Corona Virus: It's a Marathon, Not a Sprint

[Torfish]

Second shot done. Had bad flu symptoms for about 12-24 hours and a sore arm for 3 days. Now all good.

[Defiant]

Got my second dose. Though this time it was a bit more of a headache, because they notified me by phone just as I was heading out the door that I had to go to a different location, and when I got there, I found out that the new location hadn't been informed at all that the original location was going to send (some? all?) of it's appointments to them. But they got it sorted out, and after verifying that I was going to get the same shot, I got shot. Now to wait for two weeks. No side effects yet, except for an increased appreciation of Microsoft products.

[hitbyambulance]

Port of Seattle doesn't seem to want to do anything with me for second dose, so i scheduled it at a city-run vax site in West Seattle for May 11

[Kraken]

New England leads the nation in vaccinations.

While concern is rising that fewer people may be stepping forward to get their coronavirus vaccinations, Massachusetts and other New England states lead the nation in the rate of people who have gotten at least their first shot of one of the vaccines.

New Hampshire led the states with 60.7 percent of residents having gotten at least a first dose or a single dose of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, according to data from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

New Hampshire was followed by Massachusetts (57.3 percent), Vermont (56.6), Connecticut (55.6), and Maine (55.2). Decidedly non-New England Hawaii (53.7) was next on the list, but Rhode Island (53.3) followed quickly behind.

Kind of surprised to see NH (state motto: Fuck off and die) leading the pack, but not at all surprised to see New England out front.

Dr. Ashish Jha, dean of the Brown University School of Public Health, in a series of tweets Monday morning, drew a connection between the high vaccination rates and recent declines in coronavirus cases in New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Vermont, Connecticut and Maine.

Noting the experience of Israel, he also suggested that getting 50 percent of the population vaccinated may be a “turning point” where cases begin to drop sharply.

“At what point should we see cases in US begin to drop sharply from vaccinations?” Jha wrote. He said it was “complicated but experience from Israel says 45-50% of population vaccinated.”

While the “US is shy of that,” he said, some states are past that threshold.

“So do we have evidence its working there? Why yes we do,” he said, pointing to New England.

And surprising no one: "Mississippi (31.1 percent), Louisiana (32.2), and Alabama (32.7) were the states with the lowest percentages of their population with at least one dose."

[Smoove_B]

This man is my spirit animal.

Yes, Virginia, There Is Still A Goddamn Global Pandemic :

I am now fully vaccinated. The pandemic is still ongoing. The one does not change the other, in the same way that the statement, “I want the pandemic to be over” does not end the pandemic.

I bring this up because there is a fresh and sudden wave of bullshit-scented judgment water splashing down on us in the form of, “Wow, you liberals just can’t quit lockdown,” or, “Gosh, you sure all seem to be pandemic addicts.” The assertion comes, presumably, from the idea that here, at the pandemic’s end, some of us are choosing to maintain a portion of our mitigation measures like masking or reduced travel. Which further suggests we are in a co-dependent relationship with said pandemic, or worse, that we are literally addicted to it, the way one becomes addicted to heroin. (I’m not going to link to any of the articles or tweets. I don’t care to give bad, disingenuous actors traffic. If you wanna track down sources, you can find them, I’m sure.)

Here’s one problem, though:

We are not at the pandemic’s end.

Plus:

The vaccines are 100% effective against death and severe disease, which is to say, statistically, but not literally — there have been hospitalizations and death in those who have been fully vaccinated, and I say this not to invoke panic, but just to ensure we’re all on the same page as reality. The numbers are low enough that, risk assessment-wise, you’re likelier to suffer pain and death from far rarer sources (lightning, cows, I dunno, probably rogue toasters), but the asterisk is still there that people who are fully vaccinated can still get it, can still get sick, can still get dead. And there remains no clear messaging or data on what this does for, or about, Long COVID — if five out of a hundred people can still get sick with COVID after being fully vaccinated, can they still suffer from the multifarious effects of long-term illness? We don’t know. Certainly it means that your chances overall are lower, which is great. But lower doesn’t mean zero, and that’s a calculation we have to make, especially when we remember that a hundred million people still aren’t fully vaccinated, and one hundred percent of our children aren’t fully vaccinated.

