site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3d ago (text post)   14732 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of May 19, 2025

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

6
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Scott briefly observes, "The only thing about COVID nobody talks about anymore is the 1.2 million deaths.

That’s 1.2 million American deaths. Globally it’s officially 7 million, unofficially 20 - 30 million. But 1.2 million American deaths is still a lot. It’s more than Vietnam plus 9/11 plus every mass shooting combined - in fact, more than ten times all those things combined. It was the single highest-fatality event in American history, beating the previous record-holder - the US Civil War - by over 50%. All these lives seem to have fallen into oblivion too quietly to be heard over the noise of Lab Leak Debate #35960381.

Maybe it’s because they were mostly old people? Old people have already lived a long life, nobody can get too surprised about them dying. But although only a small fraction of COVID deaths were young people, a small fraction of a large number can still be large: the pandemic killed 250,000 <65-year-old Americans, wiping out enough non-seniors to populate Salt Lake City. More military-age young men died in COVID than in Iraq/Afghanistan. Even the old people were somebody’s spouse or parent or grandparent; many should have had a good 5 - 10 years left.

Usually I’m the one arguing that we have to do cost-benefit analysis, that it’s impractical and incoherent to value every life at infinity billion dollars. And indeed, most lockdown-type measures look marginal on a purely economic analysis, and utterly fail one that includes hedonic costs. Rejecting some safety measures even though they saved lives was probably the right call. Still, I didn’t want to win this hard. People are saying things like “COVID taught us that scientists will always exaggerate how bad things will be.” I think if we’d known at the beginning of COVID that it would kill 1.2 million Americans, people would have thought that whatever warnings they were getting, or panicky responses were being proposed, were - if anything - understated.1

A better comparison for 1.2 million Americans dying would be the Spanish Flu: An estimated 675,000 Americans died, while the total population was estimated to be round 106,000,000. (The 2020 estimated population was around 331,500,000.)

One problem I have with the online debates about covid policy is there's no clear counterfactual: 2021 deaths were higher than 2020 deaths, which is bad for arguments that containment policies were only protecting the most vulnerable at the expense of the general population, because the most vulnerable had disproportionately died in 2020 and management had improved. It's possible that a different set of policies would have resulted in disproportionately more QALYs lost by lower-risk demographics, due to the non-linear dynamics of disease transmission (don't forget rates of mutation). I don't really care to defend any policy, since there were a lot of avoidable mistakes, but I think the criticism should be more specific and measured.

(Edit: Scott's Lockdown Effectiveness: Much More Than You Wanted To Know, published July 1, 2021 - anyone know if there's been much change in the understanding of NPI effectiveness?)

He also just released The Evidence That A Million Americans Died Of COVID.

I went and looked into the death rate a little more. Found this graph of the trend. Here is a fun game: spot when covid starts.

There has been a year over year increase in the death rate by about 1% starting in 2014 and hasn't started shrinking much until 2024. What the hell is going on?

I have a suspicion that old people have just been getting older. And that those old people are dying more during flu season. And that the excess death chart from 2018-2019 would line up pretty well with an excess death chart from 2020-2021. But that would probably take a lot of effort to figure out. I dont even know where to get month to month death numbers, tried asking some AI to help me find it, but sounds like its not publicly available.

Your data is wrong. Actual data.

There's a data quality issue in here, and I'm not sure on which side. Scott's "annual deaths" graph shows a sharp uptick for Covid. Yours does not.

There's also the "harvesting" effect - many people who died from Covid did not have long left. I am most interested in what effect Covid has on the 10 year moving average of total deaths.

If there's a harvesting effect, it has not shown up. The crude death rate just returned (roughly) to pre-COVID trend in 2023. It is possible COVID has added permanently to disease burden.

Fuckin Boomers man -- the "annual % change" on your link flips positive (slightly) in 2009, 15 years before 2024.

Fifteen years into the baby boom was 1960, by which time births were well off peak and on the decline:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bb/United_States_Birth_Rates.svg/800px-United_States_Birth_Rates.svg.png

Sad!

There are a ton of confounding variables here, but IIRC we're finally seeing a significant decrease in opioid deaths (a surprisingly high count) in ways that might be significant but were rising well before COVID. The reasons are a bit unclear (dark prospect: populations particularly vulnerable to addiction have largely died already).

But surprisingly few care substantially about overdoses (or traffic accidents) because, I suppose, that's something that happens to "other people". Nobody really cares about addicts in practice, judging by the relative alarm compared with COVID. I try to care, at least abstractly, about causes of death (and non-death harm) but I'm not sure the loud "harm reduction" advocates have actually been helpful either.

When has policy ever been about the numbers ? It's about sex appeal.

Utilitarians can be surprisingly blind at times. Covid wasn't sexy. No spectacle, no myth building, no clear narrative. Deaths were slow, honorable & blameless. Ofc people don't care in proportion to the numbers.

No movie or even harrowing video to speak of. Hell, there wasn't even an iconic photo. Statistically, I know the Bengal famine killed a lot of people. But viscerally, my emotions are tied to the photos of piled up bodies, literally (not figuratively) looming vultures and 1st hand stories of families prostituting themselves for food. There is a villain (Churchill). There is intrigue ( what if they hadn't diverted reserves to Australia). There is a story.

Plane crashes are sexier than car accidents, which causes disproportional worry. Tuberculosis, a 'CURABLE DISEASE' !! kills 1.25 million every year. No one cares. Malaria kills 600k every year. Yet, the most visceral image of it is Bill Gates releasing non-viral mosquitoes to a room of white people. Covid is no exception.

The Ukraine war went from being sexy urban warfare 'Hordes of migrants, tanks built up in front of Kyiv, hot women crying and destroyed cities' to more conventional unsexy warfare in the woods. No one cares anymore. Israel and Palestine keep producing visceral imagery at an unheard-of rate, and it stays sexy.

Tragedy has pretty privilege. It's all that matters.

Tuberculosis, a 'CURABLE DISEASE' !! kills 1.25 million every year.

This surprised me a bit: worldwide those deaths are from about 10M new cases every year, so you've got better than 10% odds of dying if you're infected ... but in the USA we still have 500-600 deaths from about 10K new cases every year, so you've still got better than 5% odds of dying if you're infected! Has antibiotic-resistant TB gotten that bad? Do people let TB infections get bad enough to be untreatable before seeking treatment?

It looks like most of our progress against TB predated the cure, too. 10K/340M cases per year is about 3/100K for the US, vs 10M/8B = 125/100K for the world as a whole, so at least we've had incredible success at making TB an avoidable disease... In 1900 the US death rate was nearly 200/100K, from God only knows what infection rate, but it steadily dropped to a fraction of that even before streptomycin was invented ... apparently mostly from better living conditions (less overcrowding and more ventilation, better quarantine of infected patients, less malnutrition making people vulnerable)?

Yet, the most visceral image of it is Bill Gates releasing non-viral mosquitoes to a room of white people:

Ha, didn't know that. It is quickly over though, more dorky thing in a longer nerdy presentation by Gates, than a flashy publicity stunt.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=ZLkbWUNQbgk&t=309s

I dislike how he brushes over 'lab leaks'. That should've been the real story, it's more important than all other factors and especially more important than feeling sad about the death toll.

Nothing was learnt from COVID. Literally nothing, gain of function research is still continuing. Everyone knows that gain of function research caused this disaster. But nobody can be bothered to do anything about it, Trump has frozen federal funding into gain of function. A funding freeze is not remotely proportionate for the megadeath machine.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-14711269/ebola-lab-placed-shutdown-halting-disease-research.html

Speaking anonymously, an HHS source revealed that one of the researchers poked a hole in the other's protective equipment during a vicious 'lovers' spat'.

Dr Connie Schmaljohn, the lab's director, was also placed on administrative leave after she allegedly failed to report the incident to other officials.

