I want to add that I think A LOT of elites have soft-a authoritarian tendencies. They have strong feelings that when they personally are in control bad things won't happen so they actively desire that control. For COVID it means doing something - anything - that allows them to exhibit some degree of control in the face of the uncontrollable. Do these controls really make life better? Probably not. It doesn't really matter. The point is that when they are not actively in control they are mortified of what may happen, so even if that control is meaningless they want to have it. I think this is the best explanation for a lot of mask mandates that are publicly and openly not enforced by local authorities. Cities keep passing them, but if they are not enforced in any way what exactly is the point? What is it supposed to accomplish? It's designed explicitly to create that illusion of control.
It is actually quite amazing, when you stop and think about it, how widely society is diverging. It seems like more and more that the various factions in this country have different social and cultural mores:: marriage rates are still very high among the college educated, for example, and not nearly so high for everyone else.
I like a lot of this but you're exaggerating in saying that this is a "fundamentally self-interested decision." Parents of infants, people helping to take care of elderly relatives, people whose partners are immunocompromised, professionals like nurses who are in regular contact with people who are elderly or sick, etc. are making decisions not on the basis of the risk to themselves but on protecting their loved ones and society at large. And that's good! The idea that protecting yourself from a highly contagious virus with enormously different risk profiles to different groups (as you note) is a purely personal decision is a bleak symptom of an age where people feel little obligation to take care of one another.
While Covid is the big baddie, I think 'this specific panic (tm)' is downstream of some sort of performative know-everything-ism from the PMC. I think it's status signalling that they have the free time to 'know everything about everything' because their jobs are pixels on one screen while shallow researching and doomscrolling on the other.
Meanwhile, those that are less plugged in manage to be content not knowing or having to demonstrate they know everything about every fractal complexity of every kerfuffle.
I think the story of the pandemic is it changed terminal onlineness from some sort of personality malaise into a virtuous skill and status signal.
I was reading a blog early in the pandemic, and an 80-something year old had a really insightful comment that I also think plays into why young liberals are more afraid of this than many other groups, even the elderly.
His comment (to paraphrase, I can’t remember which blog unfortunately): I’m 80 and in good health. Every remaining year of my life is the best year I have left - I’m not going to lock down in fear. Next year I might not be able to walk anymore; I’ll wear my mask and get the shot when it comes out but I’m not changing my lifestyle at all.
If you are 35 and still trying to climb the ladder, staying at home and not living your life for 2 years is a lot lower of a cost than it is for this 80 year old. You have a lot of life ahead of you, and dying from covid costs you many more remaining years.
I think expected value of years of life lost, or years with permanent damage, for your demographic, is probably a better way to analyze the risk of covid than just “chance of death” or “chance of permanent damage”.
Freddie, are you familiar with Peter Turchin? Can't remember if I've seen him mentioned in your stuff, but he has a theory of social cycling that involves two key forces leading to social crises: overproduction of elites (primarily second and third sons in feudal systems, but you can see the rise of the ultra-wealthy and their PMC orbiters as a similar phenomenon in modern societies) which in turn causes intra-elite competition; and what he calls "immiseration of the poor."
The miserable poor become susceptible to populism and outbursts of revolutionary anger; the elites tend to channel this rage in order to weed out some of the competition, often in exchange for concessions that make the lives of the poor temporarily better. For a while tensions are eased... until the elite class grows again, more and more resources are diverted from the main body of the population, and the cycle begins anew.
I am part of a committee that's planning an event in another state for July 2022. The host institution (a public university) in that state has no vaccine or mask mandate. Several committee members (most of them from NY and MA) freaked out when they realized this, and their freak out morphed into criticism of the committee members from that university for not standing up to the administration and demanding better safeguards. The conversation got intense. People were saying stuff like, "I can't be expected to risk my life because your university is anti-science." Finally, a committee member from the "no vaccine, no mask" host university burst into tears. Turns out, her dad had died of COVID just a month ago. She knows the risks. She knows her university's policy sucks. But she's powerless to do anything about it. When she dropped the bombshell about her dad, the whole committee fell silent. People who'd been berating her for not standing up to the administration of her university felt awful for what they'd said and apologized with evident humility. It was an intense moment. I think we all learned something from it.
I am a scientist that knows a lot of other scientists, and we all putatively "follow the science". But so many of my friends and colleagues have been in utter panic mode since March 2020. They were still wearing double masks after getting vaccinated, some wearing masks outside, avoiding any indoor socializing, and acting as if their children were at risk of imminent death (that is still going on for those with kids younger than 5).
