Amazing what is going on with narratives that justify ever more draconian policies.

1. Lockdowns China did would never be acceptable in a democracy.
2. Covid is really scary and we don’t know how badly it affects people. Maybe the chinese knows something we don’t. Let’s err on the side of caution.
3. It doesn’t seem to impact kids as much, and the figures show shielded protection is viable - but we need to protect against LONG covid. 4. The first wave outbreak seems not to be matched by same scale of excess deaths as second wave. But mutant strain now about!
5. We don’t know if mutant strain will be treatable with vaccines or if it will impact children - better to err on side of caution and shut everything down again. 6. Data suggests hospitals are within winter crisis norms - but these are not the data points you are looking for.
7. The data points you are looking for are anecdotal testimonies from mostly anonymous NHS staff as well as new regimes and protocol constraints which make all the previous data null and void.
8. We can’t possibly boost carer numbers with retired personnel as they haven’t done the right health, safety and diversity training. 9. Neil Ferguson can see his girlfriend on assumption of immunity, but Lockdown applies to everyone regardless of whether they had it or not.
10. Antibody tests were going to be game changing and allow a big portion of people back to work force- but now whether you have had it or not won’t make a difference as you can still spread it!
11. We won’t be able to stop wearing masks or social distancing even after every vulnerable person is vaccinated because the vaccinated can still spread it to the vulnerable but impossible to vaccinate. 12. Yet airlines won’t let you on unless u have been vaccinated regardless!
That last point is particularly grating! If you can still spread despite vaccination and natural immunity WHAT IS THE POINT of a vaccine certificate passport??
PS sorry for typos and literals. Fingers can’t keep up with thoughts.

More from Society

This is a piece I've been thinking about for a long time. One of the most dominant policy ideas in Washington is that policy should, always and everywhere, move parents into paid labor. But what if that's wrong?

My reporting here convinced me that there's no large effect in either direction on labor force participation from child allowances. Canada has a bigger one than either Romney or Biden are considering, and more labor force participation among women.

But what if that wasn't true?

Forcing parents into low-wage, often exploitative, jobs by threatening them and their children with poverty may be counted as a success by some policymakers, but it’s a sign of a society that doesn’t value the most essential forms of labor.

The problem is in the very language we use. If I left my job as a New York Times columnist to care for my 2-year-old son, I’d be described as leaving the labor force. But as much as I adore him, there is no doubt I’d be working harder. I wouldn't have stopped working!

I tried to render conservative objections here fairly. I appreciate that @swinshi talked with me, and I'm sorry I couldn't include everything he said. I'll say I believe I used his strongest arguments, not more speculative ones, in the piece.

You May Also Like

1/ Here’s a list of conversational frameworks I’ve picked up that have been helpful.

Please add your own.

2/ The Magic Question: "What would need to be true for you


3/ On evaluating where someone’s head is at regarding a topic they are being wishy-washy about or delaying.

“Gun to the head—what would you decide now?”

“Fast forward 6 months after your sabbatical--how would you decide: what criteria is most important to you?”

4/ Other Q’s re: decisions:

“Putting aside a list of pros/cons, what’s the *one* reason you’re doing this?” “Why is that the most important reason?”

“What’s end-game here?”

“What does success look like in a world where you pick that path?”

5/ When listening, after empathizing, and wanting to help them make their own decisions without imposing your world view:

“What would the best version of yourself do”?
https://t.co/6cRR2B3jBE
Viruses and other pathogens are often studied as stand-alone entities, despite that, in nature, they mostly live in multispecies associations called biofilms—both externally and within the host.

https://t.co/FBfXhUrH5d


Microorganisms in biofilms are enclosed by an extracellular matrix that confers protection and improves survival. Previous studies have shown that viruses can secondarily colonize preexisting biofilms, and viral biofilms have also been described.


...we raise the perspective that CoVs can persistently infect bats due to their association with biofilm structures. This phenomenon potentially provides an optimal environment for nonpathogenic & well-adapted viruses to interact with the host, as well as for viral recombination.


Biofilms can also enhance virion viability in extracellular environments, such as on fomites and in aquatic sediments, allowing viral persistence and dissemination.