In a previous incident in May 2018, anthrax may have been accidentally released from the boiler room at one of the labs in Fort Detrick, Maryland, and into a nearby river where people were planting lilypads. No illnesses were reported as a result of the potential release.

This is a BSL-4 lab by the way, America's top people. Wuhan was BSL-3. These doctors have been behaving like clowns with the most dangerous technology on the planet. There's no sign of any professionalism, considering the danger of their work. The acceptable number of lab leaks is zero, it's the same as the acceptable number of accidental nuclear strikes. The AI community seems to care more about bioweapon risk, that's a big part of the whole AI safety rhetoric. But why should anyone care about whether AIs can synthesize bioweapons when the experts are already doing it so carelessly?

This stuff should be done out on South Georgia island near the south pole, or somewhere incredibly remote with a huge mandatory quarantine period, if and only if it's absolutely necessary. Otherwise, anyone who tries to do gain of function, especially with humanized mice like they were doing for COVID (like Daszak boasted about in his tweets) should be treated like Osama Bin Laden, with special forces coming in to shoot them on sight.

The right of scientists to publish cool papers and do interesting research in convenient locations does not come above the right to life, freedom and property for tens, hundreds of millions.

The AI community seems to care more about bioweapon risk, that's a big part of the whole AI safety rhetoric. But why should anyone care about whether AIs can synthesize bioweapons when the experts are already doing it so carelessly?

Nearly all of us also want GoF shut down, to be clear.

There is, however, some significant difference between "a vaccine-resistant smallpox pandemic", as bad as that would be, and the true final form of bioweapons that a superintelligent AI could possibly access.

The absolute best-case of what that looks like, as in "we know 100% that this can be done, we just don't know how yet" is an incompatible-biochemistry alga with reduced need for phosphate and a better carbon-fixer than RuBisCO (we know RuBisCO is hilariously bad by the standards of biochemistry; C4 and CAM plants have extensive workarounds for how terrible it is because natural selection can't just chuck it out and start over). Release this, it blooms like crazy across the whole face of the ocean (not limited to upwelling zones; natural algae need the dissolved phosphate in those, but CHON can be gotten from water + air), zooplankton don't bloom to eat it because of incompatible biochemistry, CO2 levels drop to near-zero because of better carbon fixation, all open-air crops fail + Snowball Earth. Humanity would probably survive for a bit, but >99% of humans die pretty quickly - and of course the AI that did it is possibly still out there, so focussing only on subsistence plausibly gets you knocked over by killer robots a few years later.

Medium-case is grey goo.

Worst-case is "zombie wasps for humans"/"Exsurgent Virus"; an easily-spread infection that makes human victims intelligently work to spread it. To be clear, this means it's in every country within a week of Patient Zero due to airports, and within a couple more weeks it's worked its way up to the top ranks of government officials as everyone prioritises infecting their superiors. Good. Luck. With. That.

It is possible for things, like normal GoF, to be extremely bad and yet still be a long way from the true, horrifying potential of the field.

I’m more sanguine about this stuff now, and not because it’s wrong. It’s because there are essentially an infinity of ways for super intelligent ASI to wipe out the human race - these are just the ways we can think of, and it’s going to be much smarter than us. If it happens, it’ll happen anyway, any safeguards will be redundant. It’s like trusting a bear with the possibility space for killing a fox or something - it can come up with a method (and a feasible one), but it’s one of a thousand ways a smart human could come up with.

All of those sound bad, but also very speculative?

We have a recent worked example of what can happen with GoF (true regardless of the true origins of covid-19); shouldn't we prioritize making sure that doesn't happen again over "stop Skynet"/"Butlerian Jihad Now" type stuff?

It's like hearing that Ford Pintos can explode due to their fuel tank design and responding with "OMG, cars can explode! Terrorists might start planting car bombs, I should work on anti-terrorism!"

The last one is very speculative; I have a suspicion it might be impossible. The middle one is somewhat less speculative; something akin to it is probably possible, but there are degrees of success and you're probably looking at more like "eats organic matter at a foot a day" than the "lol eats planet in minutes" sci-fi shit. The first one is proven possible by PNA, the aforementioned terribility of RuBisCO, and the wide variety of possible biomolecules only some of which are used. Anybody who knows second-to-third-year biochem knows that that design is 100% chemically and physically possible; the roadblock is the incredible difficulty of designing a full biochemistry ex nihilo (it'll be a while before anyone succeeds at this without AI aid, although I'd still rather nobody tried). I get that not everyone does know this, but seriously, this is uncontroversial in terms of "is this possible, given a blueprint?"; it is. That's why I said it's the best-case of "what the final form of bioweapons looks like"; they can be worse, but they can't be better.

shouldn't we prioritize making sure that doesn't happen again over "stop Skynet"/"Butlerian Jihad Now" type stuff?

I mean, I'd rather that 200 million people die next year from a pandemic over everyone dying 10 years from now. I'd rather that even if I'm one of the 200 million. I'm not seeing the issue.

The issue is that you are prioritizing problems that are arguably possible (well, one of them) but have never manifested in an even directionally similar way over one that just happened a few years ago, repercussions of which were quite severe and still being felt.

I resisted "millenarian cultist" analogies so as not to be uncharitable, but you didn't want to talk about Ford Pintos, so fuck it:

It's certainly possible that Jesus will descend and start casting the goats (that's you) into a lake of fire at any moment -- this is roughly the worst thing that could happen (for you); shouldn't you prioritize Christian worship more highly than (I assume) you do?

Scott had an extraordinarily in-depth lab leak post in 2024, I'm not sure there was anything more for him to say on the topic unless he'd changed his mind about it. Naturally, saying "everyone knows that gain of function research caused this" is putting it way too strongly: Scott isn't convinced and neither am I. But I think about this very often -

(…) for the first time [this debate] made me see the coronavirus as one of God’s biggest and funniest jokes. Think about it. Either a zoonotic virus crossed over to humans fifteen miles from the biggest coronavirus laboratory in the Eastern Hemisphere. Or a lab leak virus first rose to public attention right near a raccoon-dog stall in a wet market. Either way is one of the century’s biggest coincidences, designed by some cosmic joker who wanted to keep the debate acrimonious for years to come.

…and it does follow that we should probably treat gain-of-function research as if it had caused COVID, because "we can't ever know for certain if it caused COVID, but the two hypotheses are neck-to-neck" is bad enough if we're talking about future caution.

…and it does follow that we should probably treat gain-of-function research as if it had caused COVID, because "we can't ever know for certain if it caused COVID, but the two hypotheses are neck-to-neck" is bad enough if we're talking about future caution.

That's a fair conclusion, but not really Scott's conclusion, and I have to wonder what the underlying motivation is to be so committed that lab leak is wrong when there's more interesting topics to discuss around COVID.

It's unfortunate that this is rarely stated clearly, but I figure the crux is that COVID was a watershed moment for governments, with the backing of a technocratic expert caste, imposing novel restrictions on personal and social freedoms. The narrative the globalist-technocratic complex and its supporters want to prevail is that this was good and necessary - the freedoms are a relic of a more innocent age, somewhere in the class of letting gentlemen scientists enrich uranium in their bedrooms, and in our age of global networks and megacities it is important to endow experts and elected representatives with emergency powers to restrict them according to their superior judgement to protect the people from danger.

This narrative is a lot more compelling if COVID was a natural catastrophe and the official response at least constituted a reasonable attempt to minimise the risk of bad outcomes, than if COVID was a result of irresponsible actions by the same technocrat clique that wants to arrogate itself emergency powers to immamentize its "superior judgement". (See: the old pattern of creating a problem and selling the solution)

Underlying this all is a quiet disagreement about what was even the "problem" - one group of people sees a dangerous disease that society was worryingly incompetent in containing and wonders why it even matters where exactly it came from, while the other sees "free" societies happily going on the North Korea spectrum overnight over a cold and wonders why it even matters how bad the cold was.

