Many on the Right will no doubt be outraged and angry about PM Justin Trudeau’s recent comments about the Freedom Convoy, the Canadian trucker protest, which has thus far been carried out without any violence- but the truth is, in order to prevent all-out political warfare in a country which is fast becoming an epicentre for what can only be described as the Western equivalent of a Maoist Cultural Revolution- based upon the West’s own brand of PC authoritarianism- the correct response should be pity. Pity that so many, especially amongst cultural elites and the once highly esteemed ranks of Canadian journalism. have fallen prey to what can only be described as a mass societal delusion on COVID-19.
To be fair, they aren’t the only ones. In the past year of the Pandemic two main forms of anchor bias have emerged. The first is the belief more common amongst conservatives that the vaccines are somehow unsafe. Of course, the vaccines are not entirely without risk- but the conservative bias goes too far in its assertions, refusing to accept that in most instances the risk reward ratio of vaccination is a net positive for personal safety. Conservatives may refute it, and point to the generally very low risk for anyone under 50, but the fact remains that in most instances, if you are double vaccinated and get COVID you are 11 times less likely to die. In the eventual After Action Report, when more countries- like the UK- recognise that Omicron represents the exit to the pandemic (through the virus becoming endemic), much will be made of the lives which could have been saved, if only more people had been vaccinated.
But that being said, the other type of anchor bias is far more dangerous and insidious- the mistaken belief that vaccination somehow prevents virus spread. It really hasn’t been true since the emergence of Delta. The 40% reduced chance of catching and spreading COVID-19 asserted by the WHO through vaccination against Delta may sound as though it still represents a partial shield against COVID-19- as though it might somehow limit general virus spread, or reduce the R numbers to the point that infections wane rather than wax, but anyone familiar with network theory or the variability to human interaction and individual immunity will know that this belief is mistaken, an illusion. Even before Delta was displaced by Omicron, more widespread vaccination in any country one would care to name would have only slowed the virus, perhaps giving the especially vulnerable a few more months until it struck.
It is little wonder that Canadians are so fearful at the moment. The 7-day rolling average for deaths in Canada has reached the levels seen in the last two peaks of COVID-19- first at the very start of the pandemic and then when Delta reached their shores last year. But here is the thing- I would invite anyone who really wants to challenge their own beliefs about COVID-19 to use these two resources in tandem:
Live statistics and coronavirus news tracking the number of confirmed cases, recovered patients, tests, and death toll due to the COVID-19 coronavirus from Wuhan, China. Coronavirus counter with new cases, deaths, and number of tests per 1 Million...
More than 4.81 billion people worldwide have received a Covid-19 vaccine, equal to about 62.6 percent of the world population.
One can quickly discern four patterns emerging, if one examines the data critically. First, in countries with high rates of vaccination and high rates of deaths per million (from previous peaks in infections and deaths), current Omicron deaths are a tiny fraction of their former peaks. Second, for countries with low rates of vaccination and previously low rates of death per million (mainly in Africa), current rates of death are relatively low. A simple look at the 7-day average of death shows that this is largely due to natural immunity acquired during the death peaks last year, generally around August.
But it the second group of two trends which is most interesting. First, we have the cluster of SE European countries with low rates of vaccination. Here deaths remain moderately high despite previously high rates of death from or with COVID-19. One would have thought that their experience should echo that of countries in Africa, but an older and less healthy population probably means that without vaccination, deaths will remain moderately high from Omicron. Finally, we have countries like Canada, which have reasonably high levels of vaccination, yet haven’t experienced anywhere near the levels of death per million as countries like the UK, Spain, France or the US.
These countries are experiencing death levels commensurate with previous peaks, and it must seem as though there is every reason to panic and introduce draconian measures, but unfortunately with Omicron the virus is too infectious to stop and higher levels of vaccination will be ineffective at stopping the spread (although it could be effective for those who are both vulnerable and still unvaccinated). It may be a difficult pill for some to swallow, but for those countries which have been fortunate throughout the pandemic the prevention of death will not be achieved by curtailing the freedoms of those who remain stubbornly unvaccinated. Vaccination no longer prevents virus spread- especially not with Omicron. Instead, if they want to protect their older and more vulnerable populations then it is time to enact the Great Barrington Declaration, however belated this measure which could have saved countless lives now might now be.
If you don’t agree with my conclusions look at the data yourself- use the Worldometer source to check the graphs for 7-day rolling averages of deaths, focus upon deaths per million and look at the NYT source for the map and rates of vaccination. If you don’t believe me, try and disprove me.
