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

19 Jul
Given we seem to be entering a new cycle of ‘emotional manipulation by fear using kids’, let’s revisit last years’ headlines to see how they turned out.

In Aug 2020, RR claimed ‘thousands’ of Canada’s young ppl were dying from C19.

A year later, the total number is in the tens.
In March - right from the get go - Bloomberg said that young people were falling seriously ill from Covid.

At the time of publishing, there had been 4 Covid-19 hospitalizations of <18 year olds in 14 surveillance states.


4 tenths of a percent of the total hospitalized.
I suppose this one could be technically defensive. They did say “May”.

But they also didn’t say “or it may not”…which is actually what ended up happening.
Read 5 tweets
16 Jul
Thoughts re: #DeleteFacebook

#DeleteFB to silence dissenting opinions


#DeleteFB to fight technocratic authoritarianism

are borne of competing ideologies but advocate for the same outcome.

The question is, which effect is deleting Facebook more likely to have?...
Deleting Facebook to silence dissent is somewhat redundant in its primary utility given FB already employs mechanisms to censor.

Then again, if the point of deleting is to take ownership of your information consumption (v. censoring others), that's a noble choice...
It's also likely that some intend a not-so-mass exodus to serve as a warning to Zuckerberg et al, i.e. "If you don't censor others MORE, I'm going to leave!"

& if he were smart, he would call their bluff, primarily because kowtowing to extortion only leads to more extortion...
Read 15 tweets
16 Jul
I wish one - just one- of the 320 people who liked this letter demanding that unvaccinated children be kept out of school for 10 days for being a contact, could tell me what problem it solves.

I asked.

No substantive answers yet.

Withholding ed is hardly a virtuous position.
Watching ppl revel in the prospect of discriminating against kids is some really dark stuff.
This is the best I got so far. And it’s not good.

This is the kind of reaction you get for daring to ask people to justify their support of denying kids in-person school.

Covid messaging has triggered (and co-signed) a really ugly, base side of a lot of people.
Read 4 tweets
11 Jul
I do not have a >1/200 chance of dying of COVID if I get it.

The JH calc in Nature says it's closer to 4 in 10 million, or 1 in 2.5M. covid19risktools.com:8443/riskcalculator

@VincentRK - How do you justify making these kinds of abjectly false assertions? Noble lie?

Serious question.
It's possible that you think you're doing something good & that it's better to be 'cautious' and overstate risk, but instilling irrational fear is unhealthy.

Encourage people to vaccinate but don't lie to them. It's infantilizing, coercive, harmful and degrades your credibility.
And, yes, the 4 in 10 million is the absolute rate of mortality in my geo location and my pop subgroup for the last 3 weeks - not just C19 deaths presumably - but that gives a far more accurate picture of individualized risk.
Read 4 tweets
2 Jul
Victimhood is alluring to a lot of people because it does 3 things:

1. Attracts sympathy/support/validation
2. Insulates from criticism
3. Defers or redirects responsibility

Unfortunately, while those things can *feel* good, they don't do much to change one's circumstances...
Change requires taking responsibility...which erases most of the above benefits.

When you are no longer a victim, you can be held responsible for your choices and are vulnerable to criticism.

And for a lot of people, that's just too emotionally risky...
The irony is that progression of the victim mindset is not just entitlement to the above, but that other ppl are obligated to fix your prob for you...

which causes misery, resentment, confusion when ppl decline.

So you feel bad anyway...& you're stuck in your circumstances.
Read 4 tweets
25 Jun
I believe that they really don't know.

Let's help them out.
It was 52/47 eight minutes ago. Keep it up!
Rockstars. Every one of you. 👏👏👏
Read 8 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!