I think the farhad column is useful in that it shows that people are perfectly capable of making the “wrong” (honestly he seems pretty low on the risk spectrum for gatherings) decision even if they have all the relevant information, financial security etc
-
-
Replying to @MattZeitlin
This is piggybacking off a
@mattyglesias point but I think it shows the problem is that a lot of COVID behavior which may be rational from an individual's standpoint can nonetheless cause negative externalities for society.22 replies 17 retweets 479 likes -
I'd put "indoor dining" in that category, but wouldn't put "self-isolating for two weeks and then driving to a city to eat an outdoor meal with seven people" in that category. The latter is actually literally harmless.
11 replies 3 retweets 120 likes -
Replying to @davidshor @NateSilver538 and
That was not at all what the first version of the column was though. It’s been majorly-edited. The first version was I don’t have a bubble but I had no idea, and the only precaution was kids will be pulled from learning pod for a week.
3 replies 0 retweets 85 likes -
Replying to @zeynep @davidshor and
I don’t mind people doing low risk activities as they see fit, of course. Issue was very publicly shrugging off something that is very important for people to understand: bubbles aren’t bubbles unless they’re *actually* bubbles. Few people have intuitive grasp of network theory.
8 replies 4 retweets 105 likes -
Replying to @zeynep @davidshor and
I think people understand pretty well their social bubbles are not pristine. It's mostly a euphemism to say "everybody's being *pretty* careful here, right?". Or it's hygenie theater to defend the choice to see other people in person when you think you might get scolded for it.
3 replies 1 retweet 44 likes -
Replying to @NateSilver538 @davidshor and
Actually, I thought that was the real value of the column. He thought he was in a bubble. I mean, the moment he said "kids in learning pod plus gym class", you knew he wasn't. That's not a bubble! It's an open network! But he professed his shock, but kept calling it bubble.
4 replies 3 retweets 112 likes -
Replying to @zeynep @davidshor and
I mean it was certainly a weird column. The first half about the bubble was useful. And the second half about his decision to see his family while taking a *lot* of precautions is defensible. When you fuse those together into one column though it sets a strange tone.
3 replies 0 retweets 41 likes -
Replying to @NateSilver538 @davidshor and
Right, the unedited version (the one everyone reacted to) did not have a lot of precautions. It was "we'll drive" and "we'll pull the kids for one week" and "look into testing". No two week quarantine afterwards (risking his own bubble!), no outdoor dinner, no staying elsewhere..
4 replies 1 retweet 46 likes
If he split the "holy crap, look at this network" from the despair+harm reduction column, I'd have liked both. It's just the NYT isn't the place to say I can do this because my network seems smart (implied smarter than yours) and my family is worth it (implied what about you).
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
- Show replies
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.