I have had some mild criticisms of COVID restrictions, and am seen as a borderline anti-vaxxer. I can only talk about it seriously with close friends, and even they think I'm acting a little reckless because I take my vaccinated kids to the movies or let them see friends indoors without masks.
Private universities are also tripping over themselves to follow whatever the first movers are doing. Mandating boosters, closing for early January, etc. No attempt to learn to live with this virus or acknowledge that most college students are at virtually no risk.
As usual, I mostly agree with this piece. Some people, particularly on the left, are too worked up about the latest Covid developments. With vaccination and better treatment, we've hit the point when it's basically time to live your life with the acceptance of some incremental risk. We accept lots of other risks that aren't that different from Covid. I can understand the anxiety, but it's not very useful.
However, being a gadfly for overreactions on the left has a limited interest span as well. If we are best off ignoring their histrionics, what does that say about critiques of their behavior? I suppose someone has to do it, but ultimately I don't find the critique that useful or interesting either. I have Covid meta-discourse fatigue, I suppose.
While I don't doubt that a significant amount of the Covid panic is status-seeking behaviour, we cannot underestimate the number of people who have been brainwashed to the degree they are legitimately afraid of death by Covid. Many people in my social circle have a true, honest fear of the disease to a degree that completely outstrips their actual risk from it.
Lately I've taken to asking people in my circle what they believe is the actual rate of hospitalization of the unvaccinated. Most people so far have replied somewhere from 30-40%, which is dramatically higher than actual reported rates which sit somewhere <1%. These are not virtue-signaling types, but regular people who perhaps consume a little too much news and are a less likely than average to start their own investigations and review the data (or "the science") themselves.
I have also seen a lot of very bad or outright deceptive presentations of statistics. My doctor's office sent out an email a few months ago trying to assuage parent concerns about heart issues from Covid vaccines. They included a chart that showed heart problems in children and youth from Covid itself - trying to convince parents that the risk of heart problems from Covid was far greater than from the shot itself. Naturally, they decided not to highlight that the chart showed heart issues in only *hospitalized* children and youth which is a far cry from the general population. I assume most people would gloss over the little descriptive label that indicated where the data was collected from, and would therefore not be seeing the entire picture.
The irony of this all is that many of these people frequently parrot the "trust the science" narrative but then have an approach that is far closer to "trust the media".
I want to add that I think A LOT of elites have soft-a authoritarian tendencies. They have strong feelings that when they personally are in control bad things won't happen so they actively desire that control. For COVID it means doing something - anything - that allows them to exhibit some degree of control in the face of the uncontrollable. Do these controls really make life better? Probably not. It doesn't really matter. The point is that when they are not actively in control they are mortified of what may happen, so even if that control is meaningless they want to have it. I think this is the best explanation for a lot of mask mandates that are publicly and openly not enforced by local authorities. Cities keep passing them, but if they are not enforced in any way what exactly is the point? What is it supposed to accomplish? It's designed explicitly to create that illusion of control.
Also from The Atlantic:
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/12/where-i-live-no-one-cares-about-covid/620958/
It is actually quite amazing, when you stop and think about it, how widely society is diverging. It seems like more and more that the various factions in this country have different social and cultural mores:: marriage rates are still very high among the college educated, for example, and not nearly so high for everyone else.
I like a lot of this but you're exaggerating in saying that this is a "fundamentally self-interested decision." Parents of infants, people helping to take care of elderly relatives, people whose partners are immunocompromised, professionals like nurses who are in regular contact with people who are elderly or sick, etc. are making decisions not on the basis of the risk to themselves but on protecting their loved ones and society at large. And that's good! The idea that protecting yourself from a highly contagious virus with enormously different risk profiles to different groups (as you note) is a purely personal decision is a bleak symptom of an age where people feel little obligation to take care of one another.
While Covid is the big baddie, I think 'this specific panic (tm)' is downstream of some sort of performative know-everything-ism from the PMC. I think it's status signalling that they have the free time to 'know everything about everything' because their jobs are pixels on one screen while shallow researching and doomscrolling on the other.
Meanwhile, those that are less plugged in manage to be content not knowing or having to demonstrate they know everything about every fractal complexity of every kerfuffle.
I think the story of the pandemic is it changed terminal onlineness from some sort of personality malaise into a virtuous skill and status signal.
I was reading a blog early in the pandemic, and an 80-something year old had a really insightful comment that I also think plays into why young liberals are more afraid of this than many other groups, even the elderly.
His comment (to paraphrase, I can’t remember which blog unfortunately): I’m 80 and in good health. Every remaining year of my life is the best year I have left - I’m not going to lock down in fear. Next year I might not be able to walk anymore; I’ll wear my mask and get the shot when it comes out but I’m not changing my lifestyle at all.