Most definitely:

So yeah! We’re a little fucking anxious! We don’t like this. We’re not addicted to it. We want this shit to be over, too. So maybe take that judgey little face you’re making, wad it up into a fleshy spongy Madball, and gently screw it into your own asshole like a lightbulb. I don’t know who needs to hear this, but it’s okay if you’re feeling trauma-bombed by all this. It’s okay that you’re a little hesitant to throw your mask in the garbage disposal and go running into a field of moist human bodies with your arms held high and your mouth hanging agape in order to catch the saucy mist of sweat and saliva and partying microbes. It’s fine. It’s normal. We’re not sitting in the dark, aroused by our own isolation. It’s just, we remember Jurassic Park. There were just dinosaurs eating people like, ten minutes ago. We’re not so eager to re-open the park just because you say it’s safe. We’re gonna take our time, whatever time we need, because that’s how a lot of people do things.

Finally:

It’s okay if you’re uncertain how to proceed, or you want to gradually return to some semblance of normalcy (because be assured, what will result must be labeled a New Normal, because the Old Normal is a ghost, it’s gone). It’s okay to still wear a mask, whether to protect yourself or to make others feel safe. It’s okay to wear a mask next year, during flu season, because you want to neither catch nor give someone the flu. It’s okay to not simply handwave away COVID cases in children, because that’s pretty scary. It’s okay to be not okay. And fuck anybody who tells you different. Meaning, Brian Stetler. Fuck you, Brian Stetler, of CNN, a network one might argue is addicted to having shitheads like Rick Santorum okay fine I concede I’m a little off-point.

[noxiousdog]

I'm not sure how to reconcile this.

"The numbers are low enough that, risk assessment-wise, you’re likelier to suffer pain and death from far rarer sources (lightning, cows, I dunno, probably rogue toasters," but he's still freak-out level anxious.

Is he saying, no it's not really dangerous once you're vaccinated, but he's still scared and it's ok?

[LawBeefaroni]

if five out of a hundred people can still get sick with COVID after being fully vaccinated

[LordMortis]

I'm not sure how to reconcile this.

"The numbers are low enough that, risk assessment-wise, you’re likelier to suffer pain and death from far rarer sources (lightning, cows, I dunno, probably rogue toasters," but he's still freak-out level anxious.

Is he saying, no it's not really dangerous once you're vaccinated, but he's still scared and it's ok?

My read is be realistic in your expectations and news dissemination. Yes people are still catching COVID and dying. Yes there are complications. But a general risk assessment says get the vaccination anyway and when you read about a death, know that you aren't reading about 5000 deaths a day as the alternative.

Of course my read confirms my bias, so....

[malchior]

I'm not sure how to reconcile this.

"The numbers are low enough that, risk assessment-wise, you’re likelier to suffer pain and death from far rarer sources (lightning, cows, I dunno, probably rogue toasters," but he's still freak-out level anxious.

Is he saying, no it's not really dangerous once you're vaccinated, but he's still scared and it's ok?

The piece was about agency and helping people put things in proper perspective. He is talking to people who feel like they'll be pressured to return to normal faster than they are comfortable with. Mostly because some people are rushing to get past the pandemic. He is also saying to people who might still be traumatized or at risk that it is ok to continue to do what they think is safe. Especially in regards to children who are still at risk of unknown duration/impact at the moment.

[Smoove_B]

if five out of a hundred people can still get sick with COVID after being fully vaccinated

Math is hard. I think the real issue is more about understanding vaccine efficacy than the math. I know you know this. I'm just standing on your shoulders.

[Smoove_B]

I'm not sure how to reconcile this.

