I have this but was trying not to make it about me. Sorry you don’t believe me. I’m going to do the right thing and ignore you now, because you are triggering me and I believe it is degrading the discourse of this thread. I encourage you to stop posting for a little bit, but I can’t control what you do.
I think you’re making yourself look foolish at this point, and I doubt I’m the only one that thinks so.
Buddy you really don’t read anyone else’s post. You should really respect other people.
Make it stop.
Posters here are referring to Jonny’s mental state and admitting to being unhinged themselves by his arguments. I dont think this forum would have advocated for de facto masks off not so long ago with ~28k daily cases and 37.5% vaccinated. But a couple here claim they’ve done, or had, enough. They’re sick of it and not willing to wait any longer. A few more weeks, tens of millions more vaccinated, summer in full swing, not gonna do it. Hence the sanctimony, albeit a bit strong to make the point.
This.
You’re all not even that far off in how you feel about things.
Clearly there is a point at which mask mandates should be removed.
Everyone here agrees that 4 months ago would have been too soon. Everyone here agrees that 6 months from now would be too late.
Some think now-ish is appropriate. Others think that a month from now would be better.
There are merits to both sides. Everyone can make their points without being abrasive dicks to each other.
The most recent Weeds podcast on this topic was really, really good. And as I was listening to it, I was thinking, “Man, I don’t think that anyone here would disagree with most anything they’re saying.” I think part of the issue that’s been driving a lot of the recent angst is that some people (like me) haven’t been clear about whether they think the CDC is wrong or the local government officials are wrong. So a defense of one party (i.e., the CDC) can seem like a defense of the entire system or of the outcome.
I really encourage people to listen to it. The good discussion starts somewhere around minute 30, but the whole thing is worth listening to.
A couple of points that I thought were important:
The CDC should provide clear and factual evidence-based information, and should not try to anticipate the social responses to that information. We saw how this turned out with the masking situation early on - if (as I think was reported to be true) the CDC downplayed the effectiveness of masks solely because they didn’t want non-healthcare individuals to hoard them, that was bad! So there’s nothing wrong with the CDC announcing that vaccinated individuals are safe, and would be safe even indoors and unmasked.
The responsibility of what to do with that information lies with politicians. It’s their job to say, “Based on the CDC information, we know that vaccinated individuals are safe from this vaccine. In a perfect world, we’d lift restrictions on vaccinated individuals and require unvaccinated individuals to continue wearing masks. But because we cannot/will not investigate who is vaccinated and who isn’t, we are simply going to continue requiring masks until we reach a vaccinated rate of X% in our community.”
A big issue that I hadn’t thought much about is that all of these arguments revolve around restrictions in public places. And it seems clear to me that restaurants and bars were like the highest risk areas–places with sustained close and unmasked contact–so it would have been appropriate to shut those places down first. But there is also a ton of private interactions in the same category - dinner parties, happy hours, etc. in private residences that contributes enormously to spread. And there’s exactly a zero percent chance that any government would actually enforce restrictions against those private gatherings. After all of the events last summer, would any of us really trust police with more power to subjectively enforce restrictions against private gatherings?
So again, I would encourage people to listen to this episode. I found it really interesting and entertaining. And it was helpful in clarifying why I might be reacting to some posts in the way I am. I don’t think the CDC was wrong in making their announcement. Instead, I think local government officials are wrong in throwing up their hands and saying “Welp, guess we’re done.” And when another poster says something like, “The CDC was wrong because it led to the local officials throwing up their hands”, I was focusing on the part where we disagree (whether the CDC did something wrong) and ignoring the part where we agree (someone did something wrong, and it led to a bad outcome).
This is a nice idea in theory.
But local governments’ incorrect responses (to the extent that the are incorrect) were entirely predictable. That part is on the CDC.
There is precisely one dick here.
I don’t know, man. Internet shitposting is serious business. This is a bigger ask than you may realize.
Oh you mean the small risk is ever so slightly higher for people of color? I changed my mind, shut it all down. I thought only whites would die.
If it were the other way around, should I care:
(A) more
(B) less
(C) the same amount
If you say so? I mean I’m trying to get at what you think your graph is supposed to add to your argument. If it wasn’t fairly obvious my position is that C is the correct answer.
This rollout and that chart followed by freeing the unvaccinated instead of waiting a bit longer is some of the fine systemic racism that we Americans know and love.
Because I see it but it’s not relevant here. The thing people do where they describe some terrible thing happening to people and then tack on the end “and also it disproportionately impacts people of color” like that is the fucking reason I’m supposed to care is stupid.
Cool. If some bad thing happens to X people I mostly don’t give a fuck if they are 100% black, 100% white, or somewhere in between. Reduce X and you’ve made the world a better place. Redistribute it and you’ve done… something.
Note I’m 100% not trying to pretend to be above racism or some bullshit like that. I definitely have biases and if I notice them I try to minimize them and their impact.
I will make an effort to reply seriously to anything you say.
Okay this is a good post. The majority of it that I will ignore below I agree with.
I’m not saying you are wrong, but I don’t see why it is more important. Why should I care more about the underprivileged in the case of vaccinations?
I don’t think anyone is saying that non anti-vaxxer unvaccinated deserve to get COVID. They are saying they are willing to accept some risk (seemlngly a higher amount of risk than you are) to these people.
If your point is just that a position of privilege may make me misunderstand the reasons some of these people are unvaccinated, misattributing to laziness or stupidity what is actually a consequence of their lack of privilege and therefore be more callous towards them than I would otherwise be then fair. I accept this point.
I personally know anti-vaxxers and I don’t want them to die. That said, I still think the number of COVID precautions that society should take to protect them specifically is exactly zero.
