It's wild how the tribal dynamics are so self-reinforcing. Even putting emotion aside, nuance can feel like signal-weakening, so people over-signal to push the equilibrium. Like trying to do systems thinking, but without guardrails like trust and good faith.
In academic terms, "nuance can feel like signal-weakening" is a superb phrase.
In real life, when talking to a close friend or family member, nuance in a covid discussion feels like such a risk to the fabric of the relationship. I feel like I have so little safe space to navigate when talking to someone I love, appreciate, and admire who has been with me though thick and thin, and vice-versa. I've never felt this so strongly with any previous issue. The only space I have found is "This is what I have chosen to do and why." This follows saying to the person who will not get a shot or do something else I think society should with "You have plenty of company."
Probably this is because of the feeling that their choices can directly affect me, or someone else I love (such as their children). On other divisive subjects, I can feel that they have a perfect right to admire and vote for Donald Trump or to watch Fox news (or soap operas or Rachel Maddow or anything else). I don't think they have a perfect right to be racist or sexist or to not accept that some people are gay, but whole religions support that last one, whole religions and most of our society tacitly accepts and practices the second, and at least the first is openly discussable in many settings where it wasn't before. On all of these I can bring up my own experience as a woman and with other races and gay and trans people just as a story about me. So many people have gay or other-race relatives that they love, and that is a slow but real force for change.
I find the use of the Grim Reaper obnoxious, but to me it's not the salient metaphor that comes out of the pandemic. Rather, the anti-scientific metaphor concerns the science-denying anti-maskers who claim it's a matter of freedom; the people who believe COVID-19 is a Democratic hoax; the folks who associate the response to disease with the imposition of socialism on the US. These images are far more strongly embedded, a bizarre form of "Live Free or Die." Reading interviews with nurses in South Dakota who reported some patients' final words before intubation were that it was all a hoax turns my sense of rationalism to jelly.
I don't disagree, and I think those are more obvious to most people who read this newsletter--and frankly, to me as well. I'm just baffled how that grim reaper character got so much respectable media coverage/social media adulation *in the name of science*.
I just don’t see his obnoxiousness as a metaphor of the pandemic. More as an exemplar of moral absolutism and (as you’ve said many times) acceptance because of partisan bias regardless of fact.
It's also a reminder to have some humility. On the left we've seen the utterly insane and even evil responses to the pandemic from the right. But this doesn't automatically make someone on the left correct. There are many ways to be wrong.
If our leaders had communicated more like Zeynep from the beginning, it could have taken most of the wind out of the sails of the people you're describing.
Great article! Why were all the pictures at the low-risk beaches, not in restaurants and bars? Because there's nothing that is more sinful and that sells better than sex, and beaches are where you easily get sexy pictures.
That was my thought too. A family day at the beach with snacks eaten at the car is far different than spring breakers partying for hours into the wee hours in crowds shouting at one another. Now we are seeing an increase in cases in young people and I see no information that links this to Spring Break. Of course these young people went home or back to school in places distant from the break site, and we are loath to "blame" anyone for risky behavior...
There have been photos of partiers in indoor or enclosed areas, but those don't make good images for the point of this post. Those incidents are actually unsafe. People being outdoors at the beach is fairly safe. I remember CA closing beaches and hiking trails last Summer, "Safer At Home". Stupid. Ignores human psychology completely.
Zeynep you ask why this adulation of the Grim Reaper. I don't think it's a coincidence that he is a very old image that is believed to have first appeared around the time of the Black Death. Of course there's a perfectly good modern scientific case for pandemic restrictions. But they also tap into some old religious bits of our circuit boards that are still there ready to be activated: namely the notion that by retreating from the sinful world, by turning inward, and shunning the false pleasures of social interaction and fun, we will be saved from the divine punishment. The Grim Reaper is the enforcer of that. In fact one could write a whole piece analysing people's responses to the pandemic through that religious lens I think: for example, the way in which ER staff posting angry (and not necessarily accurate or well-informed) videos denouncing rulebreakers are treated like Biblical prophets; or the division of the world into the Saved (who have heard the message to mask up and stay home) and the Reprobate (who fail to listen to the divine message and will be punished accordingly).....