"The numbers are low enough that, risk assessment-wise, you’re likelier to suffer pain and death from far rarer sources (lightning, cows, I dunno, probably rogue toasters," but he's still freak-out level anxious.

Is he saying, no it's not really dangerous once you're vaccinated, but he's still scared and it's ok?

Your risk is not my risk. Do not put your risk on me or assume I'm comfortable accepting your risk.

SEE ALSO: Conversations with my MIL

Again, it's also not entirely about risk analysis. I know I'm low risk. But there's still a million people unvaccinated. I'm not going to act like everything is fine because I'm better off. That's kinda how we collectively lived between March of 2020 and 1/21/21.

[noxiousdog]

The piece was about agency and helping people put things in proper perspective. He is talking to people who feel like they'll be pressured to return to normal faster than they are comfortable with. Mostly because some people are rushing to get past the pandemic. He is also saying to people who might still be traumatized that it is ok to continue to do what they think is safe.

I wonder if he would be as compassionate towards those with irrational fears about the vaccine.

But on the whole, I agree with him. I'm not all that worried about the risk, but I still wear my mask.

[Kurth]

Just because I didn’t see it posted anywhere, The Atlantic has an article putting out a slightly different take:

The Liberals Who Can’t Quit Lockdown

Guessing the author of that piece is not Smoove’s spirit animal.

[malchior]

The piece was about agency and helping people put things in proper perspective. He is talking to people who feel like they'll be pressured to return to normal faster than they are comfortable with. Mostly because some people are rushing to get past the pandemic. He is also saying to people who might still be traumatized that it is ok to continue to do what they think is safe.

I wonder if he would be as compassionate towards those with irrational fears about the vaccine.

Why should he? I certainly don't. People being cautious about spread of the disease leads to generally good better outcomes for everyone. People who don't get vaccinated put everyone at risk.

[noxiousdog]

Just because I didn’t see it posted anywhere, The Atlantic has an article putting out a slightly different take:

The Liberals Who Can’t Quit Lockdown

Guessing the author of that piece is not Smoove’s spirit animal.

We talked about that yesterday.

[Kurth]

Just because I didn’t see it posted anywhere, The Atlantic has an article putting out a slightly different take:

The Liberals Who Can’t Quit Lockdown

Guessing the author of that piece is not Smoove’s spirit animal.

We talked about that yesterday.

Too many damned overlapping threads!

[noxiousdog]

The piece was about agency and helping people put things in proper perspective. He is talking to people who feel like they'll be pressured to return to normal faster than they are comfortable with. Mostly because some people are rushing to get past the pandemic. He is also saying to people who might still be traumatized that it is ok to continue to do what they think is safe.

I wonder if he would be as compassionate towards those with irrational fears about the vaccine.

Why should he? I certainly don't. People being cautious about spread of the disease leads to generally good outcomes for everyone. People who don't get vaccinated put everyone at risk.

Is this about compassion for trauma or about risk? Because he said there was tiny risk but he's still traumatized and his nemesis should respect it.

[Zaxxon]

The piece was about agency and helping people put things in proper perspective. He is talking to people who feel like they'll be pressured to return to normal faster than they are comfortable with. Mostly because some people are rushing to get past the pandemic. He is also saying to people who might still be traumatized that it is ok to continue to do what they think is safe.

I wonder if he would be as compassionate towards those with irrational fears about the vaccine.

Why should he? I certainly don't. People being cautious about spread of the disease leads to generally good outcomes for everyone. People who don't get vaccinated put everyone at risk.

Is this about compassion for trauma or about risk? Because he said there was tiny risk but he's still traumatized and his nemesis should respect it.

I think you changed the gist of his quote by leaving out one of the succeeding sentences. To me, that's the crux:

"But lower doesn’t mean zero, and that’s a calculation we have to make, especially when we remember that a hundred million people still aren’t fully vaccinated, and one hundred percent of our children aren’t fully vaccinated."