I thought the general consensus was that it was a lab leak, even if it can't be proved due to much of the evidence mysteriously disappearing (which is itself a certain signal). This seems to be the position of the US intelligence apparatus. Frankly it should've been obvious back in March of 2020 given the proximity of the lab, the nature of its COVID research and all the anomalous activity going on there.

Anyway, I also agree with your second point.

Lab leak has a few things going for it, but these are always presented in isolation and no pushback. It is worth to read through Scotts Lab-Leak-Megapost, which is itself only a summary/review of the 15 hours of Lab-Leak-debate videos. I wouldn't rule out Lab-Leak completely, but I downgraded its probability.

His post continued to ignore the fact that governments seem to have info that they buried that supports the lab leak (eg Germany).

From the linked post:

Suppose we accept the judges’ decision that COVID arose via zoonosis. Does that mean lab leak was a “conspiracy theory” and we should be embarrassed to have ever believed it? The term “conspiracy theory” is awkward here because there were definitely at least two conspiracies - one by China to hide the evidence, one by western virologists to convince everyone that lab leak was stupid and they shouldn’t think about it. Saar cited some leaked internal conversations among expert virologists. Back in the earliest stage of the pandemic, they said to each other that it seemed like COVID could have come from a lab leak - their specific odds were 50-50 - but that they should try to obfuscate this to prevent people from turning against them and their labs. So the best we can say here is that maybe the conspiracies got lucky on their 50-50 bet, and the thing they were trying to cover up wasn’t even true.

I don't know what more you'd want. He knows perfectly well that disingenuous actors in the China and in the west conspired to cover up anything that could have pointed at a lab leak. Given the nature of the leaked evidence, however, he thinks the bad actors did this in case it turned out to be a lab leak, without themselves being certain.

Well, I would say the more you had separate groups with apparent intelligence that was buried (eg Germans), the more you look foolish for saying they did solely prophylactically.

What intelligence did the Germans have and bury? I see the BND performed a 2020 analysis that came to pro-lab-leak conclusions only and got revealed in 2025, but (at least at the "why do we trust reporters with the first draft of history, exactly?" level of perfunctory research) I'm not seeing that their analysis was founded on any information that only they knew.

Nor do I see what their motive for a coverup would be. They were contemptuous of and butting heads with President Trump, and their most recent big interaction with China was signing on to a condemnation of the treatment of the Uyghurs. I can see why some people in China and the US might want a coverup, but it's hard to see how a revelation of "A Chinese lab working with Americans leaked the pandemic" would cause German intelligence any suffering worse than an overdose of schadenfreude. Does the German secret service publish many of their analyses openly, such that this one was an exception?

I don't know what more you'd want.

He told you: an acknowledgment that lab leak was the likely origin of COVID according to various western governments' own assesments. We're not talking about virologist speculations in the early stages of the pandemic. The passage you quoted is a perfect example of Scott doing exactly of what he's being accused of.

Really, really disappointed with that post of his.

-Civil war era US had a tenth of present day US population. Scott surely knows this.

-mostly old people died now so low QALY losses compared to say, Spanish flu.

He knows all this, he's smart, we know this, yet he doesn't say it. Why?

I dislike how he brushes over 'lab leaks'.

Ironically, most of US lab leaker proponents are (probably) brushing over a the fact that covid was not made by the 'bat woman' Shi Zhengli in Wuhan, but was made in a US lab in Montana as part of a project to 'Defuse' bat coronaviruses in wild bat populations by circulating particular strains of viruses in them.

This seems outrageous and is perhaps a coverup of something darker, nevertheless there's fairly compelling evidence for it such as the animals in which covid easily spreads are not typical Chinese lab animals.

This is a complex set of claims which it'd take some serious effort to verify, but it does seem plausible and explains anomalies such as the disclosure of the genome by Shi in early '20 etc.

Anyway on the link there's an entire podcast episode that goes over it in detail.

I've always maintained that responsibility is shared between the superpowers, that's a huge part of why nobody's prepared to accept what happened or do anything. The Chinese have eagerly been saying 'oh it was made in America' and vis versa. But neither is prepared to do anything about it, they want to pretend it never happened lest the enormity of the disaster waft back onto them. Propaganda is all they're willing to do.

This applies especially to the community of experts (that Scott is a member and cheerleader for), full realization would be shattering to their authority. This disaster was made by the experts, whether in China or America or both, it was them.

But neither is prepared to do anything about it, they want to pretend it never happened lest the enormity of the disaster waft back onto them. Propaganda is all they're willing to do.

In public. We don't know whether Chinese or US have passed measures to prevent a new GOF disaster.

mostly old people died now so low QALY losses compared to say, Spanish flu

He literally talks about this in the post.

Civil war era US had a tenth of present day US population. Scott surely knows this.

He changed that paragraph from "deadliest" to "highest fatality" when several people in the comments pointed out that the civil war was still more lethal per capita.

During the same period, roughly 15 million Americans died in total. I just really doubt that the average person can notice an ~8% increase in death rate, particularly when most of the people dying aren't people that you're very surprised died. My position remains that basically nothing should have been done other than expediting the vaccination schedule even further for those that would plausibly benefit from it and I've never seen anything that makes me think that position is even slightly wrong.

Maybe the real lesson is that evenly distributed deaths just aren't very noticeable even if they're statistically relevant.

1.2 million people died? You mean the lockdowns didn’t prevent large numbers of deaths?

We should have let the Kung flu burn itself out faster. Lockdown advocates should be stripped of their professional credentials(and if that means ‘no doctors for a few years’ then so be it) and forbidden to work, address the public, or collect social security, and the head honchos executed. The lockdown itself needs to be the subject of a sustained ‘never again’ campaign similar to the Holocaust, and future generations should be guilt tripped endlessly about what their ancestors did.

Sound harsh? ‘Covid was really bad’ apologia is just an attempt to rehabilitate the lockdowns to do it again. I’ll have an objective discussion about it when dr Fauci is executed after a public show trial.

We should have let the Kung flu burn itself out faster.

Did anyplace on Earth achieve herd immunity? What makes you think this was possible? What was to prevent more dangerous mutations from spreading, before herd immunity was reached?

(Also, if you want to annoy the CCP, call it "Sars-Cov-2," not "Kung Flu.")

It's possible that many places achieved a transient herd immunity among the smaller pool of people who were susceptible to covid . Only about half of immune naive people seem to be vulnerable at any given time. which makes the herd immunity threshold low enough that it's plausible countries in Western Europe and the US hit it during the spring 2020 wave. Note, hit it regardless of whether they locked down or not. It's in my opinion the best explanation for why countries with severe lockdowns and countries without, such as UK and Sweden, achieved essentially identical outcomes. Lockdowns did nothing, they both hit herd immunity thresholds regardless, and the timing of lockdowns coinciding with that in the UK was only Regression fallacy.

Then there's Peru, which had so many deaths in 2020, despite extreme restrictions, that it implies >100% of the population should have had covid.

I don’t care about annoying the CCP, I care about annoying the people that pushed lockdowns on me and mine.

And we have herd immunity now. Some of that might be vaccines but the clear selective pressure on the virus was to become a cold. Faster spread=more generations=it turns into omicron faster.

And we have herd immunity now.

We do not (except perhaps to specific extinct strains, which is mostly practically irrelevant). Herd immunity is a state in which spread has stopped because there are enough immune individuals that an infection chain cannot be sustained within the herd. We have that for measles, excepting a few communities with low vaccine adoption who are being hit. But COVID is now endemic; it continues to spread through the population. It's just far less deadly now, likely because most of those especially susceptible to the disease are either dead or recovered with an immune system now better able to handle the disease. Because COVID doesn't usually harm children greatly, as long as it is endemic we can expect death rates to be low, because children will be first infected when they are at their least susceptible and this will prime their immune system for later infections.

