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
This is, btw, why the fantasies of getting US costs down to European levels through the power of single payer will never work. Governments are more vulnerable to this sort of pressure than private companies are, not less. "Call your congresscritter and ask them why they want patients to die!" is a super effective ad.
(Then how did European countries do it? By holding costs down, not by getting providers to take a pay cut).
Our legislators try to avoid this by enacting all these complicated, opaque reforms in hopes that providers won't notice we're cutting their pay but the thing is the providers care more about paying their mortgage than legislators do about saving money.
I think this is bad, but also think it's a sign of something I thought a lot about after 1/6: it's really important for elites to uphold election norms precisely because normies won't. They'll be happy to indulge in election denial if the political elite goes along.
Democratic norms aren't a bedrock fact of democracy. They're a truce between opposing groups of political elites. Which is why it is in fact extremely important to have elites who are committed to those norms, and will swiftly crush even minor violations.
The biggest example is obviously Donald Trump. But Democratic elites dabbled too, with their little games about election certification, and their humoring of Stacy Abrams, and their looking the other way when Clinton said he wasn't a legitimate president.
If you are making fun of how terrible all the food was in the 1950s, some things to keep in mind 🧵:
1) Many of the worst recipes are from cookbooks created to promote various foodstuffs, and probably no one except the poor domestic scientist who created them ever made them.
2) Most jello salad isn't as bad as you think.
3) People were much, much poorer--1950s housewives also preferred steak to spam, but their budget didn't.
4) Chicken and eggs used to be more expensive than beef, not a cheap weeknight staple.
5) For 6-9 months of the year, in most of the country, fresh produce other than hardy lettuces like iceberg and storeables like carrots, onions, potatoes, and apples, were unavailable at any reasonable price.
I think the way to square this circle is to think of this not as a matter of people rejecting the moral values you care about, but as emphasizing different values that you both care about.
Abortion is a good example of this; people tend to think of others as not caring about [the life of the baby/the autonomy of the mother] but in fact most people care about both. They're just choosing which they care about more.
I consider Trump's character disqualifying. But my friends who are voting for Trump don't like his character. Rather, they care about other stuff--sometimes abortion, but lots of other stuff like abuse of left-wing institutional power.
So I wrote a column on my Dad's last year, and the brutal math of caring for the elderly.
The column is here. I wrote it because many folks assume that we could save $$$$ by using home care to keep folks out of nursing homes, which is not really true. washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/…
That assumption is natural enough, because nursing homes are really, really expensive--my Dad's semi-private room (a curtained alcove with a shared bathroom) cost $16,500 a month.
The problem is that by the time you're disabled enough to need a nursing home, you tend to require 24 hour assistance.
I don't know all the reasons for the Secret Service failures in Butler. But having written a book about failure (she said, demurely pointing to the link: ) I'm pretty sure that one problem was that ... it had been a long time since anything went wrong.amazon.com/Up-Side-Down-F…
Everything the secret service does is a tradeoff: between false positives and false negatives; between safety, and the cost that must be imposed on everyone else to make incremental safety gains; between ensuring nothing bad happens and ensuring that *nothing* happens.
If you shoot everyone who looks suspicious you make protectees safer, but kill more innocent people. If you have a massive security perimeter, it will be massively expensive and massively inconvenient. If you lock down protectees, they will be safer, but less effective