The fact that vaccinated folks have a Very Low Super-Duper Not-Worrysome risk of major issues does not imply that community risk is that low. It won't be that low on a community level for many more months. Fears about the vaccine are irrational. Fears about opening up too soon are entirely rational--especially for those with children or immunocompromised people in their orbits.

[Kurth]

The piece was about agency and helping people put things in proper perspective. He is talking to people who feel like they'll be pressured to return to normal faster than they are comfortable with. Mostly because some people are rushing to get past the pandemic. He is also saying to people who might still be traumatized that it is ok to continue to do what they think is safe.

I wonder if he would be as compassionate towards those with irrational fears about the vaccine.

Why should he? I certainly don't. People being cautious about spread of the disease leads to generally good outcomes for everyone. People who don't get vaccinated put everyone at risk.

Is this about compassion for trauma or about risk? Because he said there was tiny risk but he's still traumatized and his nemesis should respect it.

My question as well. Aren’t both positions “anti-science” regardless of the reasons why?

[ImLawBoy]

It's a false equivalency, both on the level of risk and on the impacts of the risk avoidance.

[malchior]

Is this about compassion for trauma or about risk? Because he said there was tiny risk but he's still traumatized and his nemesis should respect it.

I don't think he is talking to a nemesis. I think he is saying to people who are exhausted - 'look inward - here are the reasons you can justify not listening too much to the people in your life who tell you you're being overly cautious'.

[noxiousdog]

It's a false equivalency, both on the level of risk and on the impacts of the risk avoidance.

Not if we're only allowed to judge our own risk.

[ImLawBoy]

It's a false equivalency, both on the level of risk and on the impacts of the risk avoidance.

Not if we're only allowed to judge our own risk.

Okay, well how about we don't do that then?

[malchior]

It's a false equivalency, both on the level of risk and on the impacts of the risk avoidance.

Not if we're only allowed to judge our own risk.

I didn't take that from the piece but ultimately the arbiter is the virus.

[Kurth]

It's a false equivalency, both on the level of risk and on the impacts of the risk avoidance.

Can you hum a few more bars on this? Why is it a false equivalency?

From what I’ve read, it seems like “the science says” (a phrase that should result in jail time for anyone who uses it that is not actually a scientist) the risk of having a serious adverse reaction to the vaccine is infinitesimal. Research and the new CDC guidelines also seem to support that the risk of, say, getting infected with COVID-19 when you’re outdoors passing by a few strangers on a hiking trail or running path is also infinitesimal and that masks are just not necessary in those situations.

Why is it a false equivalence to look at those who are logically adamant about vaccinations because science but refuse to relent on their outdoor mask wearing because . . . feelings?

If your point is that the potential harm from a reluctance to return to normal activities is far outweighed by the harm from being vaccine hesitant, I don’t disagree at all. But I don’t think that addresses the fundamental contradiction between the two positions.

Also, for what it’s worth, as The Atlantic article points out (echoing a string of recent publications), the cost of insisting on pandemic restrictions that are no longer necessary is not zero either.

[Smoove_B]

I'm expecting various news agencies to pick apart and disseminate the latest from my jam via the CDC's MMWR, but I share here first for those that care:

Top level:

Data from six models indicate that with high vaccination coverage and moderate NPI adherence, hospitalizations and deaths will likely remain low nationally, with a sharp decline in cases projected by July 2021. Lower NPI adherence could lead to substantial increases in severe COVID-19 outcomes, even with improved vaccination coverage.

Details (my emphasis added):

The rapid rollout of vaccination is having a positive impact on the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States and reported disease nationally during April has been on the lower end of the scenario projections to date. However, multiple jurisdictions have seen a resurgence of COVID-19 cases and others likely will if NPI adherence declines too rapidly. Increases in deaths and hospitalizations could be more moderate because of prioritization of vaccination groups at high risk for COVID-19 but are still expected, particularly in locations with pronounced increases in transmission earlier during the vaccine rollout. These modeled scenarios show that ongoing efforts to continue to increase vaccination coverage and maintain physical distancing, masking, isolation, and quarantine are warranted. As the COVID-19 pandemic evolves and more data become available regarding factors affecting outbreak dynamics, future projections from the COVID-19 Scenario Modeling Hub can provide new and improved insights for public health response.