This is a really good observation. I'm not a scholar of medieval times, but yes, there is strong religiosity as a relationship to mitigation measures as an undercurrent--the role of the mask, the condemnation of sinners, the celebration of the prophets... We are indeed still humans!
You hit me right in that old circuit board. But for me, lockdown world was not so much about sin as it was about danger. We are fortunate to have plenty of outside to be safe in and lots of things to do. But I had a hard time breaking through some barrier to do even the safe things. The world was unsafe. After getting our vaccinations we are still being extremely restricted in physically leaving lockdown, but I feel so much more free.
We are not at the place now where, in Michigan or anywhere else, an outbreak can easily and finally be blamed on individual behavior, opposition to science, or vaccine hesitancy.
But eventually we might be in a place to make that judgment. Take for example, the occasional community outbreaks of measles in this country- it is highly correlated with anti-vaccine movement activity and parents refusing to give their kids the MMR vaccine. How do we assign blame here? Obviously the kids are innocent, and the parents have been led astray by charlatans. But I do think it's a mistake to only blame the leaders of the anti-vaccine movement, (or perhaps government institutions that fail to promote the benefits of vaccination or enforce mandates in schools), while letting individual parents off the hook. I do think there still is a role for shame as a motivational tool for public health.
I'm confused by this way of looking at things. There's quite a bit of evidence that shame is whatever the opposite of a tool for promoting public health would be. Shame typically promotes secrecy, avoidance, and defiance. Do you think fat-shaming causes people to lose weight? (At best, those most motivated by shame are already invested in themselves as respectable agents, which is typically heavily classed.) Shouldn't the science of public health count in assessing interventions and their likely effects?
I think it tends to backfire for most health interventions at the individual level, especially if there is polarization and/or entrenchment. It makes complete sense that it does.
I agree completely about the beach. But, we also saw lots of people out at night without masks, drinking and partying, including being indoors. People may be outside, but they are being crowded in together. We just saw 40,000 mostly unmasked baseball fans for a Texas Rangers game. Outdoors, yes, but sitting within inches of one another.
There was research that showed that after each Trump rally, the county that the event was held in showed increased cases of COVID.
So, yes, being out in dry air, often with a breeze limits transmission, a number of those folks would later in the day engage in more risky behavior. Then, if they become infected (often without symptoms), they take it back to their hometowns or colleges, risking others.
One other note. The CDC is allocating $90 million to surge vaccines and vaccinators into MI.
I think it would be actually effective to highlight the problem parts (indoor parties!) rather than losing credibility by scolding/shaming things that people can discern are safe! So that really increases my concerns. (Good news about MI!)
I thought ZT had said that there wasn't really anything showing outdoor superspreader events. I checked google scholar today for research on BLM protests and superspreading and found nothing at all. Possibly b/c you would be accused of being a racist for even investigating such a thing. Or possibly b/c only a racist _would_ investigate such a thing.
There has been some research into this, and as far as I can tell, there is no credible rise from anything outdoors, but events with indoor components (like the Sturgis Rally) caused some infections (but likely nowhere as many as some modeling suggested),
Well, to be fair, on the beaches and in the streets, people are active and moving around. At Trump rallies and baseball games, people are sitting or standing in close proximity to one another, thus increasing the risk of transmission.
I live in a neighborhood of University backed housing in California. The vaccination rate (including me) in the neighborhood has got to be above 60 % (kids not vaccinated). I feel like _not_ wearing a mask when I walk the dog is science backed. I also admit to feeling like I'm mildly trolling my neighbors. come on, people! let's see each other's faces! You say you believe in science! Masks off! (sort of) open to changing my mind on this, if anyone wants to take a crack at it. ;-)
Other than the sensationalist headlines where should people go to learn what’s safe or not?
I do think it’s hard for people to believe in studies when they know no one who were part of one. I have to follow certain researchers to get information I feel is relevant and useful but to others I’m following my own thought leaders that are making the decisions for me. Another form of belief.
I don’t think so but I do have trouble defending my stance at times because there is just a point where I “feel” what someone says is correct vs reading a thousand articles.
