To the "Why are you worried about covid if you're vaccinated" crowd, I'm glad you don't know anyone immunocompromised, or elderly with comorbid conditions, who might be at risk of breakthrough infection despite vaccination, but some of us do know such people.
This is not a dispositive argument in favor of vaccine passports or whatever, but "Stupid covidphobes freaking out" is also not a good argument against those things. There are actual reasons to worry, even if you, personally are relatively young and healthy.
I, for example, have an elderly mom who has COPD, who got vaccinated six months ago, but would probably die from a serious breakthrough infection.
Statistically, the risk may be small, but you see, I don't have enough mothers to form a statistical universe. I only have the one.
While I agree that some people are taking the worrying too far--if your parents are 55 and healthy, I wouldn't freak out about their going to a restaurant--some people aren't, and the fact that you are unaware of legit reasons for concern doesn't mean they don't exist.
Note that I did not, in this thread, start arguing for vaccine passports--I simply asked people to stop attacking vaccine passports with the terrible, false argument that anyone who still worries about covid is simply paranoid
Everyone leapt into fighting about vaccines and NPIs
Because covid has melted too many brains, including the brains of people who spend a lot of time complaining that covid has melted everyone's brain.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
One good question for anyone who is proposing to overhaul a current social or political system: "In what ways would this work less well than the status quo?"
If they can't thoughtfully acknowledge the tradeoffs of their proposal, they aren't serious. Life is tradeoffs.
For example, I support drug legalization, even though I think this will mean drug use goes up, including some people developing substance abuse problems they would not have had under prohibition.
I favor deincarceration while knowing that on the margin, at least some criminals will thereby be freed to reoffend; I also favor increasing police presence while knowing that on the margin, this creates the opportunity for more negative interactions with the community.
I'm constantly surprised by how many women I meet had a terrible experience with the pill in ways that they *weren't* warned about--notably, a sudden & profound loss of interest in the activity that was the reason they were taking the pill. Often it persisted after they went off.
Also, most of them report their OB/GYN was dismissive when they asked whether maybe the fact that they suddenly didn't want to have sex had something to do with the new pills they were taking.
And fair enough--post hoc, ergo propter hoc is bad science. But loss of libido is a known side effect!
Also, I first got interested in this question because I was in a group of six random ladies, one of whom offhandedly mentioned it--followed by five others saying "me too!"
This thread is worth reading, the epistemic criss on the right is real, and yes, the mainstream media, by freaking out about Trump and abandoning normal standards, made that epistemic crisis much worse.
Fundamentally, I agree that this is the story many Trump supporters/apologists tell themselves, and that too much of it is true for comfort.
But my personal experience is that at the end of the day, the story is irrelevant; they side with Trump because they hate/fear his enemies
Back them off any particular truth claim, force them to confront the inescapable evidence that it's false, and they retreat almost instantly to some total irrelevancy about how progressives are nasty and dangerous.
They may be right, but that doesn't make Trump's lies any truer.
Mystified that anyone thinks "It's not nearly as bad as the worst period of criminal violence in US history" is a compelling rejoinder to fears about crime.
Rather than reassuring, it suggests you think we should wait until murders reach their old level before taking action.
I realize, of course, that this is not what people are *trying* to say, but it's what they're implying, and they should stop! It is a total political own-goal.
If you want to allay media-driven crime anxiety, ask folks if anyone they know has been victimized recently. In my experience, answer's usually "No", which often gives worriers pause--if cities are really descending into dystopia, how come no one they know has been mugged lately?
Once education became the entry requirement for a decent, stable job it was 100% predictable that affluent parents would move heaven and earth to ensure their child's education, and to hell with what that does to anyone else. It's not socially optimal, but neither is it malleable
No combination of policies will induce middle class parents to sacrifice their childrens' opportunities to even out things for the children of other parents who aren't as engaged/adept. Any policy that starts from the premise of redistributing educational opportunity is doomed.
Megan's three iron laws of politics:
1) You cannot get away with messing up someone's pension 2) You cannot get away with messing up the futures of middle class kids 3) You cannot get away with messing up someone's healthcare plan.
A bunch of things well established in the literature, and ferociously disputed by many in the public health community:
1) Obesity kills but not as many as you've heard 2) "Overweight" = lower mortality than "normal" weight 3) No one knows how to make people permanently thinner.
The wrath-of-a-thousand-suns reaction to point two, in particular, seems completely bizarre; the only way I can explain it is a kind of puritanism that wants being plump to be bad for you because it's fun getting that way.
To be sure, it may be confounding--lots of illnesses make you lose weight, though researchers do try to control for it. But no one has correctly identified the confounder yet, as far as I am aware.