NPI = Non-pharmaceutical Interventions - masking, distancing. As stated months ago, we're not going to vaccinate our way out of this; it will require coordinated controls on multiple fronts. Or pretending like the pandemic is over and just doing whatevs. Either or. Vaccinating is a helpful, life-saving tool. But it's spread too far and too wide to just rely on vaccination; doing that means many more people are going to die. True, it's less than a year ago, but the idea that these deaths are now at an "acceptable level" and the rest of us can just move forward is just awful.

As was pointed out recently, "all pandemics end" -that seems to be the rallying cry of the new group of people vocally opposing anything and everything public health. And while it's true - all pandemics do end - we have the ability to help end it sooner and in a more directed way. If the vaccinated people of the world act like a toggle switch went off after their second shot, that's going to be a problem.

[ImLawBoy]

It's a false equivalency, both on the level of risk and on the impacts of the risk avoidance.

Can you hum a few more bars on this? Why is it a false equivalency?

From what I’ve read, it seems like “the science says” (a phrase that should result in jail time for anyone who uses it that is not actually a scientist) the risk of having a serious adverse reaction to the vaccine is infinitesimal. Research and the new CDC guidelines also seem to support that the risk of, say, getting infected with COVID-19 when you’re outdoors passing by a few strangers on a hiking trail or running path is also infinitesimal and that masks are just not necessary in those situations.

Why is it a false equivalence to look at those who are logically adamant about vaccinations because science but refuse to relent on their outdoor mask wearing because . . . feelings?

If you're looking at the one issue of "mask wearing on a hiking trail or running path", things get a little bit closer, but the range of "overly cautious vaccine haver" is much larger than that. You're also talking about indoor dinner parties, church services, eating at a restaurant, etc. In those cases, the risks are still small, but not on the same level as walking on a trail.

If your point is that the potential harm from a reluctance to return to normal activities is far outweighed by the harm from being vaccine hesitant, I don’t disagree at all. But I don’t think that addresses the fundamental contradiction between the two positions.

That's a big part of it, but I disagree that it doesn't address the fundamental contradiction between the two positions. I don't think you can just look at the impact of science avoidance on the individual avoiding the science - you have to look the impact of science avoidance to the community/society. If you don't do the latter, then you're missing half of the picture, particularly if you're trying to understand why some folks find one form of science avoidance more acceptable (or less objectionable, if you prefer) to the other. Saying they're both the same because they're both science avoidance misses the forest for the trees. That's what I mean by calling it a false equivalency.

Also, for what it’s worth, as The Atlantic article points out (echoing a string of recent publications), the cost of insisting on pandemic restrictions that are no longer necessary is not zero either.

This is true, but I daresay the dangers from anti-vaxxing are more harmful than the dangers of continuing pandemic precautions, provided the precautions are within the realm of reason, of course. Full lockdowns seem unnecessary at this point (absent major virus breakthroughs), for example, but requiring shoppers to wear a mask at the grocery still seems pretty reasonable.

[LawBeefaroni]

Is this about compassion for trauma or about risk? Because he said there was tiny risk but he's still traumatized and his nemesis should respect it.

I don't think he is talking to a nemesis. I think he is saying to people who are exhausted - 'look inward - here are the reasons you can justify not listening too much to the people in your life who tell you you're being overly cautious'.

He was talking to all sorts.

So maybe take that judgey little face you’re making, wad it up into a fleshy spongy Madball, and gently screw it into your own asshole like a lightbulb.

...
We’re not so eager to re-open the park just because you say it’s safe. We’re gonna take our time, whatever time we need, because that’s how a lot of people do things.