On a related note, one of the biggest frauds in psychological research was committed by Eysenck, who claimed that personalities were related to illnesses such as cancer, and that psychological treatment could help people prevent such illnesses. This speaks to the overall flawed perspective outlined in the post. See this Twitter thread by Stuart Ritchie for an overview of Eysenck's research: https://twitter.com/StuartJRitchie/status/1182962883447214081?s=20
The phrase "safe" in reference to behavior or activities is inherently subjective.
Government health guidelines think of "safe" as "keep R0 below 1", which will at least keep things under control. But individuals, for various reasons, will set their own definition of "safe". I know people who understand the science and seem to have decided to define "safe" as "an unmeasurably small risk". Basically, p = Epsilon.
So telling someone that going to the beach is safe opens yourself up to disagreement. These friends of mine would only consider it safe if everyone at the beach had effective masks on their faces while staying 6' away from anyone outside their bubbles. They would also be concerned about wind direction and not being in anyone's exhalation trail. And they'll likely be double masking with one N95.
Perhaps saying "very safe" would be better than "safe".
Indeed, sometimes I say baseline risk or baseline safe. There is no zero risk, but at some point, if the risk at the beach is indeed lower than the shark attack, it is no longer something we should mandate/shame or concern ourselves with at the individual level.
I am very unhappy with the CDC using "safe" in public pronouncements. As you note, they are using "safe" in epidemiologist-speak. This does not come though at all when Walensky or Fauchi addresses the public. I have decided to take as "safe" in my risk-terms as fewer than 200 U.S. Covid deaths per day. That is a number Dr. Fauchi used as when he will declare herd immunity. That is double the number of automobile accident deaths, and I drive and engage in other risks (not many) and I can accept that level of risk. I do not plan to go to mass events even at that level.
It's wild how the tribal dynamics are so self-reinforcing. Even putting emotion aside, nuance can feel like signal-weakening, so people over-signal to push the equilibrium. Like trying to do systems thinking, but without guardrails like trust and good faith.
It's really hard.
In academic terms, "nuance can feel like signal-weakening" is a superb phrase.
In real life, when talking to a close friend or family member, nuance in a covid discussion feels like such a risk to the fabric of the relationship. I feel like I have so little safe space to navigate when talking to someone I love, appreciate, and admire who has been with me though thick and thin, and vice-versa. I've never felt this so strongly with any previous issue. The only space I have found is "This is what I have chosen to do and why." This follows saying to the person who will not get a shot or do something else I think society should with "You have plenty of company."
Probably this is because of the feeling that their choices can directly affect me, or someone else I love (such as their children). On other divisive subjects, I can feel that they have a perfect right to admire and vote for Donald Trump or to watch Fox news (or soap operas or Rachel Maddow or anything else). I don't think they have a perfect right to be racist or sexist or to not accept that some people are gay, but whole religions support that last one, whole religions and most of our society tacitly accepts and practices the second, and at least the first is openly discussable in many settings where it wasn't before. On all of these I can bring up my own experience as a woman and with other races and gay and trans people just as a story about me. So many people have gay or other-race relatives that they love, and that is a slow but real force for change.
+1 to Judy's comment: "nuance can feel like signal-weakening" nails so much.
I find the use of the Grim Reaper obnoxious, but to me it's not the salient metaphor that comes out of the pandemic. Rather, the anti-scientific metaphor concerns the science-denying anti-maskers who claim it's a matter of freedom; the people who believe COVID-19 is a Democratic hoax; the folks who associate the response to disease with the imposition of socialism on the US. These images are far more strongly embedded, a bizarre form of "Live Free or Die." Reading interviews with nurses in South Dakota who reported some patients' final words before intubation were that it was all a hoax turns my sense of rationalism to jelly.
I don't disagree, and I think those are more obvious to most people who read this newsletter--and frankly, to me as well. I'm just baffled how that grim reaper character got so much respectable media coverage/social media adulation *in the name of science*.
Your point is very well taken.
I just don’t see his obnoxiousness as a metaphor of the pandemic. More as an exemplar of moral absolutism and (as you’ve said many times) acceptance because of partisan bias regardless of fact.
It's also a reminder to have some humility. On the left we've seen the utterly insane and even evil responses to the pandemic from the right. But this doesn't automatically make someone on the left correct. There are many ways to be wrong.
