Every day on this site I come across someone who is indignant that others are going about their lives rather than maintaining a rigorous schedule of testing, social distancing, and masking. I always want to ask: what the hell did you think the endgame of this virus was?
Did you really think that people were going to keep masking at work and school *forever*? Test every time they go out in public, *forever*? Quarantine every time they have a casual exposure, *for the rest of their lives*?
And if not, when do you think it is going to end? When everyone's vaccinated? Because that's not happening. When covid stops circulating? Because unfortunately, we failed to contain it, and it's now endemic.
I'm not even arguing about the merits of forever NPTs and mass testing regimes. I'm just amazed that anyone ever thought that this was going to become the new normal.
I think there are things we will keep doing in response to covid. Air purifiers. Masks when you're sick (and for god's sake stay home!) But it was never going to be possible to keep folks masked at work or school forever, or limit social contacts to a few close friends.
You should not be on Twitter, waxing indignant to well-boosted people who have resumed their normal lives. You should be doing some deep soul searching about how you so fundamentally misunderstood what was possible for public health to achieve.
I was a hardcore lockdown advocate before vaccines. But now we have vaccines, and whether or not you think it's reasonable to ask folks to continue the precautions of Peak Pandemic for the sake of those who cannot or will not vaccinate, it was never going to happen.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
My latest column is on the WBD merger drama, and why anyone wants to buy this company. My commenters are extremely mad that I focused on strategy and market economics rather than the specter of David Ellison controlling CNN. So here's why I didn't write about it.
I don't think the possibility of David Ellison owning CNN is even among the top 10 most interesting questions about this merger. It might not even break the top 20. It is a sideshow that has been blown up into the main story by a self-obsessed media.
Why doesn't it matter? Because I regret to inform you that it is no longer 1995. I am not a lithe and energetic 22 year old enjoying a rich and varied nightlife. And the mainstream media does not enjoy one tenth of the agenda-setting power it had back in those golden days.
AOC should talk to some women’s swimmers and find out just how intense the training they do is, and how long you have to train to get to a Division 1 final. Most of these swimmers have been doing it daily since they were eight years old.
More broadly, this is why Democrats keep losing on this issue: they make sick dunks for each other without thinking about how they come off to normies. People with kids in serious sports know, as AOC apparently doesn’t, just how much commitment it takes.
Until I went to Ivies, I didn’t understand a key component of why the other swimmers were angry: for most of these girls, this is the last time they get to swim competitively (the girls who might make it to the Olympics are at a handful of ultra-elite programs.
People were terrified to be publicly critical on this issue. It had the biggest gap I've ever seen between public and private opinion. That gap was maintained by the fear of a vicious backlash from activists for saying anything even mildly critical. Nor was that fear unfounded.
Jesse Singal and Katie Herzog, to name just two people, were effectively blacklisted from journalism and lost a lot of friends merely for noting that *detransition existed*. Saying that transfemale athletes shouldn't compete with women was many leagues beyond that, and by 2020, social justice activists had a lot more power.
When I was covering the Lia Thomas story, I had to do an interview on *how swim meets work* on background because the guy was terrified my name would end up in his story *explaining timing rules*. He said "If it was just me, I might risk it, but my kids are in swim clubs and I can't risk their lives getting upended."
As I wrote in 2022, about why affirmative action eventually became untenable: “One of my favorite statistics for shocking Washingtonians is to reveal that in 1960, more than five out of every six accounted for in the census were White”.
This shouldn’t be shocking but it is; people tend to unconsciously assume that there must have been a lot of non-white people around, because that’s what they’re used to. They understand the numbers used to be lower, but not how much lower.
I've talked about this with lawyers because I've been repeatedly surprised when folks I didn't know very well would openly say to me that they were looking to hire a woman of color for X position. I understood that this was illegal even before SFFA; they very clearly did not.
How did this happen? Well, because effectively in liberal institutions there were three safe harbors that made this behavior seem safe.
First, members of a majority group had a higher bar to sue than members of a minority. The Supreme Court now looks set to overturn this: washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/…
This 1000%. I too used to think male strength was mostly about size until my super-skinny college boyfriend, who actually weighed less than me, effortlessly pinned me in a (playful) wrestling match, then held me down with one arm while he ostentatiously took a bite of his sandwich
Even now people will sometimes name check me in the trans sports debate, along the lines of "sure, most men are bigger than most women, but women like Megan McArdle exist" and yes, I do exist, but no I am not as strong even as men a foot shorter than me.
In grip strength, for example, the male and female distributions only barely overlap; the very strongest women can outdo only the very weakest men. The difference is so great that a super-strong prime-age woman would struggle when arm-wrestling an average 80-year old man.