The problem is that however well-meaning the Canadian population might be, evidence shows that they are hugely misinformed about the subject of vaccination in relation to virus spread. Polling shows 67% of them support further restrictions on the unvaccinated. 49% blame the unvaccinated for prolonging the pandemic- a position which is deeply flawed when one considers that the proposition requires that to ‘end it’, the unvaccinated must be force vaccinated to protect themselves. This suspension of disbelief requires that we not only abhor the unvaccinated for supposedly spreading the virus, but also focus all our efforts on primarily trying to save them, specifically…
Like many other countries which have not experienced high death tolls (and some that have)- and I am thinking about Australia specifically here- they seem to be experiencing what academics have long referred to as ‘parasite stress’- namely the proven link in larger societies between the introduction of a new pathogen and the emergence of nascent authoritarianism. Nevermind that it won’t work- or that much of the doubt which conservatives now feel towards the media, academic institutions in general and scientific institutions specifically is somewhat justifiably linked to the perception that these institutions have become incredibly Left-dominated in recent years, and deliberately set out to delegitimate conservative perspectives. And the problem is, it also leads to journalism like this:
After confirming he and two of his children tested positive for COVID-19, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau condemned the actions of the demonstrators in Ottawa.
Granted, it is highly unfortunate that these completely peaceful protests were marred by the presence of a tiny number of swastikas and a single confederate flag, but we’ve known for some time that both the Far Right and White Supremacist groups have long seen Western conservative movements, particularly American Conservativism, as the biggest roadblock to their ability to recruit and radicalise new members. Of course, they are going to make their presence felt at any publicly visible conservative gathering, because their primary strategic aim is to discredit Conservative movements as a means of growing their tiny support base. There is similar loathing within Antifa circles towards more mainstream centre Left liberals, with the majority of Leftist cancel culture directed towards lesser known moderate and liberal academics or media figures, rather than the rare exceptions of Alex Jones or Joe Rogan.
But what exactly is this type of journalism supposed to achieve, other than further alienating conservatives from mainstream sources, and encouraging hatred towards both the unvaxxed and conservatives amongst liberals? We know that vaccinated doesn’t stop virus spread just as surely as we know that in most instances it is the rational choice to make, when one looks at the odds to oneself in terms of personal risk (and provided one trusts the majority of expert opinion). Worse still, it blinds those countries fortunate enough to escape the inescapable conclusion that if they want to protect their vulnerable and elderly, then they need to advise them that they need to curtail most of their indoor social activity, if they want to remain largely risk-free.
One wonders whether much of the matter is determined by the fact that a disproportionate percentage of the Great and the Good in Western societies, our most powerful and influential citizens, are old or elderly. Maybe they think they can cheat COVID-19 and the Grim Reaper by imposing restrictions on lesser citizens, but in this they are deluded and misinformed. They haven’t stayed up-to-date with the most current information. It’s a choice, whether one wants to accept the risk of going about one’s normal daily life, socialising as normal, or whether one wants to cloister oneself off from the world. With Omicron, it ultimately matters little what other people do. Alternatively, maybe it’s time to offer over sixties and the obese or comorbid over fifties a vaccine every couple of months. It would do more to prevent risks to the vulnerable vaccinated than any of the continued demonization and vilification of the unvaccinated, or any of the various types of restrictions tried to date.
Addendum: Apparently, many of the swastikas present at the trucker protest were there to make unfavourable comparisons between the Nazis and the Canadian Government in general, and Justin Trudeau specifically. Whilst it is true that small elements of the protest were groups like the Proud Boys and the Sons of Odin, drawn out by a cause they were sympathetic towards and looking to the protest as a possible recruitment venue, the association of the protest with Nazi sympathisers appears to be largely a false framing device by Left-wing media- aiming to smear the protest.
This article details the subject in greater depth:
My career as a political essayist began 13 years ago. I had been asked by a left-wing Canadian website to expand on my views about a then-ongoing constitutional crisis—and explain why public opinion had turned so sharply in favour of then-prime...
Nice summary Geary. You know, it is just pathetic how hard the MSM are trying to paint The Convoy as 'racist'. A confederate flag! A confederate flag! Help! Help! We're triggered! Desecration! Desecration! Turns out someone taped a sign to Terry Fox. Pulling down a statue of MacDonald would be fine, however. One zealot even charged the truckers with ... *misogyny*. Help! Help! A misogynist! Justin, save us! What a pathetic country I live in.
Apparently they placed the flag upside down- the internal sign of distress! Hardly a desecration- if the BKM movement had previously done it, it would be lauded- as making a National Hero relevant to today!
If BLM had burned down the parliament buildings Canada would blush with pride at finally having enough Blacks 'to make their voices heard'. It makes me want to go out and buy a Confederate flag ferkrissakes.
Okay Geary, a little lesson in Canadian legal rights is in order. You got a lot right and a lot wrong here. Mostly, the part where you think government should have the right to mandate vaccines, which under Canadian Law it does not. Trudeau and in fact all Canadians and foreign commentators like you might want to refresh their knowledge by reading the Canadian Charter of Rights. Among the rights granted to EVERYONE, is the protection of the right to life, liberty and security of the person. There was a challenge to the law against abortion in 1988, and that law was struck down under this provision because Bertha Wilson, at that time the only woman Chief Justice of Canada said that " the problem was the substance of the law (against abortion) that denied a woman the right to control her own body ...." The right to control our own bodies is thus assured by this important precedent. I don't need a lecture on the misinformation on the safety or efficacy of the vaccines. I know all of it. I am capable of making my own risk benefit assessment without harassment from pubic figures and woke jerks like Trudeau. I am 81 years old and I am going to die on my own terms. The Canadian Charter of Rights agrees. Everything that is happening with regard to the vaccine mandates in Canada is illegal. Any good lawyer could take this case to the Supreme Court and win because we have a precedent, one of the foundations of our legal system. There is more going on here than so called public health. I have a conspiracy theory for you, but never mind.
