Paul Matzko Profile picture
20 Feb, 11 tweets, 3 min read
Having spent 2020 telling covid denalists that they were overly optimistic about the pandemic, I now look forward to spending 2021 telling covid maximalists that they are overly pessimistic about the end of the pandemic.
Telling a denialist in May that we shouldn't open bars back up = telling a maximalist in February that we should open schools back up.
Look, folks, the math is straightforward. ~13% of Americans have been vaccinated as of this week.

beckershospitalreview.com/public-health/…
And the 7 day average continues to rise; we're approach 2 million vaccine doses per day. Meaning that we'll double that ~13% much faster than the two months it took us to get there.
So it's entirely reasonable that absent any other intervention, we should expect to hit ~30% vaccinated by the end of March.
And given that those doses are concentrated among the highest risk groups--the 70+ and medical professionals--the case fatality rate, which has already been falling because of improved treatments, is about to drop off a cliff.
Combine that 30% vaccinated number with those who have acquired immunity via natural infection. By the end of September the CDC estimated that 15% of the US had been infected. *September*. That's almost the halfway point for the US pandemic.

wsj.com/livecoverage/c…
So even conservatively assuming that covid spread at the same rate in the five months since September as the five months prior to September, we should expect at least 30% of Americans (if not more) to have natural immunity at this point.
Sure, there's going to be some overlap between the 30% of those vaccinated by the end of March and the 30% who have natural immunity, we're talking about something in the order of 50-60% of the population who are immune to the virus by the end of March. Next month. Six weeks.
There are overly optimistic articles--cough, cough, WSJ--circulating about how the pandemic will be all over by April, but I also think the median person is overly pessimistic about how close we are to significantly ameliorating the severity of the pandemic.
I think the best, carefully optimistic case write-up is from @jameshamblin for @TheAtlantic.

theatlantic.com/health/archive…

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Paul Matzko

Paul Matzko Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @PMatzko

13 Feb
The New York Times article about SlateStarCodex is finally out and it is...bad. There's a lot I could parse, but let me just walk you through one paragraph that is so misleading as to be deceptive.

nytimes.com/2021/02/13/tec…
Take the first sentence of this paragraph. Now, technically the clause--"who proposed a link between race and IQ"--could simply modify "Murray" and have nothing to do w/ SSC.
But 99% of readers are going to assume that the clause actually defines SSC's alignment with Murray. In other words, the author is strongly implying that SSC shares Murray's racist beliefs.
Read 12 tweets
9 Feb
If you think Marjorie Taylor Greene is an unprecedentedly conspiratorial, bigoted nut job, well, then let me introduce you to Republican Congressman James B. Utt, who represented Southern California back when the state was a reliably Republican state in the 50s & 60s.
Utt was a John Birch Society ally. The JBS was somewhat analogous to QAnon, heightening every political disagreement into a sinister conspiracy.

He was also a Republican racist at a time when that was still somewhat novel, blending racism & conspiracism in a now familiar combo.
Take how Utt responded to civil rights protests in Savannah, Georgia in the summer of '63. Civil rights activists were winning concessions in the city that year, w/ MLK even calling it "the most desegregated city south of the Mason-Dixon line."

crmvet.org/tim/tim63b.htm…
Read 23 tweets
27 Jan
Folks think futzing with Section 230 will be some kind of quick fix for the toxicity and craziness in our politics. But the causes of our national illness are far deeper than the internet platforms that host their content. Shooting the messengers won't solve that.
We should know this, right? I mean, we had a national experiment with this approach during the First Red Scare. The government harassed socialist newspapers, jailed activists, and tried their best to shut them up.
And it didn't work. The persecution only fueled a resurgence of left-wing radicalism leading to the Popular Front era of the 1930s.
Read 5 tweets
26 Jan
It's another example of a classic (and doomed) effort to deploy illiberal methods in order to protect liberalism.

But let me focus on the problems in just one paragraph of @emilybazelon's article.
It's rooted in what is--to be fair--the received understanding of broadcast regulation, a hazy idea of a past, golden era of equity, reasonability, and freedom in broadcasting.
But the government actions that are waved at by the author were actually responsible for major episodes of government censorship and the repression of political dissent, which affected people from across the political spectrum.
Read 13 tweets
25 Jan
I wrote a book about the Fairness Doctrine and how it was responsible for one of the worst episodes of government censorship in US history.

So I am somewhat alarmed at the calls percolating on Twitter for a new, internet Fairness Doctrine. This is a thread about why that is.
Let's start with what most people think when they hear "Fairness Doctrine." They imagine a time at an indeterminate point in the past when mass media was reasonable, balanced, equitable, and fair. It was a veritable golden age of mass media and the Fairness Doctrine was to thank.
Back then, radio & tv stations couldn't just air their opinions, spreading unchecked misinformation. No, they had to let the other side of any given issue have a say, giving the good guys a chance to check the bad guys when they told bald lies.
Read 70 tweets
23 Jan
I think what the "antitrust / link payment" crowd misunderstand about the role of digitization in the decline of local news is that online platforms are simply middlemen in what was really a massive expansion in competition *between* news outlets.
Once upon a time, the standard consumer of news had relatively few options. (For sake of simplicity, let's stick to print for now.) There was the local town paper (maybe two); you could subscribe to a regional/state level paper or one of the major national papers of record.
But if you lived in, say, South Carolina, you couldn't get fresh news delivered to you by the local / regional papers in Oregon, and vice versa.
Read 20 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!