“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 🧵🪡

washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/…
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
#2 - Mad that more ppl aren’t vaxxed? Take it up w/ Public Health.

It’s their job to comm effectively. It’s not the public’s job to follow blindly.

Citizens have a duty to question authority & push back when answers are found lacking.

Lying & coercion do not engender trust…
#3 - This claim is particularly striking:

You’re arguing that ppl c/ *actual* self-harming behaviors deserve the best care b/c…change is hard (I can’t w/ that one) & they’re their ‘own victims.’

Wrong. The burden they place on HC affects everyone - we’re just used to it…
The main difference is that their ‘poor decisions’ got them there first.

That’s triage…the very process you’re trying to undermine.

Who do you think hosps are full of every winter? Why did I sit in the ER for 22hrs in Dec - 16w preg c/ a kidney issue - waiting for a bed?
Because the lion’s share were already occupied by people w/ self-inflicted metabolic disease.

Resources were scarce. It didn’t matter. Because doctors are ethically bound not to judge.

Poor metabolic health undeniably puts a chronic & unrelenting burden on our healthcare system
There’s no good faith argument that such people don’t siphon
healthcare resources with preventable illness - the very crime you feel disqualifies the unvaccinated from care.

Hell, we’ve even designed a HC system that profits handsomely off their addictions…
And none of this matter because we don’t deny care based on our judgement of other’s choices.

Why?

Because there’s no way to do that does not render everyone’s HC access vulnerable to capricious subjectivity & discrimination…

And that would be a human rights violation…
As for the “duty to their community” argument, your vague & unsupported assertion fails to acknowledge that
C19 vaccines don’t prevent transmission, ergo they don’t protect the community.

They’re for the at-risk and fearful to protect themselves…
Given your flimsy arguments, it would be easy to say that you have ‘no reason’ for arguing to deny care to ppl you’ve deemed unworthy.

But we both know that’s not true. You have reasons.

Is it existential terror? Moral grandstanding? Mass psychosis? Professional ambition?…
Those are all reasons.

But let’s be clear that if we did take your advice & prioritized scare medical resources based on some legitimate measure of ‘moral worthiness’, this ghoulish advocacy for discrimination would relegate you to the ‘deprioritized.’…
Not least of all because this mindset you’ve willfully (and selfishly) adopted is a morally-bankrupt plague on humanity.

And you’re not only infected, you’re willfully infecting others.

• • •

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!

PDF

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...

1/

🧵🪡
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.

Why?

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
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...

yahoo.com/news/first-u-c…
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'
collateralglobal.org/article/mini-l…
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...
medium.com/morozko-method…
Read 4 tweets
2 Sep
Great piece by @edwest.

And this is what I was (clumsily) exploring with my poll about fame v. money the other day - w/o invoking the word "status".

The vast majority of rational ppl reported pref wealth over fame (proxy for social status)...

unherd.com/2021/09/life-i…
Which makes some sense given the rational position on C19 is certainly not the status-seeking, socially-validated one.

At the same time, the final split was so strong that - coupled with some of the comments - I wondered if eschewing status itself may be a status play...
Status has value. Empirically.

Is Rational Twitter

* ignorant or in denial,
* bad at it,
* opting out, or
* are we playing our own internal status game?

I'd love to hear what you think.
Read 6 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!

:(