'There is more going on here than so called public health. I have a conspiracy theory for you, but never mind.'
I completely agree. One of the things which infuriates highly educated Left-leaning liberals or Leftists is that the other 70% to 80% of their fellow citizens have a veto on the more ludicrous changes they want to enact. In social media they finally had the perfect echo chamber to voice their concerns and have their own views returned and amplified by likeminded people.
COVID was the perfect prototype for the types of tactics they will use in future- they have finally found out that they can gull enough of the lesser mortals with fear to get what they want. In many ways, climate change is similar- because although the actual reports from the IPCC shows it is a serious problem, the media distorts what is a long-term problem into an existential threat which is in no way reflective of the actual state of play. Here is a more realistic take of the most recent report from an actual expert on the subject, which paints a picture of cautious optimism: https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/how-to-understand-the-new-ipcc-report .
People worry about the influence of billionaires- as well they should- they've largely embraced the new identity movements and ESG's because it prevents the serfs from uniting on labour grounds- it is a naturally divisive philosophy which sets interest groups against each other, rather than against power. Worryingly, Government seems to have learned this lesson all too well.
But the real power to set policy and culture resides within the top 10% of society, not the 1% or 0.1%- who generally will do anything to keep government and the mob at bay. The top 10% are far more dangerous. They are the ones the political and cultural elites listen to- and have their views feed back to them and the rest of us through the elite institutions, especially in media which they patronise. In this the billionaires are more followers than leaders- they will cynically adopt the mantra in order that the 10% who form opinion in most areas will think they represent similar interests and like them. The shame is it actually works- the Left are now as happy with Bill Gates and other 'progressive' champions as they are with the CIA and FBI these days.
So the plural of anecdote isn’t data, but I was at a New Years party with a group of friends. All of us were vaccinated and boosted (triple vaxxed if you will). One girl got COVID and apparently had it at the party (she started having symptoms and tested positive the next day). None of the rest of us got it. Even her boyfriend. Now, some infected people just don’t shed the virus in high doses. There was some interesting research into potentially a Pareto-esque distribution of COVID spreading (most people infect nobody and some superspreaders infect everybody - mainly due to viral load, not necessarily behavior). BUT one takeaway is that the vaccines do work to limit transmission. And that fact is borne out by the data. Of course, as you point out, they don’t stop transmission. But they do mute the spread and slow the spread.
Of course, I was a Great Barrington proponent from the start and never thought our strategy should include lockdowns. And I’ve never bought the idea - common to some - that COVID spread primarily due to “bad” behavior. I’ve long pushed back on the idea that getting it was some kind of character flaw.
Think Michael Shellenberger was one of the first to apply the idea of sanctity/purity to COVID attitudes. It falls out of the idea that as religion declines religious impulses pop out in new ways. But mankind has long applied attitudes of religion and shame/cleanliness to disease. What Shellenberger clued me into was the fact that in some circles, there is an idea that being unvaccinated is somehow impure or unclean. It violates their sense of the sacred (invoking Jonathan Haidt’s moral foundations here).
A confederate flag in Canada? As someone who grew up in the state where the Confederacy had its capital, I find that funny. Saw that flag daily for most of my life and I thought it was weird enough to see it in the Midwest or in West Virginia (where it’s actually pretty prevalent, which is incredibly ironic). In Canada it’s just crazy.
“ Far Right and White Supremacist groups have long seen Western conservative movements, particularly American Conservativism, as the biggest roadblock to their ability to recruit and radicalise new members. Of course, they are going to make their presence felt at any publicly visible conservative gathering, because their primary strategic aim is to discredit Conservative movements as a means of growing their tiny support base. There is similar loathing within Antifa circles towards more mainstream centre Left liberals, with the majority of Leftist cancel culture directed towards lesser known moderate and liberal academics or media figures”
Exactly. This is 100% true.
I seem to be still in the minority in the US in having embraced COVID fatalism (like Camus’s Plague, but on a much less terrible scale). I got the vaccine. And now, I’ll either get COVID or I won’t. I don’t care that much. It’s all a big show: going and getting tested, wearing masks, etc.
Vaccines for people who want them are about all we can do. And treatments of course like Paxlovid. Beyond that, we just have to accept that what happens happens.
'BUT one takeaway is that the vaccines do work to limit transmission. And that fact is borne out by the data.'- didn't argue otherwise, and was using the WHO assessment of the data on Delta as a whole for my base premise- which states that double vaccination reduces the chances of catching and spreading COVID by 40% with Delta. Interestingly enough this ties in with a particular study on housemates and cohabiting family members. The study size was fairly small, but it showed that risk of transmission from living in a house or flat with someone self-isolating gave a 25% risk of infection if double vaccinated vs. 38% if unvaccinated.