It's basically an opinion piece with some good notions, some frustration, some hyperbole, some humor, and some misconceptions. Take it for what it's worth. It's not a scientific paper or federal law.

[YellowKing]

I've gotten flack from extremely cautious people who say I'm being reckless because I went to Target with a mask on, and I've gotten flack from extremely reckless people who say I'm being too cautious because I went to Target with a mask on. It's no wonder everyone's sensitive about criticism from both sides of the issue.

[Jaymon]

I am glad to be well out of my teens, and nobody will social pressure me into taking off my mask until I am good and dang well ready.
And I tell you what, it won't be until after we figure out what the mutations and variants are up to.
And because so many folks in our freedum loving country are insistent on not even following basic protective protocols, I am sure that every variant will find a welcome home here, full of new victims with wide open unprotected mouths.

[Smoove_B]

Hey Brazil, how's it going?

The coronavirus has killed an estimated 1,300 babies in Brazil since the beginning of the pandemic, even though there's overwhelming evidence that Covid-19 rarely kills young children.

While data from the Health Ministry suggest that over 800 children under age 9 have died of Covid-19, including about 500 babies, experts say the real death toll is higher because cases are underreported because of a lack of widespread coronavirus testing, according to the BBC, which first reported the story.

Dr. Fatima Marinho of the University of São Paolo, a leading epidemiologist who is a senior adviser to the international non-governmental organization Vital Strategies, estimated that the virus has killed 2,060 children under 9, including 1,302 babies. Her estimate is based on the number of excess deaths from an unspecified acute respiratory syndrome during the pandemic.

There is a misconception that children are at zero risk for Covid-19, Marinho told the BBC after she found that there have been 10 times more deaths from an unexplained respiratory syndrome over the past year compared to previous years.

This is horrific.

[Smoove_B]

And here's another opinion that I agree with; I think there is a trend.

https://twitter.com/NKinNewEng/status/1 ... 4478816257

Imagine learning so little from the past 14 months about interdependence, community, and the need for solidarity that you actually come to the position that managing covid is about “personal risk tolerance”. Christ. If 2020-2021 didn’t teach you that we need to care for each other and especially for the least among us, I don’t know what to tell you. Go back to school and read a book on history, ethics, art, literature—anything that might maybe stir you to be an actual human being. Any academic or pundit who is going on about CDC outdoor mask guidance in May 2021, given what is happening overseas with this pandemic, should be embarrassed to show their face in public. This is disgusting. And “journalists” making hay about the “overly cautious” and alleged “pandemic addiction” are talking 100% out of their asses and should be ashamed of themselves. America continues to shock and surprise me: the callousness, the selfishness, the utter vapidness of the discourse and the arrogance of the upper class elites who want to gaslight the rest of us. No. I simply refuse to accept these people into polite society. They are ruthless. The pandemic is sorting out a lot of priorities- helping a lot of us understand what matters most. And I have learned that I will not entertain certain fictions anymore. These people are opportunistic, craven, and heartless.

[Kurth]

And here's another opinion that I agree with; I think there is a trend.

https://twitter.com/NKinNewEng/status/1 ... 4478816257

Imagine learning so little from the past 14 months about interdependence, community, and the need for solidarity that you actually come to the position that managing covid is about “personal risk tolerance”. Christ. If 2020-2021 didn’t teach you that we need to care for each other and especially for the least among us, I don’t know what to tell you. Go back to school and read a book on history, ethics, art, literature—anything that might maybe stir you to be an actual human being. Any academic or pundit who is going on about CDC outdoor mask guidance in May 2021, given what is happening overseas with this pandemic, should be embarrassed to show their face in public. This is disgusting. And “journalists” making hay about the “overly cautious” and alleged “pandemic addiction” are talking 100% out of their asses and should be ashamed of themselves. America continues to shock and surprise me: the callousness, the selfishness, the utter vapidness of the discourse and the arrogance of the upper class elites who want to gaslight the rest of us. No. I simply refuse to accept these people into polite society. They are ruthless. The pandemic is sorting out a lot of priorities- helping a lot of us understand what matters most. And I have learned that I will not entertain certain fictions anymore. These people are opportunistic, craven, and heartless.

