In literally the next tweet Silver notes the gap between what epidemiologists are doing and what they consider medically safe, but he can't quite put the pieces together. (Hint: Whether something is medically safe isn't the only influence on behavior in Year Two of a pandemic.)
I consider it pretty much safe to take the subway at this point. If anyone asked my opinion, I'd tell them it was fine to take the subway. I haven't yet taken the subway. There's no contradiction there, just me being a human being, muddling through.
And again, in spite of Nate Silver's framing above, that's not me being "risk averse." It's not a matter of risk. I spent a few hours hanging out with (a small group of) (fully vaccinated) friends in a (not-crowded) bar the other day.
If you asked me which of those two activities—bar or subway—I considered "safer," I'd say the subway. But again, it's not a matter of risk assessment. Re-entry is weird, and taking things slow is a luxury I have. So I'm doing it.
It hit me on a gut level a week or so ago that I'm never quite going to be the person I was a year and a half ago. Maybe if the pandemic had lasted for a month I would have just reverted afterwards. But that's not where I'm at. I've changed. Permanently.
Most of those changes—maybe all of them, ultimately—are positive, or neutral. But yeah, I think they're permanent, some of them. And no, they're not fully under my control. And that's okay, too.
And guess what, Nate? All this stuff is going to take us a while to unpack!
One more thing about all this: The ambiguity of the word "would" in the question Silver is teeing off on. "Would have done if I had to" and "would have done if the opportunity arose" and "would have done at the drop of a hat" are three very different things.
And flipping it over "wouldn't do because I think it's unsafe" and "wouldn't do because the pandemic has influenced what I'm interested in doing right now" and "would never do again because I'm scarred" are three VERY different things, all reasonable readings of the Q.
Just going to tack this—from a spinoff thread—up here, because I think it's useful in the original thread's context as well.
And I'm not even sure that DOESN'T make sense! Risk mitigation has been a really important strategy for me this last year and change—understanding that you'll have to do some risky things, and want to do others, but that if you do fewer of them, your risk is lower.
A big lesson for me over the last year has been that "is this constellation of activities safe for me medically" and "is this constellation of activities sustainable for me psychologically" are deeply entwined questions.
This is something that safer sex advocates have known for decades, of course—that the choices we make about how to keep safe have to be informed by our deeper wants and needs, or they're not going to stick.
Going over my 2020 online purchases in order to do my taxes, and wow. To see a chronological record of the whole year laid out that is quite a thing.
(April 8, for instance, I bought Anbesol and clove oil. Because that was the day I noticed one of my fillings had fallen out, and realized I had no idea when I'd be able to see a dentist again.)
And that's a perfect example of what I was talking about in the other thread. It took me two or three months to get that tooth fixed, but it wasn't until my first post-vax dentist appointment a month ago that I stopped obsessing about the state of my teeth on a daily basis.
She asked if I'd seen it, and I said I had, and we had a little chat about it. We were both struck by the way that conservatives combine reverence for founding documents with aggressive ignorance about the circumstances in which those documents were written.
That was the premise of this thread, which I was called an anti-white racist more than once for tweeting.
Remember that the three-fifths compromise wasn't a compromise about the rights of enslaved people—enslaved people were considered zero fifths of a person under it, not three.
It was about how much extra power slaveowners would be given compared to OTHER WHITE PEOPLE.
Under the three-fifths compromise, a white person in states where slavery was legal counted as more of a person for the purposes of representation than a white person in a state where it was illegal.
Every once in a while one of my students will say "slaves only counted as three-fifths of a person," and I'll just stop the class dead and say "That's not true. The truth is actually much much worse than that" and then go on from there.
My college has one lecture hall. On the entire campus. Most classrooms seat about 30 comfortably in non-covid times, 40 if you push it. No way to do social distancing for in-class instruction without folding in Zoom for the majority of students.
And we're a commuter campus, which means no dorms. At all. So everyone's going back to families, kids, parents, housemates, etc. And most students AND faculty are arriving on public transportation.