If our leaders had communicated more like Zeynep from the beginning, it could have taken most of the wind out of the sails of the people you're describing.
Great article! Why were all the pictures at the low-risk beaches, not in restaurants and bars? Because there's nothing that is more sinful and that sells better than sex, and beaches are where you easily get sexy pictures.
That was my thought too. A family day at the beach with snacks eaten at the car is far different than spring breakers partying for hours into the wee hours in crowds shouting at one another. Now we are seeing an increase in cases in young people and I see no information that links this to Spring Break. Of course these young people went home or back to school in places distant from the break site, and we are loath to "blame" anyone for risky behavior...
There have been photos of partiers in indoor or enclosed areas, but those don't make good images for the point of this post. Those incidents are actually unsafe. People being outdoors at the beach is fairly safe. I remember CA closing beaches and hiking trails last Summer, "Safer At Home". Stupid. Ignores human psychology completely.
Excellent point. The fact is that most folks believe what they see as visuals over what they read.
Zeynep you ask why this adulation of the Grim Reaper. I don't think it's a coincidence that he is a very old image that is believed to have first appeared around the time of the Black Death. Of course there's a perfectly good modern scientific case for pandemic restrictions. But they also tap into some old religious bits of our circuit boards that are still there ready to be activated: namely the notion that by retreating from the sinful world, by turning inward, and shunning the false pleasures of social interaction and fun, we will be saved from the divine punishment. The Grim Reaper is the enforcer of that. In fact one could write a whole piece analysing people's responses to the pandemic through that religious lens I think: for example, the way in which ER staff posting angry (and not necessarily accurate or well-informed) videos denouncing rulebreakers are treated like Biblical prophets; or the division of the world into the Saved (who have heard the message to mask up and stay home) and the Reprobate (who fail to listen to the divine message and will be punished accordingly).....
This is a really good observation. I'm not a scholar of medieval times, but yes, there is strong religiosity as a relationship to mitigation measures as an undercurrent--the role of the mask, the condemnation of sinners, the celebration of the prophets... We are indeed still humans!
You hit me right in that old circuit board. But for me, lockdown world was not so much about sin as it was about danger. We are fortunate to have plenty of outside to be safe in and lots of things to do. But I had a hard time breaking through some barrier to do even the safe things. The world was unsafe. After getting our vaccinations we are still being extremely restricted in physically leaving lockdown, but I feel so much more free.
We are not at the place now where, in Michigan or anywhere else, an outbreak can easily and finally be blamed on individual behavior, opposition to science, or vaccine hesitancy.
But eventually we might be in a place to make that judgment. Take for example, the occasional community outbreaks of measles in this country- it is highly correlated with anti-vaccine movement activity and parents refusing to give their kids the MMR vaccine. How do we assign blame here? Obviously the kids are innocent, and the parents have been led astray by charlatans. But I do think it's a mistake to only blame the leaders of the anti-vaccine movement, (or perhaps government institutions that fail to promote the benefits of vaccination or enforce mandates in schools), while letting individual parents off the hook. I do think there still is a role for shame as a motivational tool for public health.
I'm confused by this way of looking at things. There's quite a bit of evidence that shame is whatever the opposite of a tool for promoting public health would be. Shame typically promotes secrecy, avoidance, and defiance. Do you think fat-shaming causes people to lose weight? (At best, those most motivated by shame are already invested in themselves as respectable agents, which is typically heavily classed.) Shouldn't the science of public health count in assessing interventions and their likely effects?
My impulse is that _surely_ shame doesn't work in the messaging department for anything. But can't say I've actually looked at the research on it.
I think it tends to backfire for most health interventions at the individual level, especially if there is polarization and/or entrenchment. It makes complete sense that it does.
Just have to say: Zeynep breaking out the Brumaire! Hell yes! Thought I was just the only Marxist hanging with my thoughtful left liberal friends. ;-)
I agree completely about the beach. But, we also saw lots of people out at night without masks, drinking and partying, including being indoors. People may be outside, but they are being crowded in together. We just saw 40,000 mostly unmasked baseball fans for a Texas Rangers game. Outdoors, yes, but sitting within inches of one another.