We do not (except perhaps to specific extinct strains, which is mostly practically irrelevant). Herd immunity is a state in which spread has stopped because there are enough immune individuals that an infection chain cannot be sustained within the herd.

By this definition herd immunity is any time covid infections are declining, which means it cannot be sustained. In practice, like flu and other coronaviruses, covid will likely alternate between herd immunity and very slightly below the threshold for herd immunity in perpetuity.

I'm still not 100% convinced that the antigenic imprinting thing didn't transpire with the vaccines -- I've had it exactly once, during the Omicron wave, and don't seem to get it anymore despite the odd known exposure. Which is stark contrast with my (largely rabid vaccine fan) coworkers, who seem to be down with it all winter and still complain about side effects from booster shots.

Granted it's not putting them in the hospital or anything, but they do seem to be uniformly pretty damn sick for several days everytime -- which is worse than my initial natural exposure. Unlikely to get a good study on it, but if anything it seems like kind of the opposite of herd immunity -- I always thought that this was one of the more plausible reasons not to take the vaccine, so I get a nice glow of smugness everytime somebody calls in saying "OMG I can't even move, see you next week".

The neurotic shot takers I know do seem to be sick a lot, but they also seemed to be sick a lot before covid. Possibly too much observation bias for me to draw a strong conclusion.

I caught COVID once before vaccines were available. Then I caught it anywhere between 3-4 mores times, including after 2 boosters. There was little difference in severity.

It's not a good idea to go off such n=1 anecdotes in general.

It's not a good idea to go off such n=1 anecdotes in general.

Certainly true -- I'd consider it n=2 now though! My lifestyle absolutely involves a lot less exposure to infectious diseases than yours, so I doubt that I'm like highly immune anymore -- but would expect severity to remain mild if I get it again.

How severe were your more recent infections?

I'm young(ish) and in otherwise good health, so they were never that bad. My first and last confirmed bouts were the worst, being somewhat worse than the average cold. The others were indistinguishable from the same. Just a few days moping around in bed waiting for the worst of it to pass, barely even a fever. It's possible I caught it more than 4 times, but I stopped bothering to get tested a long time ago.

It really should have been Wuhan Flu.

Except it wasn't a flu, so that would just be incorrect.

Flu is almost always symptomatically indistinguishable from COVID. Not very many people need to know or care about the exact taxonomy of a moderate respiratory infection, and frankly speaking, most doctors don't either. To the minor extent that treatment might differ, we'd mentally just keep that bit in mind. It would hardly be the worst name in the world.

If the name had developed organically in the media or whatever and pedantic doctors had insisted calling it by a name that no one was using, I could see the argument. But OP was saying that this name that nobody was using should have been the preferred nomenclature. And while it would hardly be the worst name, given the severity of the disease, it could have led to some bad outcomes caused by people thinking that it could be prevented by a flu shot, or treated with existing antiviral medication.

Flu is almost always symptomatically indistinguishable from COVID

My theory is that it was much more widespread in the US than anyone admitted because testing was constrained early on, and a lot of first-wave cases got called flu with no further diagnostics.

I'm not sure why there are so many people insisting that we should have used a more inexact name for this disease just because it fits a certain naming scheme (or geopolitical interest).

There's a clear different memetic impact depending on whether people mentally bucketed covid as 'a new potentially-deadly virus' or 'a new strain of the flu', so that was always an important territory to fight over.

The implication with "Wuhan flu"/"Chinese flu" etc comparisons was that it was comparable to the Spanish flu, which is our primary modern point of reference for a communicable disease that kills a lot of people.

More comments

Remember when we all pretended it was a rule not to name diseases after places? That was fun.

They stopped naming COVID variants after Greek letters right when they got to 'Xi'.

Or name them after monkeys because of homosexuals?

Again, I'm not sure why people are insisting on this. Is there something particular gained, apart from - again - the geopolitical interest?

It's difficult to talk about covid deaths without also talking about how the data was recorded.

For example, if someone was in a nasty car accident and died in the hospital. They would be considered a covid related death if they tested positive for covid.

There are other examples I could give (data taken during protests, etc) and we can talk about how often this actually happened but once data becomes suspicious, it's difficult to take it seriously.

We can just count total deaths. A bunch more people died than usual. We don't really tend to miscount how many people died.

The total number of excess deaths is probably the best you can do, but even that isn’t perfect, since it also encompasses deaths from delayed medical treatment, deaths of despair, etc., due to the shutdowns.

presumably, you can just compare deaths across a covid and non-covid period to get a rough estimate of covid deaths. i doubt the policies put in place to fight covid led to a large number of extra deaths in the short term.

Somebody on the Scott-post did cite a paper doing exactly that -- in fact they take it a step further and look exclusively at mortality among people involved with the hospital system (where testing was manditory) but without a positive covid test. (matched cohort, 2018 vs 2020)

https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-025-21782-9

Your doubt appears misplaced:

Our results indicate that during the first pandemic wave and the ensuing months, the death rate of people who were free of COVID-19 in BC (i.e., always tested negative) more than tripled that of a matched pre-pandemic cohort. In absolute terms, the group with the largest increase consisted of those with cardiovascular disorders, but in relative terms, the largest increase occurred among people who were not only COVID-negative but also had no previously diagnosed NCD, signaling that some of them may represent incident cases that escalated to death before routine detection and treatment was provided. The spike in deaths among COVID-negative people seemed to coincide with the period of almost total health system shutdown for non-COVID-related complaints.

Why not? It's prettymuch the largest confounder in human history in terms of widespread behavior modification.

There's enough countries/regions in the world on various points of the infection virulence/lockdown severity scale you should be able to work out a metastudy

For example, if someone was in a nasty car accident and died in the hospital. They would be considered a covid related death if they tested positive for covid.

Does anyone have a citation for a policy of counting everyone who tests positive for covid shortly before death as "a covid related death?" How should causes of death like "two illnesses, one of which is symptomatic covid" or "respiratory distress a positive covid test, but no other clear covid symptoms" have been counted?

I've also felt using it against other historical diseases is outlandish since it's not like somebody was sitting by every single dead body in the Spanish Flu outbreak and doing a genomic test to prove whether or not they'd ever expressed anything

I remember reading an article at the time that said much of the confusion was due to the process used to investigate COVID deaths. Since all COVID cases were being reported to the health department at the time, any death with COVID was reported as a suspected COVID death, keeping in mind that all the health department knew initially was that a. The person had COVID and b. The person died. Since it takes a couple weeks for a death certificate to be issued, stories would come out of someone dying in a car crash who was on the COVID death list. But once the health department had the death certificate, they would then exclude anyone for whom COVID wasn't a contributing factor in their death.

It should be mentioned that the opposite happened, as well. There was a guy out by Philadelphia who crashed his car, was taken to the hospital, and died. He tested positive in the hospital, and was listed as having died from COVID, which cased a minor outrage for being so obviously the "guy who dies in a car accident tests positive and gets counted as a COVID death". Except in this case, they were right, but for the wrong reasons. The guy was sick with COVID, and the accident was actually caused because he lost control of his car after getting into a coughing fit. His injuries from the accident weren't life threatening, and he died of COVID at the hospital. In other words, he died with car accident.

Does anyone have a citation for...

I'm starting to feel like AI use is the new "just google it" for basic factual questions. This says:

  • Deaths from COVID and deaths with COVID were both counted and reported in different places.
  • "However, surveillance and public health reporting sometimes used broader definitions for statistical purposes, such as counting deaths within a certain period after a positive COVID-19 test as "COVID-related deaths," particularly in the UK and some US states."

After all that the citations are the BBC (reporting on the change from "anyone who has ever had COVID, regardless of whether it contributed to their death or not" to "anyone who has had COVID in the past 28 days, regardless of whether it contributed to their death or not"), and Colorado Public Radio ("Deaths from" vs. "deaths with").