I've read some of the literature on viral shedding and infectious viral titres, but the problem is most of these studies are quite dated and relate the viral shedding observed before the emergence of COVID. Looking at the vaccination rates and amount of natural immunity (94% from both sources) in the UK, the data on daily case numbers would suggest that this process has somehow changed with Delta (other than from the virus simply being more infectious). It's the only thing which explains the high case numbers and low death rates in the UK over the summer.
It also tallies with what we've observed with transmission and infectiousness. We know that per capita of cases, Delta was less deadly than the original variant, because of relative deaths rates by population profile amongst the unvaccinated. With Omicron, we know the reason for greater transmission is because the infection tends to affect the upper respiratory tract more, whilst infecting the lower lungs less. What's the betting that the reason why Delta was both more transmissible and less deadly than the original variant is because we have been witnessing the natural evolutionary processes of the virus at play- with Delta an intermediate step between Omicron and the original variant? Few people realise that per case Delta was significantly less deadly- it was its communicability that caused the threat.
I didn’t think Delta was less deadly, but could easily be wrong. I’d definitely heard that Omicron was due to natural virus evolution. However, I did hear somewhere that natural immunity from the original variant is no longer as effective against Omicron even though it worked pretty well against Delta. Also I met at least one guy who’d gotten COVID twice (original strain and then omicron).
'I didn’t think Delta was less deadly, but could easily be wrong.' You're not- I was relying on old reports from the initial outbreak of Delta in the UK- so I thought it was best to check against subsequent studies. It appears the data shows that Delta roughly doubled the risk of hospitalisation. They did a whole episode of QI which was information which was right at the time of recording, but which was subsequently proved wrong. Thanks for questioning my priors- it doesn't often happen, but I do occasionally still find I am relying on out-of-date information!
I admire your honesty and intellectual humility and willingness to go out and check yourself against new data! Good for you. We might be in a different political environment if everyone operated that way.
I just find it natural these days, although when I am intellectually attached to an argument or concept the process can be more painful. To me, research which corrects an error or misconception is an improvement. I do wish more people would feel the same way! Thanks for the compliment, regardless. It is nice when people notice.
It wasn't something I intended, but it might have happened unintentionally- 'Every Little Thing She Does Is Magic' is one of my all-time favourite songs!
Same here! Always get in a good mood when I hear the hi-hat start from Copeland. You know he did the hi-hat opening on “Red Rain” by Peter Gabriel, another favorite song. Thank you Geary!
We probably has the best era for music. Don't get me wrong- there is plenty of good stuff out there now, but modern music lacks the ecosystem for new tracks to reach anthemic status. To think that back in the day young performers like Ricky Gervais could invent themselves as New Romantics and stand a chance of living the lifestyle, even if their prospects of true commercial success were slim.
It's the artists in the postmodern era I feel sorry for. The evolution of the market space for writers has at least been more benign in that regardless of the devaluation of most content it has broadened out the range of heterodox voices which can now be heard, allowing for the disputation of the catastrophe porn and angry-nomics found in mainstream corporate outlets, but I don't see anything positive for younger artists in the sphere of music. Success of the type seen for Ed Sheeran or Mumford & Sons is remote and rare to the point of non-existent.
Still, it appears that Tom MacDonald is now worth $800K USD, so perhaps things aren't as bleak as I imagined.
Another satisfying piece, thank you. Something I don't see covered, which many of my conversations or debates come down to . . . is the topic of hospital or health care overload, and the urgency of vaccinating at least those who are most at risk. This connects to the notion of 'flattening the curve', which, I assume, accepts that it would also prolong the curve(s).
I want to be understanding of those who are vaccine hesitant, but this idea is kinda my sticking point. It seems that the real difficulty that many health care workers are experiencing (I've seen it first hand) . . . which often leads to the misery of their patients . . . could be relieved by somehow incentivizing those at risk to take the jab. Unfortunately, this seems to be difficult to implement, without it somehow becoming unhealthy cultural drama.
Most of the healthcare workers I've seen interviewed who are vaccine hesitant are those who have been working on the frontlines for the last two years and have had the virus. They also seem to tend to work in or adjacent to those areas of the hospitals which deal with emergency or ICU- although I have seen one woman in the UK who was a midwife and had a family history of Guillain-Barré.
The doctor at the centre of the UK controversy did an UnHerd interview. Although it is both highly anecdotal and he himself pointed out that his own experience was very rare and anecdotal, he had observed that the young who were very sick from COVID universally and without exception had extreme comorbidities, whilst those who were young and got sick and died from vaccines were at the peak of physical condition. There may well be an extreme health prejudice, where those workers who are refusing the vaccine and at the very tail end of physical health and fitness within their profession (and this is borne out by the appearance of those who have been interviews).
One thing which might help, would be to make some German science from the start of the research process more widely known. They found that generally the Neanderthal DNA found in white and some Asian populations was conducive to better health outcomes from COVID- and this is one of the reasons why comparatively speaking African ancestry groups in the West have had such terrible outcomes by comparison to white and some Asian groups.
