I watched to approx 4m when he started talking about "a nursing home and NYC problem". I would have liked more context up front re the author's credentials. I'm a disease researcher who's spent time studying covid, and that statement is demonstrably false. It also reminds me a *lot* of "HIV being a gay problem", both factually and in being used to push an agenda.
Good lord. I made it a bit farther in (7m?), and what I *don't* see is an intellectually honest discussion of cost/benefit tradeoffs in the face of uncertainty. Here we are with 1 million US dead (and that's just of direct infection; we know there's more so-called "excess mortality" from higher strokes, heart attacks, etc.), so the social cost is *already* very high.
Regarding personal liberties, how about the freedom to yell "fire" in a crowded theater? There's a body of long-established case law regarding collective responsibilities that Kane pointedly ignores here.
I think there is tremendous survivor’s bias with Covid. So many parents whose kids are alive and healthy tend to focus on the remote schooling, wearing masks, and worse blame any developmental challenges on the school closures.
Around 18:30 there's an implicit acceptance that inflation was caused by federal stimulus. FWIW, this is a subject of rather extensive debate.
Also, I find it convenient that a libertarian is complaining about beliefs im cabals and conspiracy theories when the libertarians have been chief actors in motivating these ideas for the exact purpose of eroding trust in government. This playbook goes parallels those described in "Merchants of Doubt" and even early antisemitic propaganda (eg Elders of Zion).
Looking back now, I think the right’s response to COVID is when our societal norms started to break down. Belief in science, facts, and logic evaporated and we suddenly were in the midst of an alternate reality.
To my mind, this is the more interest and intellectually honest question/ terms of debate: did shut-downs and other harsh public health measures unintentionally*worsen* US outcomes by eroding public trust. This strikes me as an important question for governance that parallels other thorny questions in global public health and human rights (e.g., malaria vs DDT bans, smallpox eradication).
I watched to approx 4m when he started talking about "a nursing home and NYC problem". I would have liked more context up front re the author's credentials. I'm a disease researcher who's spent time studying covid, and that statement is demonstrably false. It also reminds me a *lot* of "HIV being a gay problem", both factually and in being used to push an agenda.
Good lord. I made it a bit farther in (7m?), and what I *don't* see is an intellectually honest discussion of cost/benefit tradeoffs in the face of uncertainty. Here we are with 1 million US dead (and that's just of direct infection; we know there's more so-called "excess mortality" from higher strokes, heart attacks, etc.), so the social cost is *already* very high.
Regarding personal liberties, how about the freedom to yell "fire" in a crowded theater? There's a body of long-established case law regarding collective responsibilities that Kane pointedly ignores here.
I think there is tremendous survivor’s bias with Covid. So many parents whose kids are alive and healthy tend to focus on the remote schooling, wearing masks, and worse blame any developmental challenges on the school closures.
13:40-15m: this is a really important point, thank you Stephen!
Around 18:30 there's an implicit acceptance that inflation was caused by federal stimulus. FWIW, this is a subject of rather extensive debate.
Also, I find it convenient that a libertarian is complaining about beliefs im cabals and conspiracy theories when the libertarians have been chief actors in motivating these ideas for the exact purpose of eroding trust in government. This playbook goes parallels those described in "Merchants of Doubt" and even early antisemitic propaganda (eg Elders of Zion).
Looking back now, I think the right’s response to COVID is when our societal norms started to break down. Belief in science, facts, and logic evaporated and we suddenly were in the midst of an alternate reality.
To my mind, this is the more interest and intellectually honest question/ terms of debate: did shut-downs and other harsh public health measures unintentionally*worsen* US outcomes by eroding public trust. This strikes me as an important question for governance that parallels other thorny questions in global public health and human rights (e.g., malaria vs DDT bans, smallpox eradication).