Deaths from COVID and deaths with COVID were both counted and reported in different places.

The insistence on this conflation is probably one of the worse policy mistakes of national health authorities during the COVID years, not least because of (a) how upstream it was for justifying later (bad) policies on the basis of risk-severity, and (b) how obvious the implications of this could be to anyone already inclined towards skepticism with even a passing knowledge of statistical smuggling.

There are absolutely valid reasons to be very concerned about a potentially highly mutable pathogen in a population. You can absolutely believe a quarantine model could be necessary to protect at-risk people. But if you want to retain public trust and deference from a high-skepticism, low-trust, and literate population, you cannot smuggle in nakedly bad data to pad your numbers for public, population-level urgency. Too many discontents will read the data categories, recognize the issue, and spread the awareness. And too many people would be able to find examples of systemic incentives to miscount- even at the level of how some medical institutions could get more money for classifying patients as with-COVID. Which validates concerns / lack of trust in medical objectivity.

This was a (predictable) aspect of the pandemic response, as was the circle-the-wagons response and the partisan appeals to trusting the science. Except it was not science when it was being pushed, but Science. And those who insisted on championing The Science, or that people were bad for not believing policy proscribed on the basis of The Science, or even just that others should defer to those with The Science despite any misdirection from the authorities with The Science, have no basis for their own [current statistic] to be believed.

And a consequence of the inflated numbers is that they lost claim for establishing a shared understanding of what a 'true' number of deaths could be. 1.2 millions Americans died of Covid? Why should anyone believe that? How many 'died with' are smuggled into that? Does the argument from excess deaths also give credit for 'deaths saved' in later years from the people who died earlier but not later, or is it a one-way rachet to imply an above-average death rate in the area of scrutiny but not a lower-than-average death rate afterwards?

And why should anyone be concerned, without a baseline of comparison to establish relative rates? Is 1.2 million 1%, 5%, 100% more than expected? Especially if you use 'during Covid' as a span of time. Okay- what was that span of time, and what would be the 'normal' number of deaths during it? And how are you separating [deaths from COVID] from [deaths from COVID policy]?

Without such a baseline, of distinction between the consequences of bad policy and a bad disease, the main reason to defer to someone's statistic is trust. But trust is precisely what is lost when you conflate [with] and [from].

worse policy mistakes

Is it a 'mistake', if it's designed to obfuscate and mislead?

That the same bad actors then use their obfuscation for

justifying later (bad) policies on the basis of risk-severity

I have difficulty seeing these as 'mistakes'.

Wasn't their a rhyming obfuscation with the vaccinated? You did not count as vaccinated and dead unless you died > 2 weeks after your vaccination?

Is it a 'mistake', if it's designed to obfuscate and mislead?

Sure. The phrase 'it was worse than a crime; it was a mistake' comes to mind.

I am all on board that acts and/or policies can both be morally wrong and mistakes in the sense that they do not achieve the ends they were taken to achieve.

Going by Fauci's public statements for why he changed various positions over the course of the pandemic to 'nudge' people into 'better' options, I am fully prepared to believe he was both a bad actor and that he believed doing so would provide a net good on the pandemic outcome.

I think he was generally incompetent in that regards, as I do most people who believe national policy-level lies to be 'white lies' with no bearing on later credibility. I even say this as someone who has a far greater degree of acceptance of state secrets and such than others- part of public credibility is that you need a public's buy in to recognize that you might not share all information, but that what you do share needs to be fundamentally honest/accurate. Failures to maintain this are what lose the trust of those willing to extend tolerance to withholding 'true' information. Fauci's (and other's) technocratic approach to professional credibility is part of why I find him incompetent- he behaved as if the legitimacy and public trust derived from his position, rather than was bestowed by the public he tried to obfuscate and mislead.

People- individually and collectively- have some tolerance for O&M. But it is narrowed, and subject to revocation if abused.

The execution of the Duc d’Enghien was used to further the proximate goal of deterring royalist opposition and consolidating Napoleon’s power, much like COVID data obfuscation was used to justify policies by amplifying risk-severity. Both achieved short-term goals—suppressing dissent or driving compliance.

Both are 'mistakes' that appear to have met their indended near-term goals? Nearly all current year politics eschews the long term.

While you quote an enduring witicism I have difficulty finding an error or fault resulting from defective judgment, deficient knowledge, or carelessness, a misconception or misunderstanding, in either. Traditional markers of mistakes.

That trust in institutions may now be diminished, is only a result of the 'mistake' if the trust had been warrented or well-placed before. The 'mistake' is that the public trusted them to begin with.

The counter factual is Sweden, tge country that didn’t lock down at all. And to my knowledge, they didn’t really do any worse than their near neighbors.

And the reason it’s so hard to get talking about 1.2 million deaths on the radar is just how much the lockdowns cost the rest of us. People thrown into unemployment (and in the USA, it was hard to get unemployment because the systems were overwhelmed) with a small one time “bonus”. Businesses forced out of business because they couldn’t open, but their creditors could still demand payments. Children deprived of important social development because they couldn’t socialize with other kids. Those same kids given zoom classes instead of a real education. People denied the right to socialize, and when one of those 1.2 million people died, they were forced to die alone, with their families huddles around an iPad.

Scatter plots of measures of lockdown strictness versus disease impact tend to look like shotshell patterns. That is, no correlation. The lockdowns were on the close order of completely useless.

Sweden and its neighbours are much less densely populated than most of Europe, meaning the virus generally has a lower transmission rate in those countries. I'm not sure lockdown lessons from Sweden can necessarily be applied to e.g Germany.

Sweden's population density is comparable to the UK's population density if you treat the British Antarctic Territory as actually belonging to the UK. In an alternative timeline where the UK annexed the British Antarctic Territory in 2019, do you think this will have reduced the transition rate of COVID?

Sweden, Finland and Norway owning a bunch of tundra does not affect the population density that the average person experiences. That tundra cannot perform spooky action at a distance and affect what happens in Stockholm.

To quote myself:

Fallacy of ad hoc post hoc justification

As mentioned in the first item, the Covid hawks’ basic model of how a lockdown works assumes a simple linear relationship between how restrictive the lockdown is (and the degree of public compliance) and the rate of cases/hospitalisations/deaths. When a lockdown is implemented, followed by a spike in cases and deaths, the standard response is to blame overly permissive restrictions or poor public compliance. Conversely, if a lockdown is relaxed and there is no spike, this will be attributed to an exceptionally cautious public: an “unofficial” lockdown.

But sooner or later, these simplistic explanations for the failure of the model to describe reality begin to strain credibility, and Covid hawks are forced to introduce additional epicycles into their model. When faced with incontrovertible evidence that cases failed to spike even in the absence of exceptional voluntary compliance, Covid hawks will begrudgingly acknowledge assorted secular factors which likely contributed to the rate of transmission: “lots of people in Sweden live alone”, “Florida is close to the equator”, “there’s a seasonal component to transmission” etc.

The reason this is fallacious is not that these secular factors didn’t contribute to the spread of the virus and rates of hospitalisation and deaths - of course they did. It’s fallacious because these secular factors are only ever considered post hoc, after the limitations of lockdowns and other restrictions have been empirically exposed. Covid hawks never consider in advance of enacting or supporting a lockdown whether or not the lockdown passes a cost-benefit analysis, after taking these secular factors into account. Surely it would be trivial to find or estimate some key metrics about a particular region (the season, presence or absence of land borders, the percentage of adults who live alone, the rate of obesity etc.), estimate the expected “return” of the proposed restrictions, and input all of these variables into a formula which would indicate whether the proposed restrictions will pass a cost-benefit analysis. Many Western governments were already producing models which forecast cases and deaths conditional on the predicted rate of public compliance; what am I proposing seems like a logical extension of the foregoing.

