A 2015 article explains 'moral panic'

"...a situation in which public fears & state interventions greatly exceed the objective threat posed to society by an individual or group who's claimed to be responsible for creating the threat in the 1st place"

3 criteria apply:

#1 ✔️(see pic)

The media - quickly followed by the general populous - labeled anyone who questioned the C19 narrative a 'granny killer' & proposed denying them HC & freedoms.

This has since progressed to include the unvaxxed and those immoral enough to become infected...
#2 ✔️

It's objectively true that the media not only greatly inflates the risk from Covid, but people believe them.


Ppl believe they have a 12% chance of dying if infected - 80X the IFR

This one is in progress, as the panic has yet to subside, which makes sense.

The internet makes it easier to keep a perceived threat relevent despite the disconnect b/t the panic & lived reality

Punitive, unnecessary legislation is emerging all over the world.
A lot of ppl have intuited this pattern, but didn't have name for it.

And, as explained, it's not just a tug-of-war between good and bad. It's complex and this author identifies 5 distinct categories of social actors: (I'm a 'folk devil')

Which are you?
And this is one explanation for the callousness & cruelty directed - for example - toward young & disabled ppl who report that the moral panic is harmful: because for the hysteria to take hold, every folk devil must be completely morally unredeemable.
This part is really interesting b/c, at least so far, actual LE has been tangential to the real 'law enforcer' actors, who have emerged as the epis, 'experts', & PH authorities repeatedly amplified in the media to reinforce the above-mentioned punitive, unnecessary legislation...
This is some brief commentary on how the media contributes to public panic:

Framing looks at the issue from only one angle, while priming taps into preexising (often planted) beliefs - e.g. "the hospitals will be overwhelmed AGAIN" when they never were in the first place.
Why did most politicians default to policy restrictions?

Because with the folk devil at large, their position required them - in order to be perceived as moral leaders - to protect the public from the morally bankrupt FDs.
Finally, one reason we see media doubling down on the fear-mongering - despite the precipitous drop in already low-level risk - is that ALL the other actors rely on the public perpetuating the panic to support the actors' own personal/professional success.

The public are pawns.
This is a good thread to share with anyone you feel may be inadvertently contributing to the moral panic.

If even 1/100 ppl sees the part they are playing - & that realization helps them transition from panic to rational thought - that's a win for everyone.

(And, yes, I can.)

• • •

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

Keep Current with AJ Kay

AJ Kay 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!


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 @AJKayWriter

11 Sep
What's the word for an economic system in which the government can artificially restrict a company's (or even an entire sector's) customer base at will?

Because it's not capitalism...
And, yes, we have regulatory oversight: FLSA, FCC, CPSC, EPA, etc... the list of regulatory agencies is extensive.

But what we're facing mass disruption of the most basic market forces using a flimsy justification that crumbles under the most superficial scrutiny...
Does removing people from the economy reduce the transmission of a primarily non-lethal virus? No.

So you can tell me this has been going on for years and there's truth in that...but this is a matter of scope, scale & lack of any reasonable explanation.

It's a paradigm shift.
Read 4 tweets
8 Sep
Yesterday, @Medium informed me via email that they were deleting my account for “elevated risk of potential harm to persons or public health”

The only piece I pub'd there in the last 9mo. was a narrative essay expressing shock at how we’ve treated children - 6w ago...


And for that thoughtcrime, they are burning my books in the town square.

All my books.

Even the ones on parenting and autism and writing and health.

Medium thinks I am a dangerous dissident in need of silencing...
Understand I wasn’t cited for dispensing medical advice or ‘misinfo’ (which we know means inconvenient truths) like I was when they censored The Curve is Already Flat in April 2002.

This time, it was my opinions and morals that were deemed a risk to people or public health...
Read 16 tweets
6 Sep
Part of the problem here 👇 is that people no longer understand what journalism is.

The ethics standard is not, “Run the story unless it’s ‘completely negated’.”

The details must be accurate & verified.

There no excuse for the @RollingStone story to still be up anywhere…

A bigger part of the problem is cognitive dissonance.

Despite being thoroughly debunked, people are still defending the Ivermectin OD article.


They need to believe it’s true or else their world view falls apart,

Firmly held beliefs can be excruciating to dislodge…
What this moral panic narrative has done is herd people into two camps.

Believe us? You are ‘good & smart’.

Believe them? You are ‘bad & stupid’.

To admit the story was wrong, they’d have to either admit they are bad & stupid and face exile, or reject the false dichotomy
Read 9 tweets
5 Sep
If pre-2020, you child’s pediatrician had said,

“Listen…there’s a new vaccine & it decreases your child’s risk from a disease w/ 99.9972% survival rate by .0027%. We also have zero data on long-term side effects (& not much on the short-term either.)”

What’s your reply?
I’ve yet to see anyone say “Sign my kid up!”

And that’s because when we’re thinking rationally, we don’t subject kids to a medical intervention that has almost no benefit and unknown costs.

This is what the precautionary principle *actually* looks like.
Cue all the contrarians saying “Sign my kid up!” 😂
Read 4 tweets
5 Sep
“Those who insist on refusing the vaccine for no reason…”

I’m going to stop you right there, @RuthMarcus. No one does anything for ‘no reason’. No one.

That’s not how human decision-making works…

Thread 🧵🪡

Ppl make the best decisions they can with the information they have at the time.

That includes info you don’t have re: med history, life experiences, values, input of their trusted advisors & countless other factors.

Don’t dismiss ppl’s reasons just b/c you made a diff choice…
And I *could* list some of those reasons here but I won’t - b/c we’re talking about private decisions & you are not moral arbiter of others’ choices.

They don’t owe you an explanation.

And if they did, your own would be equally subject to their scrutiny & criticism.

That’s #1
Read 13 tweets
4 Sep
What if we allow ourselves to entertain the possibility that the reason schools weren't a primary source of transmission is that kids were exposed & recovered long before we knew Covid was here & developed robust natural immunity, halting transmission...

And that, like w/ other CVs, adaptive immunity will eventually wane, esp w/o continued exposure.

And that waning immunity doesn't mean they're in danger. They just need to build more adaptive immunity.

Maybe it's time we actually 'listen to the experts'
If so, even when it was novel, kids weren't at serious risk from C19 & the symptoms were/are so non-specific, that it could've looked like any other bad cold/flu.

I believe my kids all had it back in Jan 2020 & I've heard countless similar stories...
Read 4 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!