There was research that showed that after each Trump rally, the county that the event was held in showed increased cases of COVID.
So, yes, being out in dry air, often with a breeze limits transmission, a number of those folks would later in the day engage in more risky behavior. Then, if they become infected (often without symptoms), they take it back to their hometowns or colleges, risking others.
One other note. The CDC is allocating $90 million to surge vaccines and vaccinators into MI.
I think it would be actually effective to highlight the problem parts (indoor parties!) rather than losing credibility by scolding/shaming things that people can discern are safe! So that really increases my concerns. (Good news about MI!)
I thought ZT had said that there wasn't really anything showing outdoor superspreader events. I checked google scholar today for research on BLM protests and superspreading and found nothing at all. Possibly b/c you would be accused of being a racist for even investigating such a thing. Or possibly b/c only a racist _would_ investigate such a thing.
There has been some research into this, and as far as I can tell, there is no credible rise from anything outdoors, but events with indoor components (like the Sturgis Rally) caused some infections (but likely nowhere as many as some modeling suggested),
Well, to be fair, on the beaches and in the streets, people are active and moving around. At Trump rallies and baseball games, people are sitting or standing in close proximity to one another, thus increasing the risk of transmission.
True. I do remember seeing somewhere that rallies were more dangerous than protest marches from a transmission pov.
Hadn't heard that -- excellent news re: MI.
Just announced today. Never knew that Zeynep was so influential!
Well said (and explained). Thank you.
I live in a neighborhood of University backed housing in California. The vaccination rate (including me) in the neighborhood has got to be above 60 % (kids not vaccinated). I feel like _not_ wearing a mask when I walk the dog is science backed. I also admit to feeling like I'm mildly trolling my neighbors. come on, people! let's see each other's faces! You say you believe in science! Masks off! (sort of) open to changing my mind on this, if anyone wants to take a crack at it. ;-)
Other than the sensationalist headlines where should people go to learn what’s safe or not?
I do think it’s hard for people to believe in studies when they know no one who were part of one. I have to follow certain researchers to get information I feel is relevant and useful but to others I’m following my own thought leaders that are making the decisions for me. Another form of belief.
I don’t think so but I do have trouble defending my stance at times because there is just a point where I “feel” what someone says is correct vs reading a thousand articles.
On a related note, one of the biggest frauds in psychological research was committed by Eysenck, who claimed that personalities were related to illnesses such as cancer, and that psychological treatment could help people prevent such illnesses. This speaks to the overall flawed perspective outlined in the post. See this Twitter thread by Stuart Ritchie for an overview of Eysenck's research: https://twitter.com/StuartJRitchie/status/1182962883447214081?s=20
The phrase "safe" in reference to behavior or activities is inherently subjective.
Government health guidelines think of "safe" as "keep R0 below 1", which will at least keep things under control. But individuals, for various reasons, will set their own definition of "safe". I know people who understand the science and seem to have decided to define "safe" as "an unmeasurably small risk". Basically, p = Epsilon.
So telling someone that going to the beach is safe opens yourself up to disagreement. These friends of mine would only consider it safe if everyone at the beach had effective masks on their faces while staying 6' away from anyone outside their bubbles. They would also be concerned about wind direction and not being in anyone's exhalation trail. And they'll likely be double masking with one N95.
Perhaps saying "very safe" would be better than "safe".
Indeed, sometimes I say baseline risk or baseline safe. There is no zero risk, but at some point, if the risk at the beach is indeed lower than the shark attack, it is no longer something we should mandate/shame or concern ourselves with at the individual level.
I like baseline risk,
Indeed. Zero risk isn't possible.
I like it -- safe enough that we shouldn't be judging.
Indeed.
I am very unhappy with the CDC using "safe" in public pronouncements. As you note, they are using "safe" in epidemiologist-speak. This does not come though at all when Walensky or Fauchi addresses the public. I have decided to take as "safe" in my risk-terms as fewer than 200 U.S. Covid deaths per day. That is a number Dr. Fauchi used as when he will declare herd immunity. That is double the number of automobile accident deaths, and I drive and engage in other risks (not many) and I can accept that level of risk. I do not plan to go to mass events even at that level.