But aggressive Covid hawks are reluctant to acknowledge secular factors which impact upon the rate of Covid transmission, and not just because these other factors complicate their simple, easy to grasp model of the world. Whether or not to enact a lockdown is supposed to be an easy and straightforward question: when you enact a lockdown, cases and deaths go down; when you don’t, they go up. Once you have acknowledged the fact that factors other than the lockdown itself might affect the rate of Covid transmission and serious illness, you’re only a step away from recognising that these other factors might dwarf or even negate the benefits of the lockdown itself. This in turn implies the uncomfortable possibility that locking down might sometimes be a bad thing on net: that you might throw thousands of people out of work or disrupt cancer screenings for weeks at a time for no reason, breaking a dozen eggs with no omelette to show for it.

To avoid confronting this discomfiting conclusion, lockdown proponents are incentivised to downplay the impact of secular factors, or deny them altogether. You will still, to this day*, encounter Australians and New Zealanders who will proudly declare that it was their lockdown measures (and their lockdown measures alone) which got Covid under control within their borders; and who will become very defensive when you suggest that their success with managing Covid might have something to do with the fact that both nations are geographically isolated islands without land borders.

"Lots of people in Sweden live alone" was an ad hoc justification I saw a lot during Covid to explain how the country were able to maintain a low rate of Covid transmission without ever officially locking down. And indeed, this is true. For reference, Sweden's Covid case count and death count per capita currently stands at 269,511 and 2,682, respectively.

After Sweden, the country with second-highest percentage of people living alone is Lithuania, which locked down and nonetheless saw 525,154 Covid cases, and 3,718 Covid deaths per capita. So much for that as a causal explanation.

The picture's not much better when looking at population density. Directly above Sweden is Latvia, which locked down and whose Covid case and death counts per capita were roughly the same as Lithuania. Next is Estonia (which admittedly did have a slightly lower Covid death count per capita than Sweden), Lithuania, then Montenegro (472,238; 4,532), Belarus (dramatically lower than Sweden on both metrics), Bulgaria (195,753 cases per capita; 5,661 deaths per capita - literally second-highest in the world after Peru).

This is not to argue that lockdowns exacerbate Covid metrics: it's merely to argue, as @The_Nybbler did above, that a simplistic model of "impose lockdowns in any given country -> Covid cases go down -> Covid deaths go down" is extremely lacking in predictive power, and the effect of lockdowns will likely be completely dwarfed or negated by local factors (percentage of population who are obese, average population age etc.). In other words: if you were to show you a list of anonymised countries' Covid cases per capita, Covid deaths per capita and case fatality rates and told you that some of them had locked down and some hadn't: I think you'd find it extremely difficult to identify which was which.

As soon as you say "lockdowns do work in general, but happened not to work in location X because of [ad hoc factor]", consider how easy it was for me to disprove the "Sweden didn't need to lock down because of population density/people living alone" ad hoc hypothesis.

*I published this article over a year ago, but this statement is literally true: earlier today I got into an argument with a guy who argued that of course lockdowns work - look at Australia and New Zealand! His argument, as I understand it, was that lockdowns work when used in concert with strict border controls, but don't work otherwise. Which struck me as an extremely roundabout way of saying "strict border controls are an effective way of stopping the spread of Covid; lockdowns unnecessary".

The Scandinavian countries have low levels of population density because vast tracts in the frozen north are empty, but that doesn't mean the people are spread out. Excluding city-states, Sweden is the 8th most urban country in Europe. It's significantly more densely populated than Germany by that metric.

You forgot massive self-inflicted economic damage (inflation, shuttered businesses, layoffs) caused by the lockdown ands insane money printing. All for basically nothing other tha our leaders indulging their "don't just stand there, do something!!!" impulse. I think about that every few days and I'm still angry about it. Really fucked up my plans, and I think I got off better than most.

Oh, and the insane powegrabs by literal-whos at all levels of federal, state, and city bureaucracy. Pencil necked losers in gubmint jobs suddenly issuing edicts about what free citizens of republic can and cannot do. And people obeyed. I will never be able to unsee that.

Post about specific groups, not general groups, whenever possible.

Calling out the general category of government employees does not clear that bar.

Okay, fair enough.

Yes, I remember seeing people spray down their shoes with disinfectant when returning to the house. Or spraying down the table at a shared eating space (because what we really needed is a bunch of people touching the same squirter, squirting down their tape-demarcated part of the table).

There was a shocking level of hysteria.

Certainly Sweden's excess death toll was lower than the European average, which seems like the most damning statistic for the efficacy of lockdowns.

It’s damning for the state enforced lockdowns which most other states were eager to implement. I think a lot of states used it as a compliance test *just how long can we get people to obey arbitrary rules and be shut in their homes without creating a backlash. Rather frightening to now understand that if you make the situation sound bad enough, you can get this sort of thing to go on for a long time. More than a year.

And other states were actually pretty upset that Sweden didn’t go along because it did provide an alternative to arresting people who dared to leave their homes.

Scott's "more than you wanted to know" assessment was that Sweden most likely did worse, albeit by a difficult to quantify margin.

Sweden did do a soft lockdown in the sense that businesses had reduced hours/density or encouraged people to work from home, and restricted the occupancy of certain public facilities like swimming pools. That, and I got the subjective sense that they have much less of a contingent of people who are young and severely unhealthy even compared to countries like Germany.

I mean as compared to much of the rest of the world, and certainly blue tribe areas of America, and as such I think it’s a reasonable counter factual case. They didn’t have to shut down everything, rope off playgrounds or cancel schools. Yes, they limited capacity, but for the most part, you could do what you wanted to.

Sweden did better than any country in Europe on an excess death basis.

I continue to dislike that as the primary metric of doing better during Covid. The important way that Sweden did better is that they engaged in fewer human rights violations, which is much more important to me than how many elderly people passed away of natural causes.

I’m not suggesting that is the primary benefit. But if the stated rationale for the human rights violation doesn’t produce any benefits as evidenced by Sweden, then that’s even stronger argument against those violations.

Anecdotal but am I one of the few who was almost completely unaffected by COVID? I literally knew no one on a first name basis who died. My 90 y/o grandma went on a 8 hour road trip with my positive aunt and was never symptomatic. My hunch is COVID deaths tended to cluster amongst certain groups. My white, Evangelical, smoking and drinking are sins circle faired very well.

Similarly with the great opioid crisis I've never known anyone who has OD'd.

I have not had covid as far as I know. I did get antibody tests early on which were all negative. My wife had it twice and i slept in the same room with her. No issues.

I also know no one that died from COVID, other than a coworker who's very old mother allegedly died from it. This person is known for his tall tales so I cant know for certain.

I find this to be a reasonable heuristic for how much I should worry about something. I know many people who passed from cancer. Many from heart attacks. More than one from getting hit by a car when cycling. I reckon most people have a similar experience.

Its impossible for me to believe that 1.2 million people died from covid in 3-4 years and reconcile that with my experience.

It's a good point that "I don't know anyone who died of covid" is not the only part of their personal experience that people will use to form an opinion on its severity -- virtually everyone has had or been exposed to covid by now, and if their experience was that the disease itself was no big deal, it's hard to reconcile that with a large death toll.

Like -- I don't personally know anyone who's died of prostate cancer, but I do know lots of people who've died of other kinds of cancer, so I'm prepared to believe that prostate cancer is a serious problem. If my doctor had said to me five years ago "hey, you've got prostate cancer -- this is a big deal, you might die" and I just... ignored it and it went away with minimal symptoms, I'd be less inclined to think that prostate cancer is a serious thing.

Biggest impact from COVID on me was a positive one, my job became 100% remote and I was able to wear pajamas for weeks at a time.

My white, Evangelical, smoking and drinking are sins circle faired very well.