But there is a caveat- and my main reason for sharing- their is one particular sequence of Neanderthal DNA which is deadly when exposed to COVID. You could be Jocko Willink and if you have this particular sequence then you are going to hospital with COVID and it will be serious. Knowing that perfect health won't protect you, and that there is a genetic lottery at play might make a major difference to people who think their excellent health protects them.
There also needs to be an extensive study to convince them that their fears are, if not unfounded, then overexaggerated. They need to know that prior infection with COVID doesn't raise their risk of myocarditis above that of the risk of vaccines for them, specifically. General studies comparing the two may convince the public, but they need to know the comparative risks of vaccination after having COVID, as opposed to the risks of and likelihood of infection for a second time. The study would also need to be exclusively for the very healthy under 35s, as the rump of the vaccine hesitant seems to fall into this category.
I suspect that although the numbers may not be as bad as they fear, we will find that vaccination is not a net positive for this specific demographic- the very healthy, under 40s who have already had COVID with mild symptoms or asymptomatically. Remember, we know that vaccination often forces an immune reaction, where normally the alternative would be asymptomatic or mild. We also know from the double vaccination process that the reaction to the second vaccination was worse or much worse than the first (speaking personally here- but it was also quite common amongst my family and friends).
I Know several people who have been vaccinated after having had COVID- in every instance it was extremely unpleasant and in several instances far worse than the virus itself.
This is one thing which Public Health and Government has been terrible at- offering general health advice and mandates when they should tailoring their message specifically to those who are hesitant. In the US there was some success with offering compensation for lost work for the hourly paid- amongst African Americans in particular, the 'wait and see' hesitant tended to be those who were more worried about losing pay or being out sick for several days.
Almost everyone I know in the UK who is hesitant is ultra-healthy. Some are vegans, most are into organic foods, fitness and pastoral lifestyles. There also seems to be a strong link with complementary and alternative medicines. My aunt's friend who was hesitant is a Reiki practitioner (non-commercial). It was flight restrictions that finally convinced her of the error of her ways- foreign flight restrictions seems to be one type of coercion which works, because people tend to be less resentful and stubborn about foreign governments which don't want them in, as opposed to their own government trying to force vaccinations they don't want.
The vaccines are effective at preventing hospitalisation and death. They are aren't particularly effective at limiting virus spread. The World Health Organisation estimates that since the emergence of Delta, they only reduce the chances of catching and spreading COVID-19 by around 40%. In a society where we have vectors like shop assistants, bus drivers, building security guards, wait staff and bartenders, who routinely have contacts with thousands of contacts, vaccine immunity which is tenuous at best and rapidly waning is not going to stop people from catching the virus.
That being said, I would highly recommend most people get vaccinated on personal health grounds, but we need to stop thinking that targeting the unvaccinated offers any protection for society as a whole- it may have once been true with the original variant, but the science on this notion and long since been declared out-of-date- even if it has not been reported thoroughly in many countries.
Israel is on its fourth round of vaccinations. Daily new cases are at around seven times previous peaks and daily deaths have exceeded their late Jan '21 peak. It is time to institute the Great Barrington Declaration- Fauci himself has stated everyone is going to get Omicron. A majority of world-leading epidemiologists predicted that the virus would likely become endemic in Nature, even before the emergence of Delta, and McKinsey has been briefing the finance and insurance sector that the pandemic will likely become endemic since August of last year. Read the WHO source if you don't believe me- they arrived at their conclusions based upon the best research and scientific studies at the time.
I don't know who this is, but you are being pretty cruel. I am trying to build on income from my writing- if it doesn't work I will try something else. The employment data is inaccurate. You skip out my nervous breakdown and don't mention that I was offered a house for 50K in a will (which I insisted upon in the first place, because I was uncomfortable with being straight-up given a house- when my mum had done so much more for him) which was worth 180K for being a career for a great uncle- and insisted that the money go to my mother instead.
You obviously know me. You might be familiar with my antics from the pub years ago- which is one of the reasons why I don't drink so often these days. When drinking I can occasionally come across as an arrogant tosser, but most of time I am a kind and caring person and spend most of my time trying desperately to build up my writing skills so I can make a go of it or driving my somewhat senile mum around. If it wasn't for me, she would be in a home by now.
This doesn't mean that I don't stick to my principles- I have had some real drawdown and heated debates with my audience over things like housing- their concern is the savings built up in their homes, whilst I think it's terrible that house prices are one of the main reasons why many young people can't settle down and have a family- or when they do have a family can't have the number of kids that they want.
I agree with you that I have wasted large tracts of my life, even if I am not as lazy as I often appear. After my dad died, I spent a long time in a dark hole, even though I often put on a smiling face to the world. I spent about a decade in counselling and didn't even tell my closest friends and family how close I had come to suicide on several occasions- even to the point of having the pills at one point and picking a spot where my family wouldn't be the ones to find me.