I almost feel like that’s a cartoon take looking to deliver on the straw man The Atlantic was taking whacks at.

Let’s see, people that disagree with the author don’t “care for each other, especially the least among us” and should “go back to school” to learn how to become “actual human beings” and “should be embarrassed to show their face in public” and are “disgusting” and “talking 100% our of their asses and should be ashamed of themselves” and blah, blah, blah, blah. Good grief. And let’s throw in some nice class warfare talking points to boot.

To me, that post is 100% trash.

[Smoove_B]

I almost feel like that’s a cartoon take looking to deliver on the straw man The Atlantic was taking whacks at.

The article in the Atlantic might have been the most visible here, but it certainly wasn't the only piece with the same sentiment. Maybe it's because I'm seeing all kinds of similar messages that this struck a nerve with me. Namely that there's growing sentiment that we've vaccinated enough people now, so what's the problem? Completely ignoring that we haven't actually vaccinated "enough" people here in America or globally. But as long as it looks good outside your (collective) own window, everything must be fine.

The hottest of hot takes I saw yesterday (that amazingly didn't come from Nate Silver) was that we should be mask-free by June 1. Why June 1st? Because that was a fair amount of time to assume everyone that wanted to be vaccinated should be. Just arbitrarily throwing out a day "for freedom".

Let’s see, people that disagree with the author don’t “care for each other,

I've learned over the last year that yeah, there's quite a few people that don't care a whit about anyone but themselves.

“go back to school” to learn how to become “actual human beings”

I've also learned over the last year that there are quite a few people that have no ability to empathize in any capacity or think about things using a community lens.

and “should be embarrassed to show their face in public” and are “disgusting” and “talking 100% our of their asses and should be ashamed of themselves”

Yes, again, there are people I've come to learn that are shameless; worse they are incapable of experiencing even a hint of shame. I'm sure it's related to the first two points.

And let’s throw in some nice class warfare talking points to boot.

Is it your contention that the impacts of this pandemic haven't been disproportionately felt by the marginalized people here in America? I'm not even going to open this up to what's happening globally, just right now, here in America.

To me, that post is 100% trash.

There is truth in that post. If you don't like it, that's fine. But that doesn't mean it's wrong. In the same way that declaring that everything is fine right now (locally, nationally, globally) makes it fine. Maybe it's because I'm tapped into this like I'm mainlining from a fire hose. Maybe it's because I still have a teen in my house that's not vaccinated. Maybe it's because I'm not planning vacations like multiple extended family members, but the OP is tapping into a growing sentiment.

And I didn't even get into whatever the hell Tucker Carlson is doing right now on his "news program", telling people to stop getting vaccinated and to not vaccinate their kids when they're able. Seriously, F Tucker Carlson.

[malchior]

And let’s throw in some nice class warfare talking points to boot.

Is it your contention that the impacts of this pandemic haven't been disproportionately felt by the marginalized people here in America? I'm not even going to open this up to what's happening globally, just right now, here in America.

I'll just add in that from the get - the economy was most important to Trump, the GOP, and a lot of the people referenced above. We've long suspected we lived amongst monsters, then they rose up and acted out all last year, and then they went to the polls and confirmed it. It's all tied together. And a lot of this comes down to class warfare already lost.

We live in a time of some of the worst inequality our nation has seen. It killed people before the pandemic. It killed people in the pandemic. It has scooped out the soul of this nation and turned a hopeful nation into a mean, angry, unsafe, and scary place to inhabit. I know some don't believe it but that is what a lot of folks are experiencing first hand and seeing. And I'll confidently predict it'll continue to get worse.