I think this part should be hyphenated, as otherwise it becomes a garden-path sentence.

My white, tradcath, smoking and drinking are what you do, Covid measures are the mark of the beast circles did very well.

Face it- the virus just doesn’t affect people who don’t give a shit.

I did have an uncle whose annual hospital stay was due to Covid. But, like, his annual hospital stay.

My grandpa (late 80s with COPD) died from covid. The superintendant of my workplace got it and died after being publically anti-lockdown. My older cousin and her husband (both obese, and he smokes heavily) got it, but survived, though she was hospitalized.

My parents got it (after being vaccinated). Got weird neurological things a couple weeks later that got blamed on covid, including my stepmom blacking out while driving (and only avoiding swerving into traffic because my dad's cousin was in the passenger seat and grabbed the wheel in time).

I'm fortunate enough that nobody in my extended family outright died of COVID, but it put a family member in the ICU and others were severely sick. It absolutely wasn't a normal year by those standards.

A med student, who happens to be my brother's best friend and also my pupil, lost his dad to a fungal infection following an ICU admission after COVID. On a more extended basis, I certainly saw plenty of people die in the ICU I was responsible for during the worst of the pandemic.

My grandfather died of COVID in his mid 80s but he had had 4 heart attacks, a quadruple bypass surgery and was almost as round as he was tall… it was a miracle he lived that long to begin with….

No.

The closest person I can come up with who died of Covid was a coworker's (middle aged, obese) mother who I'd never met. Otherwise, I knew people who got it, and one who was hospitalized with it (twice, but he was on a "hospitalized every six months" schedule as it was before), but no one dead or seriously injured. As far as I know I never caught it (I took the initial two course vaccine but that's it, didn't make efforts to avoid it, lived with the guy who was twice hospitalized, etc.), and if Covid was indistinguishable from a bad hangover/routine flu-like illness that goes away after a day for a ~30 year old alcoholic (The bars being shut down really was annoying.) with a past history of smoking, that's on it.

I personally knew well 2 people who died of it who really shouldn't have had any obvious comorbidmities. I have a massive social network though - the number of people I know who died of it are far lower than the official stats would suggest.

I also didn't know anyone that died. My octogenarian grandparents got it and were fine.

Opioids on the other hand... well, I was from a poor rural town. A couple old friends that I have very fond memories of apparently got hooked on something and died, although the specifics are murky.

I don't know anyone who died of covid: my mother (in her 50s) got it and was hospitalized, but recovered. My grandmother (in her 90s) got it and didn't even end up in the hospital.

I don't know anyone who died of covid but I did know one guy who dropped dead of a stroke shortly after getting the vaccine.

I know exactly one person who "died of COVID". He was a morbidly obese, diabetic cancer survivor in his 70s with emphysema and COPD who had to regularly undergo dialysis to stay alive. When he passed away, it was shortly after going to the ER for chest pain.

I don't have a direct answer to your question, but I also don't think there's really any way around the fact that Covid was exceptionally deadly when compared to the common flu, and that given what they knew at the time the public health response was somewhat reasonable. That being said, a widespread tailored approach that focused on vulnerable individuals with at least one comorbidity probably would have softened the blow to the global economy, but almost certainly would have killed more people. The blowback to their approach coupled with the political environment was probably unavoidable, but the disgusting behavior of the Western media apparatus made it worse. Every dissenting opinion was met with accusations of racism or conspiracy theory. It was so difficult to wade through all of it at the time because the shear magnitude of manipulation and moral blackmail that was occurring through the media caused me to warp my own perception of what was medically true and what wasn't. The Ivermectin trend I latched onto had me reading all types of studies and meta-analyses that I thought were sufficient enough to support the efficacy of it. It took me a while to emotionally accept the dubious nature of those studies because my hatred of our mainstream and expert class was so deep at the time.

I was less emotionally invested in the lab leak theory although, due to the media's treatment of it, I also ended up digging into it as well. I found myself more fascinated from a curiosity standpoint with the lab leak vs. market origins than my continued efforts at trying to find a grain of truth supporting the efficacy of alternative treatments and prophylactics. Admittedly, this probably had to do with the fact that there no longer seemed to be a light at the end of the Ivermectin tunnel. Overall, I wasn't greatly affected by the lockdowns, or the Pfizer vaccine I took, but I felt and still feel deeply affected by everything the mainstream did outside of that. At the time, I was unable to distinguish between the lies and the medical truths that were being shelled out by the same group of people.

Covid was exceptionally deadly when compared to the common flu

I don't want to get into a debate about what "exceptionally deadly" means, but I don't think this is true. Spanish Flu was exceptionally deadly, COVID was largely on par with the Hong Kong and Asian Flu epidemics of the 60s, but in a much more globalised world.

I'm not really sure what prompted this article from Scott, but it does kind of follow the path the lockdown skeptical have been saying, that of the Iraq war. You start with enthusiastic support from all sides. Later you get "with the evidence at the time, support made sense" ( we are here). Then it's "I didn't support it, but I understand those who did". And finally you get to "No I never supported it and all those who did were clearly in the wrong/outright evil".

The thing that gets me--and I will admit my loss of facts over the years-- is there's no counterfactual for how effective the vaccines were. I presume the peak numbers would have come down a little, but vs. what? Overall, it doesn't seem to me there's much evidence that the vaccines did anything as the course of the covid outbreak followed every other pandemic just at a different scale. All I get is, "Of course they worked, it's obvious. You're stupid."

The trials presumably produced adequate estimations of the vaccines' effectiveness. I think the problem with public perception was partly that low rates of other infectious diseases created the misconception that sterilizing vaccines are the norm, such that reports that a vaccine "merely" health risks to the recipient by 90% triggered the confirmation bias of anti-vaccine people. (One person repeatedly told me "They changed the definition of 'vaccine.'")

The trials presumably produced adequate estimations of the vaccines' effectiveness.

Against the variant circulating at the time. Which was extinct by the time the vaccines were released.

reports that a vaccine "merely" health risks to the recipient by 90%

Unfortunately we don't even really have enough evidence to quantify conclusively what the 'severity' benefit really was -- the initial trials were underpowered for anything to do with severity/death, and of course were terminated once the companies got their approval. (in that the control arm got real shots)

So there's no RCT to quantify this benefit, and the population-level studies are hopelessly muddled by a mixture of hard to correct for demographic confounders and sheer politics/CW. Plus all the different strains -- it's hard to say for sure, but seems clear that Omicron was very not-severe as compared to earlier strains -- so when a person got Covid is probably even more important than his vaccination status, severity-wise.

"Work" can mean a variety of things. It can be "does this reduce the average persons chance of death". But the version thats needed to justify mandates is a systemic/herd immunity effect that has failed to materialise even in 90%+ vaccinated populations.

Ah, stupid public, thinking 'vaccines make you immune to a virus' just because scientists have been putting exactly that in kids books and shows and songs, and saying it to the UN and African and Afghani warlords for the past 80 years.

If you don't think the establishment were deliberately relying on the public perception of vaccines being viral immunity you are cuckoo.

the establishment were deliberately relying on the public perception of vaccines being viral immunity

Who, specifically, and to what end?

This was the reasoning behind vaccine passports. If you were vaccinated, then you wouldn't be passing on the virus. I lived in a place that required vaccine passports to go entertainment venues. Grocery stores technically didn't require a vaccine passport but if you wanted to take your mask off you needed to show proof of vaccination first. The rationale behind these things is that the vaccinated can't (or are significantly less likely) to be infected and infect others.

These were public policies made by public health professionals. The public health professionals thought the vaccines reduced infection rates and that's why they set the policy the way they did.

These were public policies made by public health professionals. The public health professionals thought the vaccines reduced infection rates and that's why they set the policy the way they did.

