I tend to be pretty hawkish on lockdowns and mitigation. But what strikes me most abt this 2nd wave is how little we've learned or cared to implement in focused mitigation. Schools are either closed or limited but bars, sure indoor bars and restaurants. Some people either ...
2/ think or pretend to think you only need masks in doors if you're within 6 ft of someone else. We have failed to make really basic distinctions btw balanced risks for things that are really necessary for people's economic and emotional welfare and things that are great ...
3/ but can be postponed. Indoor dining but only before 10 PM? WTF? Dinner parties and big TG dinners, simply insane. Bans can't really be enforced on private in home dinners, but public ordinances still have a big effect by being stated. With the knowledge we've gained ...
4/ we know now that a lot of the lockdowns in the Spring could have been more targeted. That's not a mistake or an error. We didn't have the knowledge then. Now we do. And we're mostly not taking advantage of the knowledge we have.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
On the @SWAtlasHoover front, there’s a fascinating story to be told that @Stanford and particularly the @HooverInst has been a hot spot of covid misinformation from basically the beginning of the pandemic. It’s not just Atlas.
2/ Remember those early and largely discredited antibodies studies out of Santa Clara and LA counties. Again folks at @HooverInst. There were real questions of ethics violations on this one, not just shoddy work. theguardian.com/world/2020/apr…
3/ Then there’s the pompously entitled Great Barrington Declaration, basically a brief for letting everyone get sick and getting herd immunity. Again, Stanford/Hoover, Jay Bhattacharya, the one with the discredited antibodies studies.
One thing to keep in mind. Reporters snd TV hosts keep repeating that there is no evidence of “widespread” vote or “substantial” vote fraud. This is better that accepting Trumps lies. But it’s wrong snd dangerous. There is in fact no evidence of ANY fraud.
2/ Certainly there will be isolated instances of someone somewhere who did something wrong. The only case so far in Pennsylvania is one where a Trump supporter tried to vote in the name of his dead mother. But this is meaningless and well meaning journalists are muddying ...
3/ the water by saying no “widespread fraud”. That suggests that there has been fraud or evidence of fraud but it’s not widespread, not enough to effect the outcome of the election. Again, false.
Remember this too. It's not even that the GOP claims are unsubstantiated. They don't actually have any claims. They amount to just saying it just doesn't look right and mail in voting seems weird. Those aren't claims. The closest they come is this charge that GOP ...
2/ election observers were removed from the counting area. But that charge is one the campaign's lawyers have admitted in court is not true. There's no argument to have because they're not actually making any claims. Indeed, in their pressers they kept asking for "patience" ...
3/ so they can come up with some explanation of why they're not accepting that the President lost.
To expand on exchange with @MattGrossmann, first yes, this is a uphill. This is absolutely true. I want to be cleat I'm not disputing that at all. Also, it will be nationalized. Again, that's obvious. There are key advantages GOPs have. One of the biggest is that suburban ...
2/ crossover has been driven by Trump. This will be a first test of the durability of that shift. Additionally, GOPs will now be able to play on voters' desire for balance. Can say, sure you voted for Biden. But don't you want a check on Biden too? Well, vote for the GOP, etc.
3/ On the other hand, it's clear that Trump turned out a lot of people for him, a lot of fairly occasional voters. It's an open question to me how many of those voters still turn out now that he's not on the ballot and (as will become clear) and that he lost.
President Trump's extended tantrum is a complicated thing to get a hold of. On the one hand it's basically criminal in any civic sense. I'm pretty confident it will result in at least some people getting killed - hopefully not many. It also leaves at least some of his ...
2/ opponents with some lingering fear that somehow he'll cheat the system and stay. And yet at the same time it has created a sort of schadenfreude time dilation event. Politics is a contact sport with a lot of heartache and jubilation at critical moments. Normally ...
3/ Trump's diehard opponents would have had one press conference or evening where they savored the reality of his defeat. But here, he basically keeps losing each day. His own furious impotence keeps driving headlong into the same wall each day we move forward.
Oh dear. I was just checking out this new fusillade from Glenn Greenwald which I had heard announces that Donald Trump's presidency was far more lawful and benign than President Obama's. This seems entirely in character and provides some helpful context to his generally ...
2/ loyal defenses of Donald Trump. I will say this. Given the particulars of the blow up last month, someone really does need an editor pretty badly. But then I noticed there's actually a dig at me! I may have gotten under Glenn's skin.