paying attention to it.
A thread:
"But the media!"
"The media" is not a monolith: it is a vast, sprawling thing with hundreds of thousands of people and organizations. You can always find a nutcase who says or writes crazy things. Stop overgeneralizing from the nutcases ("nutpicking" as @DavidAFrench says).
"But the bias!"
Duh. It's been that way literally forever. Learn how to filter it out in your own media consumption and get over it. Working up angst about how this or that org isn't covering something the way you'd like is petulant.
Assassinating Soleimani is a justified act, but it takes place within the context of a largely unjust and strategically indefensible grand strategy, so it is unlikely to be a net positive in the long run. Let me explain:
Soleimani was a terrorist. The fact that he wore an Iranian uniform only make Iran complicit with his terrorism; it does not shield him from culpability for the terrorism committed by the IRGC-Qods Force or the many militias under his command and influence.
Iran, or at leas the parts of the Iranian govt that Soleimani worked in, has been waging war on the United States for over a decade. Responding in kind to Iran's aggression was well within our rights and long overdue.
Grudem uses "by their fruits you shall know them," to defend Trump's moral character, referring to the "fruits" of his policies. But in the Biblical phrase almost certainly refers to the "fruit" of good character, the fruits of the Spirit: love, joy, peace, patience, etc.
In other words, Grudem is plainly equating "spiritual fruit" with "my policy preferences." This is sloppy, at best, especially from the author of a systematic theology textbook that (rightly) teaches the importance of careful exegesis. Don't make Scripture say what it doesn't say
Another thing about Grudem's defense of Trump. He addresses the Ukraine thing and (disingenuously) says there's no evidence of abuse of power. But Grudem doesn't even address the other article of impeachment, obstruction of Congress.
Not that anybody cares about my opinion, but yes, I think Trump should be impeached and removed from office. Here's why, and why it's important:
I'm of the school that thinks impeachment is a political, not legal, judgment. So I don't feel the need to get super technical about whether this or that could get Trump convicted in a court of law. The only court that matters is the House and the Senate.
To get the obvious stuff out of the way: Trump should be impeached on obstruction of justice (see Mueller report), contempt of Congress (for refusing subpoenas), campaign finance violations (Ukraine phone call and Stormy Daniels payoff).