If you are 35 and still trying to climb the ladder, staying at home and not living your life for 2 years is a lot lower of a cost than it is for this 80 year old. You have a lot of life ahead of you, and dying from covid costs you many more remaining years.
I think expected value of years of life lost, or years with permanent damage, for your demographic, is probably a better way to analyze the risk of covid than just “chance of death” or “chance of permanent damage”.
Freddie, are you familiar with Peter Turchin? Can't remember if I've seen him mentioned in your stuff, but he has a theory of social cycling that involves two key forces leading to social crises: overproduction of elites (primarily second and third sons in feudal systems, but you can see the rise of the ultra-wealthy and their PMC orbiters as a similar phenomenon in modern societies) which in turn causes intra-elite competition; and what he calls "immiseration of the poor."
The miserable poor become susceptible to populism and outbursts of revolutionary anger; the elites tend to channel this rage in order to weed out some of the competition, often in exchange for concessions that make the lives of the poor temporarily better. For a while tensions are eased... until the elite class grows again, more and more resources are diverted from the main body of the population, and the cycle begins anew.
I am part of a committee that's planning an event in another state for July 2022. The host institution (a public university) in that state has no vaccine or mask mandate. Several committee members (most of them from NY and MA) freaked out when they realized this, and their freak out morphed into criticism of the committee members from that university for not standing up to the administration and demanding better safeguards. The conversation got intense. People were saying stuff like, "I can't be expected to risk my life because your university is anti-science." Finally, a committee member from the "no vaccine, no mask" host university burst into tears. Turns out, her dad had died of COVID just a month ago. She knows the risks. She knows her university's policy sucks. But she's powerless to do anything about it. When she dropped the bombshell about her dad, the whole committee fell silent. People who'd been berating her for not standing up to the administration of her university felt awful for what they'd said and apologized with evident humility. It was an intense moment. I think we all learned something from it.
I am a scientist that knows a lot of other scientists, and we all putatively "follow the science". But so many of my friends and colleagues have been in utter panic mode since March 2020. They were still wearing double masks after getting vaccinated, some wearing masks outside, avoiding any indoor socializing, and acting as if their children were at risk of imminent death (that is still going on for those with kids younger than 5).
I have had some mild criticisms of COVID restrictions, and am seen as a borderline anti-vaxxer. I can only talk about it seriously with close friends, and even they think I'm acting a little reckless because I take my vaccinated kids to the movies or let them see friends indoors without masks.
Private universities are also tripping over themselves to follow whatever the first movers are doing. Mandating boosters, closing for early January, etc. No attempt to learn to live with this virus or acknowledge that most college students are at virtually no risk.
Bless their hearts! They try so hard.
As usual, I mostly agree with this piece. Some people, particularly on the left, are too worked up about the latest Covid developments. With vaccination and better treatment, we've hit the point when it's basically time to live your life with the acceptance of some incremental risk. We accept lots of other risks that aren't that different from Covid. I can understand the anxiety, but it's not very useful.
However, being a gadfly for overreactions on the left has a limited interest span as well. If we are best off ignoring their histrionics, what does that say about critiques of their behavior? I suppose someone has to do it, but ultimately I don't find the critique that useful or interesting either. I have Covid meta-discourse fatigue, I suppose.
While I don't doubt that a significant amount of the Covid panic is status-seeking behaviour, we cannot underestimate the number of people who have been brainwashed to the degree they are legitimately afraid of death by Covid. Many people in my social circle have a true, honest fear of the disease to a degree that completely outstrips their actual risk from it.
Lately I've taken to asking people in my circle what they believe is the actual rate of hospitalization of the unvaccinated. Most people so far have replied somewhere from 30-40%, which is dramatically higher than actual reported rates which sit somewhere <1%. These are not virtue-signaling types, but regular people who perhaps consume a little too much news and are a less likely than average to start their own investigations and review the data (or "the science") themselves.
I have also seen a lot of very bad or outright deceptive presentations of statistics. My doctor's office sent out an email a few months ago trying to assuage parent concerns about heart issues from Covid vaccines. They included a chart that showed heart problems in children and youth from Covid itself - trying to convince parents that the risk of heart problems from Covid was far greater than from the shot itself. Naturally, they decided not to highlight that the chart showed heart issues in only *hospitalized* children and youth which is a far cry from the general population. I assume most people would gloss over the little descriptive label that indicated where the data was collected from, and would therefore not be seeing the entire picture.
The irony of this all is that many of these people frequently parrot the "trust the science" narrative but then have an approach that is far closer to "trust the media".