And I didn't even get into whatever the hell Tucker Carlson is doing right now on his "news program", telling people to stop getting vaccinated and to not vaccinate their kids when they're able. Seriously, F Tucker Carlson.

He went over the line again last night IMO. He 'reported' that thousands of people have died since being vaccinated.

[Blackhawk]

[YellowKing]

I've stopped reading these articles or discussing it with anyone and just do my thing. All the Atlantic articles in the world aren't going to change the pattern. It's just a bunch of people shouting at a wall from both sides at this point.

It reminds me of the climate change debate. Yes we know climate change is serious and real. We know it's a problem. We also know a lot of people don't give a shit, and those that do can't convince the ones that don't to change their behavior. So you might as well just do what you can on a personal level and hope it all works out. The only way you're going to change the behavior for those that won't do it voluntarily is via public policy.

[Blackhawk]

So you might as well just do what you can on a personal level and hope it all works out.

That's where my mind tells me to go, but my heart won't let me. Because what that really means, to me, is that I'm hoping that the world won't fall apart until after I'm gone, and after my kids are gone. And that means that I'm hoping the suffering is passed on to unborn future generations. So I keep arguing, even though it doesn't do any good, even though it is wasted stress, because giving up is going too far.

[malchior]

So you might as well just do what you can on a personal level and hope it all works out.

That's where my mind tells me to go, but my heart won't let me. Because what that really means, to me, is that I'm hoping that the world won't fall apart until after I'm gone, and after my kids are gone. And that means that I'm hoping the suffering is passed on to unborn future generations. So I keep arguing, even though it doesn't do any good, even though it is wasted stress, because giving up is going too far.

This is where I am as well. I want things to work out. I hope they do but I have to weigh the reality that they probably won't. I also get why some people hold onto hope. My wife and I had the luxury and made the conscious choice not to have children. I think that greatly reduces the drive to have hope. I don't know if that means I see clearer or not but my lens is different.

What I have seen is that the line that I thought we'd cross before people realized the danger we face keeps moving back. In a sense a lot more people are living in the same reality I see than in the past. Especially after 1/6. That at least punched some people in the face with a dose of reality. However, However, I still see a lot of what I'd consider fantasy thinking. People have already moved on from 1/6 into arguing over trivial issues when the house is on fire.

That being said, I see it less and less here but still see it. And again I get why. It also makes sense in an expanded sense because that is our national character. I've read experts who said that the one thing that set America apart from its competitors was its hopeful character partially driven by fantasy thinking. And as the bountiful resources, lack of competitors, and plain old good luck held out everything was fine. Unfortunately I think that our luck has more than run out and we're far past the point we should have realized we had deadly cancer. It doesn't mean recovery is impossible but I think the right metaphor is that it's difficult to heal when we still refuse to admit we have cancer and need to treat it.

[Smoove_B]

It reminds me of the climate change debate. Yes we know climate change is serious and real. We know it's a problem. We also know a lot of people don't give a shit, and those that do can't convince the ones that don't to change their behavior. So you might as well just do what you can on a personal level and hope it all works out.

It is very similar yes, in the broad sense of attitudes and beliefs. Where it differs though is in the time scale. Yes, there are immediate and recognizable benefits to addressing air pollution - 2020 is going to be a data point used by climate scientists for years in terms of measurements and impacts based on global shutdowns. Remember, it was a year ago that people all over the United States (CA especially) were sharing photos of their cities that were unbelievably clear.

The biggest problem is the short-term immediate nature of the pandemic. As I said yesterday, yes, all pandemics end - that's a fact. But right now there are people nationwide that are intentionally making decisions that will prolong what the rest of us need to deal with. Their decisions aren't going to impact their grand kids - they're impacting all of us right now. So doing what I can on a personal level and just hoping it "works out" isn't a viable strategy; it's not helping the people in India. It's not helping people around the US that still want to be vaccinated but are having problems or are hesitant. It's not helping children.