This is good context, but the "kids are fine" people & the "protect the kids" people are talking past each other. What I hear from parents is less "I'm terrified my kid will die" and more "I'm terrified my kid will get a novel disease & I have no idea what that means long term."
Some parents are afraid their kid will die. But mostly, the actual fears of parents are not being met with "very few kids die of Covid." No one knows the long-term costs of this virus. Parents are making decisions for their most beloved people without sufficient information.
I'm not a parent. But I've had a hard enough time making decisions for myself during this pandemic. I cannot imagine having a child and navigating this, but I can imagine "don't worry, most kids don't die" wouldn't actually address my most pressing concerns.
How do you assess risk if you don't actually know what the risks are? How do you decide whether it's worth it to do X activity (send your kid to school, put them on a sports team, put them in daycare) without knowing what the long-term effects of Covid are on children?
There's a lot of politicized paranoia about Covid and I'm watching a lot of adults use the pandemic to justify various maladaptive behaviors, so I do also hear the urgency of the "look at the evidence, kids don't die" people. Lots of good reasons to reopen schools, for example.
But there are also lots of good reasons why parents are fearful, because the truth is that there simply is a black hole of information, and parents are having to make decisions that could impact the rest of their children's lives -- and they don't have all the information.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The documentary LuLaRich is out on Amazon Prime today, and you may see a familiar face in it (hi). For me, the most interesting part of the LuLaRoe story is the place where two American aspirations collide: capitalist consumerism & white female domesticity jill.substack.com/p/caught-with-…
We still fetishize full-time motherhood and consider it the end-all be-all of female ambition, while also living in a nation obsessed with buying, selling, entrepreneurship, and the myth of the self-made (wo)man. LuLaRoe (and other MLMs) jumped right into that space.
LuLaRoe offered stifled, uncompensated, unfulfilled and ambitious stay-at-home moms two crucial things: Recognition and connection.
So… three distinct choices then. “This option is somewhat more annoying than another option” doesn’t make it not actually an option. And many public policies are designed to coerce people into the choice policy-makers want — in this case, the one that saves lives.
I would not actually support a full vaccine mandate without any exceptions at all. But this isn’t a full vaccine mandate — it allows most workers to opt out of the vaccine as long as they test once per week (and even that is a little lax). Bizarre to see such outrage.
Also just sitting here noting which of your favorite leftists have a lot to say about freedom being impinged upon by life-saving vaccine rules and very little to say about women being forced to continue pregnancies and risk their lives in childbirth in Texas. Curious.
So what can we do?
-Donate to a Texas abortion fund
-Get loud, protest, write op/eds, fuel mass public outrage. The court hasn’t overturned Roe yet. Some justices don’t care about their legacy or the court’s legitimacy, but some do. Turn up the pressure, show that stakes are high
Other things to do:
-Turn up the pressure on Democrats to fix the growing problem of undemocratic conservative capture (check out the new Texas bill curtailing voting rights for example — these issues are directly connected). Tell Dems: end the filibuster, expand the court.
What else we can do:
-Excise left-wing misogyny. It’s poison. We can’t fix the right, but we can require better of the people we follow, support, and promote. Watch how people on the left respond to this moment. How are they using their platforms? Are they silent? Defensive?
This is... quite a narrative. I'm fascinated by the theory Biden had an excellent evacuation plan but The Media was simply too hard on him out of malice or both sides-ism... and not that evacuations ramped up BECAUSE journalists were screaming about it. theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/…
It can be true that Biden did the right thing by finally getting us out of Afghanistan AND that evacuations were wildly insufficient, particularly at the start. Yes 120,000 people is a lot! But for context, Iran has several million Afghan refugees living within its borders.
I don't think 120,000 people -- not all of them Afghans -- evacuated from Afghanistan is enough. It is many more than any Republican president would have evacuated? Yes, and that's great. But it's not enough. It could have started much sooner. We could have done more.
This makes me so angry at the Biden admin. They’ve refused to lift the ban on travelers from the EU because they don’t want to impose vaccination requirements. Instead of banning vaccinated Europeans, maybe make more Americans get the vaccine?
I’m mad at the unvaccinated, too, since they’re the ones driving outrageous Covid rates, & the rest of us have to live with their selfishness & recklessness. But Biden absolutely could do more to incentivize vaccines. Instead he’s coddling the unvaccinated & alienating our allies
Covid has been devastating for economies across the world. Lots of folks in Europe depend on tourist dollars, and have done their part — they did months of lockdown, and have gotten vaccinated. But our president feels somehow beholden to a bunch of selfish conspiratorial yahoos.
Sometimes we have to sacrifice for public health. Sometimes that means wearing masks. Sometimes it means shutting down schools. But it's really dangerous to deny the costs of these sacrifices because being honest might give fuel to a political opponent. jill.substack.com/p/the-importan…
Remote learning has been awful for students & families, and for vulnerable students & mothers in particular. That doesn't mean it was the wrong choice last year; it doesn't even mean it's the wrong choice now. But public figures lose credibility when they deny its costs.
Masking sucks. It's uncomfortable, it interferes with basic human interactions, it's isolating, it's dehumanizing. It is STILL far better than getting or spreading Covid. So why deny that most people find masking burdensome, but are willing to sacrifice for public health?