One of the company doctors diagnosed me. He said the reason why I had gone off the rails was because of my car accident at 21. He said I should have had counselling at the time, rather than simply being given a diazepam prescription. He had worked for the Army treating PTSD and told me that supressed or ignored traumatic memories could cause what he called 'memory shrapnel'. The other thing he said was that people like me tend to go into a shell and shut off, whenever there is a crisis which comes along- and that it was physiological. The brain learns how to protect itself, and whenever there is problem it will add chemicals to the brain like adding salt to a soup.
It's why I can appear to make mountains out of molehills, and often seem like a wuss. The effect might be reducing with age, or I might be learning to cope with it better- I performed a lot better when my mum and aunt each got breast cancer in sequence. I managed a lot better than might have previously been the case and was a pillar of support.
In the UK we have already reached the limits of what it is possible to tax before economic stagnation sets in, although this does not mean that the tax system could not be fairer, with less paid by the poor and more paid in areas like a Tobin tax. What it does mean is that the only place to get new money for vital new public spending requirements is by cannibalising existing wasteful government- something which the Left seems congenitally incapable of doing.
And no- the Scandinavians and Germany really don't spend money than us as a portion of national wealth, with the exception of Denmark, who seem to be able to get away with it by running an extraordinarily efficient government, and because substantial elements of their government spending relates to tax rebates (such as a 30% refund on interest paid on mortgages).
Consider this- if it were at all possible to confiscate all the wealth of all the American billionaires, it would only run American government for 6 months before they ran out of money. Yet the American people are consistently told (as in the UK, by Jeremy Corbyn) that taxing the wealth of the rich is going to solve all their money- when, in fact, it would only represent a bucket in the ocean of government spending.
As I stated their are fairer ways to tax- another couple are a planning uplift tax (which hits developers) and a land value tax (similar to a mansion tax)- but overall we are at the limit. It's the problem confronting most advanced economies.
Your reasoning is contingent upon the idea that Conservatives are somehow bad people, and that the Left are somehow the good guys. This is an overly simplistic view of the world- both have their virtues and their faults, and both perform a vital service to democracy.
On balance, if the Left were more detail focused in their policies and more willing to get rid of obsolete and wasteful government spending, then there might be something to their claim. But public employment is not a public good, per se- and in most countries their are legions of public workers who spend their days insisting upon bureaucracy which only makes ordinary people's lives harder- whilst mental crisis helplines are only open 9 to 5, Monday to Friday.
That is truly immoral, and on this point the conservatives do really have a point.
I did get a first in a philosophy paper in my first year, and I have been honest and upfront about dropping out of university after my car accident. The subject of the essay was comparing Plato's cave with the Descartes quote 'I think therefore I am'- my tutor said it was both a tautology but also a highly original argument, and one which he hadn't heard before- which is presumably why I got the first.
The current prescription cost is £9.35, it may have been a typo or an old post- but I do pay for my prescription. The data on fathers being the most important thing in terms of social mobility is compelling. The research was performed by Dr Raj Chetty at Harvard and tracked the life path of every child in America over the course of their life, and compared address information with data from the IRS. Here is an article on the topic, I have obviously read the research, but this provides ample links and is presented in an easy format: https://slate.com/human-interest/2014/01/new-harvard-study-where-is-the-land-of-opportunity-finds-single-parents-are-the-key-link-to-economic-opportunity.html .
I take your criticism on diction, sentence structure and my discursive approach- my readers have always been complimentary, but it may because they are a specific audience in highly technical fields and as such enjoy reading technically dense subject matters. I may need to simplify and plan more before writing an essay, if I want to appeal to a broader audience. I am also conscious of the fact that I need to employ narrative more- and tell a story. Mostly my essays are generated spontaneously- I have tried a more planned approach- but it tends to peter out. It may well be that I have been prioritising quantity over quality- I will try to take a different approach, but I make no promises.
To be fair I haven't been at this for long- not seriously. I have sporadically tried to write a novel over the years, but there is always some distraction which takes me away from my task. Commenting on Quillette on a regular basis was a means of employing a technique called deliberate practice, with which others have had some success. Apparently, Victoria Wood wrote for years before it finally all just clicked. The Substack has been going for less than a year, and was a deliberate effort to take things more seriously. The time stamps on my posts are correct- but I also post on a couple of discourse forums, so I have to respond to my readers elsewhere, who don't really subscribe to my Substack or choose not to post there. I generally only sleep about four hours at night- 10 till 2 or 3. On occasion I have posted after drinking but it is not generally the case. Part of the reason for my interrupted sleeping is smoking. Another is my bladder. I can't get to sleep after I've got up to go for a piss, and I can correspond with my readers in forums in real time, because many live in different time zones.
The reason for my choice of content and political/cultural approach is because of one of several books which highly influenced my thinking. The book was The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion by Jonathan Haidt, the world renowned public intellectual, social psychologist and heterodox thinker. For years, I was Liberal Democrat voter, I believed the conservatives were mean and had become a completely intolerant Remainer who believed in a very narrow set of causes as to why people would vote Brexit from ignorance, to being lied to, to xenophobia and bigotry.
