A point that's rarely made is that the OBJECTIVE risk of COVID today - given vaccination (or natural immunity) and a basic variant like Omicron - would be below that of flu in a normal flu year, at least as re death and probably hospitalization.
(2) This is basically just a mathematical note: the risk of COVID (350K lost pre-vaccine in a bad year) was always pegged at 5x that of flu. The vaccines reduce risk of most-serious-outcomes by 80-90%.
The analysis is straight-up 5/5-10 = (X)?
*I meant to say "apparently mild." Not sure where "basic" came from.
(3) I'm bothering to say this - stats guy, not dr - because people seem to be WILDLY over-estimating this risk.
Still protect seniors, sure. But questions like "Can I go outside if vaccinated?" make no sense in the context of an ~1/5,000 risk for hale under-50s now cut by 85%.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
It's remarkable how semantic many major arguments are. When left- debaters say "critical race theory does not exist" in high schools or ed schools, they are NOT denying that Zinn/1619/etc curricula are common - they are making the technical claim that crit. pedagogy is not CRT.
(2) Examples of this abound. I, too, would think that "racism is the biggest current problem for Black people," if I accepted the definition of 'racism' as being "any system within which Black people perform badly, for literally any reason."
(3) I'm not going to respond to every comment - writing book - but two quick notes:
(a) my response to intentional semantic confusion is the old good-faith "define your terms" technique. This is what I mean by or "ethno-Marxism" or "critical theory." city-journal.org/what-is-critic…
(2) It's actually worth breaking down the "logical" framework behind the claim that everything is WS.
Essentially, the idea here is that any large gap between groups must be due to either (a) racism, however subtle/hidden or (b) probably-genetic "inferiority (Kendi 2019)."
(3) If you accept this thesis (and reject all hereditarian claims), the "logical" next step must be: "Any system which produces performance gaps between groups is thus racist/WS, and any person who DENIES this is also is racist, because they are supporting hereditarianism."
(2) What's especially funny about this is that what dude's unironically re-tweeting is my half-joking argument that no left-winger can logically - WITHOUT ad hominems - that Ben Shapiro is not smarter than "thinkers" like Kendi. #keep_the_SAT
(2) You can take issue with my takes and jokes, but the numbers are ~always on point - these (attached) are some representative affirmative action edges, from recent studies and lawsuits.
(3) Worth noting: none of this has anything to do with the question of whether a 200pt SAT advantage is needed to "compensate for racism."
The point is that one EXISTS, and every single urban Caucasian kid knows this.
Worth noting: the label of Wokism/CRT isn't broad and meaningless - equivalent to "supports the civil rights laws," or "has a bisexual girlfriend."
These definable terms refer specifically to belief in particular post-Critical theories, which all share certain characteristics.
(2) The first True Crit characteristic is the belief that (per Delgado) racism/bias is "everyday," "everywhere."
Facially neutral systems like crim justice and SAT testing do not exist to help us lock up rapists or let smart kids into college. They exist to oppress Black people.
(3) The second big claim here is the idea that all disparities in group performance BY EXISTING prove discrimination (Sowell 2018; Kendi 2019).
According to the man IK, the only possible explanations for something like an SAT gap are "racism" and probably-genetic "inferiority."
One of the most enduring bad ideas in social science is that any large differences in performance (income, SAT scores) between groups have to be due to either racism or genetics.
There are many potential variables out here, gang. How OLD are the people we're talking about?
(2) When you think about it, the idea massive average differences in culture and training wouldn't much affect (say) IQ - which seems to be the default position on left and hard right - has to be one of the oddest things large groups of smart people have ever claimed to believe.
(3) Re a few DMs: a common hard-hereditarian position - see Nisbett (2005) reviewing Jensen (1978 on) -is that education and training don't much affect IQ.
This seems simply bizarre to me, since good schools literally teach the answers TO the questions that appear on IQ tests.