The 2020 debates between Covid-Taliban and ‘floomers’ who argued for less restrictions on grounds that its severity was kinda sorta ‘just the flu’ looks pretty absurd in retrospect now during our current regime of (partial/localized) Covid-Taliban’ing against ‘omicron’, a cold
Maybe it was wrong to minimize Wuhan Classic, and liken it to ‘just the flu’. Maybe the tradeoff/balance weighed in favor of restrictions.
But now we have Wuhan-South Africa, which is uniformly *much less severe*. And still the Covid Taliban *wants to do all the same things*.
Imagine Wuhan Classic hadn’t existed and it had been Wuhan-South Africa that emerged in 2020. You know, a cold that spreads fast and everyone gets, then they’re done.
Would ‘closing schools’, ‘vaccine passports’ in response to it have even been on the table?
You have to admit there’s been a bit of frog-boiling here
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Remember to tell everyone you know to ‘up your mask game’. Because that’s a phrase you totally thought of completely by yourself and not something you’re repeating because you saw it on the TV or perhaps a social media posted clip of something on the TV
DON’T LOOK UP (2021) was ok. But not as a ‘climate change allegory’. As a quirky character study of the DiCaprio and especially the Jennifer Lawrence character. They were just funny to watch in all those situations.
The movie itself, despite being ‘timely’ and I have no doubt meant as some blunt allegory about ‘climate change’ in our ‘social media’ ‘politicized’ ‘divided’ ‘post truth’ era, comes across as weirdly dated. Felt like something from the late 90s. And just cuz of DEEP IMPACT.
Covid restrictions, to the degree that they actually ‘work’, could be increasing severity/death in the US, if their net-effect is to slow down ‘omicron’ from viral-competing away ‘delta’, meaning ‘delta’ remains prevalent longer, to infect more people. Just saying: could be.
For any given uninfected person, whether their next-exposure to a Wuhan-like virus is ‘omicron’ or ‘delta’ is a random variable X. ‘Covid measures’ ‘working’ could mean the omicron wavefront reaches them later, tilting the odds toward X = delta. Which is bad for them.
This effect could actually be material given the reported ability of an omicron infection to provide some immunity to delta; if so it *really matters*, net-outcome-wise, whether your next exposure/infection is one or the other. It’s not symmetric.
There is a good point being made here that is worth thinking about even if identifying ‘western modernity’ and/or ‘capitalism’ as the culprit is a cliche misdiagnosis
Implicitly, there is some deal/tradeoff that has been made, wherein large/more-extended family living situations have been largely switched for nuclear-only
was this deal 100% desired, were all its terms entered with open eyes. Or was some of it inadvertent
One factor comes to mind is how the (all-in) tax burden on a salary nowadays is 40-50%, & a big chunk of what that supposedly buys you is a pension (i.e. paying for your aging parents to live elsewhere). Did we ‘choose’/want this attractor in the social-arrangement state space
'vaccine hesitancy=people have lost trust in experts' is question-begging
why can't it be that a given person does not want to take the vaccine because they do not judge the risk vs. benefit ratio of doing so to be in their favor
'but that's exactly my point, it means they Don't Trust Experts'
no it doesn't, because no actual 'Expert' has actually calculated the risk-benefit ratio for that person. which Expert has done that, for that person? Joe Biden?
where the rubber meets the road, most individuals aren't being told to take the vaccine 'by Experts'. they're being told because their Mayor implemented a 'vaccine passport', or because Joe Biden told OSHA to make a workplace rule.
A repeated problem I have with the past 2 years of policy is that policies are hastily thrown in place and then reactively ‘defended’ by Smart People who *invoke the possible existence of an argument for them* rather than actually making that argument.
Lockdowns: wait why is this worth it? what justifies any of it? where can I find anyone putting forth something resembling, say, cost-benefit analysis?
Smart People: ‘well surely Lockdowns are justified *in some cases*. are you sure it *wouldn’t* pass a cost-benefit test?’
Vaccine mandates: wait, these vaccines don’t seem to suppress transmission that much, & to have a more-than-normal side-effect risk profile. What’s the argument for surmounting the presumption against forced medication?
Smart People: ‘surely vaccines can be mandated *sometimes*’