Imagine my surprise when I discovered that I was completely wrong. That conservatives, with their psychology which more closely resembles everyone else in the rest of world, other than the West, were simply prioritising at issues which I had not considered and were programmed by their background to prefer their own culture to others. I had thought it simply a matter of education and experience, when it actually tends to get coded into us by family environment (particularly parental education levels), socio-economics, community attachment and a few other things. There is even some evidence that there may be genetic factors at play- liberals like myself tend to have larger areas of the brain for the processing of new information. Here is Jonathan Haidt giving an early and very popular TED talk on the subject- you will probably find it funny, as it is designed to be humorous to a liberal audience: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SOQduoLgRw . Sufficed to say I was deeply ashamed about my former intolerance. The didn't vote Brexit because they were against anybody (other than the EU political structure)- it is more a case that they are deeply attached to preserving community, culture and nation.
The vocational training argument is one that I am not alone in making. It has been made by figures across the political spectrum in America from Andrew Yang to Dan Crenshaw. It is also one of the 25 things the government is implementing as a result of the Sewell report. I don't necessarily agree with Sewell completely- there is proven bias in hiring for example, but he was right in stating that often situations were more complex than people realised. For example, do we really expect Indian specialists to give up lucrative private practice in addition to their NHS duties, just to become lower paid NHS managers?
In many ways the UK does better on race than most other countries- we are one of the lowest worldwide in implicit bias and earnings are about equal in the 18 to 30 age range, regardless of whether we are looking at the Black or White groups of ethnicities as a whole. But one area where we fail is in relative levels of unemployment. Drilling down into this discrepancy the reports authors found that many parents of young Black men didn't want their sons working on building sites or vocational roles because they had quite outdated notions of these workplaces. Quite often, someone who goes the apprenticeship route will enjoy higher earnings and better prospects than most degree qualifications.
I am trying to develop a unique Heterodox voice, one which blends liberal or Left thinking with conservative thought. Don't get me wrong, conservatives have their flaws just as the Left does, their attachment to their own culture can be as overdone as can the Left's bigoted oikophobia, and at the extremes- without more mainstream conservative thought to act as barrier- can lead to the types of far right extremism we have seen across Europe, in America and, to a far lesser extent, in the UK.
To sum it up, the Left is great at generating new ideas- they are the innovators, the visionaries, the heretics and the people primary responsible for pushing society forward in terms of social progress. However, they are absolutely terrible at vetting their own ideas, and come out with some real stinkers. This is not a problem in most of their domains, because ultimately the market decides and eliminates bad ideas naturally. But government and the universities possesses no natural mechanisms for eliminating bad ideas, which is why some bad ideas have come to prevail and why so many bureaucracies persist in government long past their sell by date. This in itself would it not be problem, were it not for the fact that the monies involved are precious, and although the tax system could be a hell of a lot fairer, we are at about at the limit of what it is possible to tax a society before economic stagnations sets in.
Conservatives also have their problems. They can be overly judgemental, prefer the status quo and as a result have often been on the wrong side of history, in terms of social progress. But they have always performed a vital service and function. There natural scepticism tends to eliminate the worst ideas the Left generates and to remind the Left of ideas which have been tried in the past and failed. And there have been some really bad ideas- generally high density public housing is a good idea, provided it is construed as a means of providing good cheap housing for those on low incomes, but if indiscriminate and lacking the ability to evict, it can become an amplifier of social ills- as witnessed in America with their housing projects. This is but one example, but there are plenty.
I will also admit to another reason for mainly focusing on a conservative, heterodox and centrist audience. The Left and Centre Left are saturated in terms of written content. It would be much harder to build a paid subscriber base in this part of the political spectrum, as the competition is so much fiercer. The Left tends to be more prevalent in the young who often don't have the incomes to add a paid subscription, and are often find ways to get access to paid content for free, with services like Netflix, Prime, etc- as well as the NYT, Medium and the Atlantic. Amongst conservatives in particular, the older demographic and frustration with sites like the Federalist and National Review, means they are more likely to pay for content from me, when I build my subscriber base to a sufficient level. There are good sites- The Spectator and UnHerd, and I have often thought about starting to submit articles to these sites as well as Quillette, but at the moment I have to admit to being a bit lacking in confidence.
Nice summary Geary. You know, it is just pathetic how hard the MSM are trying to paint The Convoy as 'racist'. A confederate flag! A confederate flag! Help! Help! We're triggered! Desecration! Desecration! Turns out someone taped a sign to Terry Fox. Pulling down a statue of MacDonald would be fine, however. One zealot even charged the truckers with ... *misogyny*. Help! Help! A misogynist! Justin, save us! What a pathetic country I live in.
Apparently they placed the flag upside down- the internal sign of distress! Hardly a desecration- if the BKM movement had previously done it, it would be lauded- as making a National Hero relevant to today!
*BLM.
If BLM had burned down the parliament buildings Canada would blush with pride at finally having enough Blacks 'to make their voices heard'. It makes me want to go out and buy a Confederate flag ferkrissakes.