They did believe this, but I also remember discussions about how privileges could incentivize vaccination. I think that was applied as an argument in both directions: It was a reason to allow vaccine passports rather than just keeping things closed altogether, and it was an argument for not loosening things up on those the speaker considered defectors against society.

Fortunately for me, my blue state tended to either open things up or close them rather than using a passport strategy, as I was both vaxxed and stubbornly opposed to proving it on principle.

I understand not remembering who specifically said it, but why are you acting like the idea is out there that you're literally unable to come up with a motive for it?

Fucking everybody bud. If the zeitgeist position on vaccines wasn't 'they make you immune' the politicians and the media wouldn't have been so cavalier about safety concerns. If your gish gallop needs names, start with Kamala Harris - "The vaccine will prevent you from getting covid."

The closest comparison here is the influenza vaccine, and I don't recall anyone saying that the influenza vaccine makes you immune from influenza.

Yes, and the flu shot has very similar but quieter opposition as the Covid vaccine- working class conspiracy theories that it spreads illness, shortens lifespans to save social security, doesn’t work at all but big pharma bribes employers to push it, etc are a dime a dozen.

At least in the US, colloquially they aren't called influenza vaccines, they're called "flu shots." Not sure on the origin of not calling them vaccines but my assumption has always been that it's because they don't reliably immunize against or prevent the flu.

People calling them "shots" or "jabs" (like for Covid) instead of vaccines probably has less to do with anything like that and more with it being shorter to say words with one syllable instead of two.

More comments

Kamala Harris - "The vaccine will prevent you from getting covid."

Link?

I'm not finding it myself.

The closest I found was here, but it's explicitly about protection from hospitalization and death.

I'm not finding it either, even though I remember watching her say it, and mocking it with my friends so frequently I can remember the exact quote. And when I widened my search it got even better - apparently no US official ever said anything like that!

We are so fucked as a species.

Such purges of the digital past are an increasingly common part of the American electoral cycle.

Maybe you're thinking of Biden? https://youtube.com/watch?v=ciwyYnwYFaQ?si=nEANKgR7xGw6h2Vk

In ancient China, you would have believed a dragon was eating the sun. In your village, people would have made as much noise as possible—beating drums, pounding pots and pans, yelling—to scare the dragon off. When the sun reappeared, you would have sighed in relief. The dragon had flown off, and your village was safe.

It is obvious that they worked. This is how normal people understand things. Didn't we vaccinate everyone? And didn't the pandemic end soon after?

No — we vaccinated everyone and it kept going until Omni happened

We vaccinated, yes, but we also risk-compensated.

They kept track of death rates among the unvaccinated vs vaccinated (vs boosted, etc.), and it definitely looked like you wanted to be in the group whose first exposure to Covid spikes was of the artificial, non-exponentially-reproducing variety. Vaccine effectivity dropped off with time fast enough that there was no way to stop the disease from spreading, but at least we might have somewhat reduced the fatality rate from more of those first virgin exposures.

The obvious problem with those numbers is that this was anything but a Randomized Controlled Trial, and who knows what other differences those population groups had. IIRC I could find the data age-adjusted, but not controlled for anything else. There's a paradox where, if you tell everybody that e.g. square dancers live longer, you may soon find that square dancers really do live longer, not because it's better than other forms of exercise or whatever, but because now all the people who are doing a lot of other things to take care of their health have started square dancing too. Perhaps people who resisted taking a Covid vaccine are more oppositional toward other sorts of public health recommendations too, either with regard to Covid (letting themselves be exposed more easily) or to other contributing factors (obesity, smoking, "toughing out" serious infections, whatever).

The more subtle problem is that it's hard to tell how Covid-19 would have evolved in the presence of a more universally vaccinated population. Death rates fell way off with the Omicron variant, but would the virus inevitably have evolved in the same way at the same speed?

All I get is, "Of course they worked, it's obvious. You're stupid."

Ask if they think the FDA should have allowed the vaccine to be freely distributed and/or sold after it was first invented, in March 2020, without spending the next several months waiting on slow-but-legally-mandated testing methods and FDA approval before they could ramp up production. It's a little hard to get up on a "not trusting the system and taking the vaccine makes you a stupid anti-vaxxer" high horse when nearly half of the US deaths came during a time period when the system would have jailed anyone who gave you the vaccine.

What we needed were expedited Challenge Trials. The first thing I thought was ridiculous is how the virus was dangerous enough that it made sense to shut down everything, but not so important that we could do challenge trials for treatments on volunteers. I know many people who would have willingly been exposed to the virus to test out a treatment/vaccine.

A challenge trail would have shut down a lot of this vaccine effectiveness debate. Isolate a group of 400 people, vaccinate half, expose half of each group to the virus, and record the data. Hard to argue with that, fast results, save a million lives.

Ask if they think the FDA should have allowed the vaccine to be freely distributed and/or sold after it was first invented, in March 2020, without spending the next several months waiting on slow-but-legally-mandated testing methods and FDA approval before they could ramp up production. It's a little hard to get up on a "not trusting the system and taking the vaccine makes you a stupid anti-vaxxer" high horse when nearly half of the US deaths came during a time period when the system would have jailed anyone who gave you the vaccine.

Freely distributed, yes. Tough to say what the minimum level of safety testing should be needed for sales should be.

Ask if they think the FDA should have allowed the vaccine to be freely distributed and/or sold after it was first invented

I think they were wise not to do that. It would have opened up the whole issue of various more-or-less official requirements for getting this vaccine they hadnt pronounced safe yet, and the actually-existing controversy was peanuts compared to what that could have been.

Maybe I'm just feeling sentimental at the moment but I wanted to offer you a more personal 'good job on this comment' than an upvote would have been.

Governments (like all organizations) find it difficult to contextualize and manage risk. Politicians considered that it would present a major threat to their legitimacy if the public were to experience huge widespread deaths, bodies in the street, hospitals overflowing with corpses and unusable for normal functions and deaths in many or most families. This wasn’t even a problem of democracy or relative lack of control of the media, since the CCP made the same judgment.

There were undoubtedly many politicians (Boris Johnson was one) who were at least initially comfortable with letting the cards fall where they would and staying open. But politicians are naturally neurotic, and if you’re the only country that does this (Swedes ostensibly tried but they still had soft lockdown for WFH and in many other parts of the economy too) then you risk your people blaming you for every excess death. In addition, old people vote, and their middle aged children also vote more than the young. Even in China, when sporadic protests happen, they’re disproportionately middle aged and above. In March 2020 the entire global press was begging for lockdowns, and so even were many people in this very community who subsequently changed their minds.

Humans are extraordinarily adaptive and quick to accept radical change in their lives, living standards and identities (as the lifetimes of many people in eg. 20th century Europe show). Most would have been fine either way. The lockdowns were a mistake, but they were probably inevitable given the circumstances.

It also didn't help that most pandemic plans were for "high fatality, moderate infectiousness" diseases rather than "low-except-for-elderly fatality, very high infectiousness." The playbooks got thrown out very early.

I heard a theory somewhere that the reason lockdowns became dogma is because that was what Wuhan did. By the time the virus hit the rest of the world everyone was already primed to think that lockdowns are just what you do when you get a COVID outbreak.

Is that a theory or just normal social psychology?

Not to forget being primed before that by loads of disease-related apocalyptic fiction (sure, that stuff generally doesn't show lockdowns as something that works, but there's still indications that they would work if you just locked down earlier and harder).

You can reason by fictional evidence -- apocalyptic fiction, or by real evidence -- historical quarantine for the Black Death, but in both cases proper reasoning by such evidence would only tell you lockdowns can fail to work, not that they can work.

On the other hand, this was probably the first time in history when technological development (mainly the things enabling WFH including studies from home, also tracking etc) would have even allowed movement restrictions like the ones implemented from time to time, which is probably one of the reasons why it was only suggested and then implemented now.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats