This is off-the-shelf political rhetoric of reaction-as-epidemiology: backfire and jeopardy. Weinstein is thus engineering a more virulent partisan pathogen re: vaccines. 1/
Here's a simplified write-up, from 2019, of the 'leaky' vaccine leads to virulent virus hypothesis. 2/ healthline.com/health-news/le…
You can see how this is weaponizable. Weinstein is trying to help maneuver us into a position in which future Covid deaths by the unvaxxed can be chalked up to recklessness of medical authorities and the vaxxed (for having superchanged the virus.) 3/
The problem with the narrative is that the risk is purely theoretical. It's not enough that the vaccine be imperfect. It needs to leak in the worst way in order to backfire. Here's a write-up from March about that. 4/ jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/…
There is no evidence (correct me if I'm wrong) that the actual vaccines are following the Marek track. In the face of a theoretical risk, the thing to do is: get the population vaxxed and watch out. There wouldn't be a way to proceed otherwise proactively. 5/
Weinstein is being careful to equivocate re 'breakthrough cases': 1) the vaccine is imperfect in that it stops illness and spread imperfectly. 2) the vaccine is imperfect in that it stops illness well but stops infection and spread poorly. 6/
In 2) we end up in a bigger petri dish. Living in that petri dish would be bad for the unvaxxed . But (correct me if I'm wrong) there is no evidence whatsoever we are in case 2. Here's the latest I can find. 7/ cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/7…
The proper way to describe it (which Weinstein - no dummy - is careful not to do) would be: in theory, a leaky vaccine could mitigate against selection against more deadly strains, but not engineer positive selection for deadliness. 8/
A virus that kills quick kills itself quick. But if a killer virus could piggyback on a host population it didn't kill, it could in theory spread from that 'base' to a susceptible segment of that population without killing itself. (Am I missing something?) 9/
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The thread in question implies Trump himself, like his followers, probably doesn't believe any of his own claims about having evidence the election was stolen. And Trump himself gives a shout out about how great the thread is! He agrees! He's probably just getting it off Hannity!
And yet somehow it's not Trump who is showing "unmitigated contempt" by knowingly lying to the American people for months on end that he has reason to think the 2020 election was stolen; somehow it's not Trump voters who show contempt by being unwilling to accept the election. 2/
Seriously, we are supposed to re-watch the video of the insurrection, this time imagining it's all about the Steele Dossier. And that's supposed to make it better? It makes it worse. 3/
There's something right about this and something wrong about it. What is right about it is that D's should fight fire with Biden. They have to win over the median voter (as R's do not). 1/ thedailybeast.com/dems-helped-gi… via @thedailybeast
The thing that is wrong about this is it equates belief with culture war. Or, more specifically, it equates distance between belief points with culture war. But, come to think of it, that can't be right. You and I can believe different things without going to culture war. 2/
Culture war is a matter of deliberately inflaming certain facts of difference for political profit. That is almost exclusively an R game, since it often (not always) affords them tactical opportunities to lose the culture war while winning politically, based on grievance. 3/
Alright, @arrroberts needs to explain something to me. What the hell is Coleridge doing, mock-plagiarizing E.T.A Hoffmann's "The Golden Pot", as "The Book of the Two Worlds", in "Blackwoods", in 1822?
He jokes it isn't his but he doesn't mention Hoffmann by name. He just says he read a "pre-existent copy" of his own (alleged) work, written by a Cervantic character from Thought-Land (Germany).
Coleridge's Maxilian is Hoffmann's Anselmus, transposed from Dresden to Dublin. WFT?
'I can't believe letting leopards-eating-people's-faces partisans draft anti-CRT legislation has produced a raft of bills that plausibly mandate leopards eating the faces either of teachers or children or both.' 1/
No, seriously. It must be exhausting to be David French. He's trying to be decent and reasonable about this. But, while it would indeed be hard - probably impossible - to write good bills in this vicinity it wouldn't be at all hard to draft less terrible bills than these. 2/
That strongly suggests that the bills are bad by design. And so the question becomes: why do the partisans of these bills perceive it as in their interest to back bad bills, by design? 3/
As Kaufman notes, even most Republican female Ivy Leaguers won't date Trumpers. Yet the common denominator of anti-Trump D and anti-Trump R attitudes is posited to be, not something about Trump, but revealed preference for 'progressive authoritarianism'?
Also, we're leaving religion out of it! But then we aren't trying to avoid a Northern Ireland-type situation, are we? Also, this piece IS a social justice demand, so how coherent is it to demand, for the sake of social justice, that social justice not be a basis for demands?
Good thread. I don't have a Bloomberg subscription but, as @JeffreyASachs says, the drumbeat is familiar. One weakness of Sachs' push-back is that a 'self-selection' explanation, in many other contexts, is not regarded as exculpatory - possibly the opposite. 1/
But those are cases in which we are talking about, say, an ethnic group that can be identified stably, independently of ideas/attitudes. If what is keeping conservatives out of academia are, broadly, their ideas and attitudes 2/
then it's an open question whether the situation is fine; or, if it should be changed, whether it should be the job of academe to shift to accommodate conservative ideas, or instead conservatism bears the burden of becoming more agreeable with academic ideas and attitudes. 3/