Okay Geary, a little lesson in Canadian legal rights is in order. You got a lot right and a lot wrong here. Mostly, the part where you think government should have the right to mandate vaccines, which under Canadian Law it does not. Trudeau and in fact all Canadians and foreign commentators like you might want to refresh their knowledge by reading the Canadian Charter of Rights. Among the rights granted to EVERYONE, is the protection of the right to life, liberty and security of the person. There was a challenge to the law against abortion in 1988, and that law was struck down under this provision because Bertha Wilson, at that time the only woman Chief Justice of Canada said that " the problem was the substance of the law (against abortion) that denied a woman the right to control her own body ...." The right to control our own bodies is thus assured by this important precedent. I don't need a lecture on the misinformation on the safety or efficacy of the vaccines. I know all of it. I am capable of making my own risk benefit assessment without harassment from pubic figures and woke jerks like Trudeau. I am 81 years old and I am going to die on my own terms. The Canadian Charter of Rights agrees. Everything that is happening with regard to the vaccine mandates in Canada is illegal. Any good lawyer could take this case to the Supreme Court and win because we have a precedent, one of the foundations of our legal system. There is more going on here than so called public health. I have a conspiracy theory for you, but never mind.
'There is more going on here than so called public health. I have a conspiracy theory for you, but never mind.'
I completely agree. One of the things which infuriates highly educated Left-leaning liberals or Leftists is that the other 70% to 80% of their fellow citizens have a veto on the more ludicrous changes they want to enact. In social media they finally had the perfect echo chamber to voice their concerns and have their own views returned and amplified by likeminded people.
COVID was the perfect prototype for the types of tactics they will use in future- they have finally found out that they can gull enough of the lesser mortals with fear to get what they want. In many ways, climate change is similar- because although the actual reports from the IPCC shows it is a serious problem, the media distorts what is a long-term problem into an existential threat which is in no way reflective of the actual state of play. Here is a more realistic take of the most recent report from an actual expert on the subject, which paints a picture of cautious optimism: https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/how-to-understand-the-new-ipcc-report .
People worry about the influence of billionaires- as well they should- they've largely embraced the new identity movements and ESG's because it prevents the serfs from uniting on labour grounds- it is a naturally divisive philosophy which sets interest groups against each other, rather than against power. Worryingly, Government seems to have learned this lesson all too well.
But the real power to set policy and culture resides within the top 10% of society, not the 1% or 0.1%- who generally will do anything to keep government and the mob at bay. The top 10% are far more dangerous. They are the ones the political and cultural elites listen to- and have their views feed back to them and the rest of us through the elite institutions, especially in media which they patronise. In this the billionaires are more followers than leaders- they will cynically adopt the mantra in order that the 10% who form opinion in most areas will think they represent similar interests and like them. The shame is it actually works- the Left are now as happy with Bill Gates and other 'progressive' champions as they are with the CIA and FBI these days.
So the plural of anecdote isn’t data, but I was at a New Years party with a group of friends. All of us were vaccinated and boosted (triple vaxxed if you will). One girl got COVID and apparently had it at the party (she started having symptoms and tested positive the next day). None of the rest of us got it. Even her boyfriend. Now, some infected people just don’t shed the virus in high doses. There was some interesting research into potentially a Pareto-esque distribution of COVID spreading (most people infect nobody and some superspreaders infect everybody - mainly due to viral load, not necessarily behavior). BUT one takeaway is that the vaccines do work to limit transmission. And that fact is borne out by the data. Of course, as you point out, they don’t stop transmission. But they do mute the spread and slow the spread.
Of course, I was a Great Barrington proponent from the start and never thought our strategy should include lockdowns. And I’ve never bought the idea - common to some - that COVID spread primarily due to “bad” behavior. I’ve long pushed back on the idea that getting it was some kind of character flaw.
Think Michael Shellenberger was one of the first to apply the idea of sanctity/purity to COVID attitudes. It falls out of the idea that as religion declines religious impulses pop out in new ways. But mankind has long applied attitudes of religion and shame/cleanliness to disease. What Shellenberger clued me into was the fact that in some circles, there is an idea that being unvaccinated is somehow impure or unclean. It violates their sense of the sacred (invoking Jonathan Haidt’s moral foundations here).
A confederate flag in Canada? As someone who grew up in the state where the Confederacy had its capital, I find that funny. Saw that flag daily for most of my life and I thought it was weird enough to see it in the Midwest or in West Virginia (where it’s actually pretty prevalent, which is incredibly ironic). In Canada it’s just crazy.
“ Far Right and White Supremacist groups have long seen Western conservative movements, particularly American Conservativism, as the biggest roadblock to their ability to recruit and radicalise new members. Of course, they are going to make their presence felt at any publicly visible conservative gathering, because their primary strategic aim is to discredit Conservative movements as a means of growing their tiny support base. There is similar loathing within Antifa circles towards more mainstream centre Left liberals, with the majority of Leftist cancel culture directed towards lesser known moderate and liberal academics or media figures”
Exactly. This is 100% true.
I seem to be still in the minority in the US in having embraced COVID fatalism (like Camus’s Plague, but on a much less terrible scale). I got the vaccine. And now, I’ll either get COVID or I won’t. I don’t care that much. It’s all a big show: going and getting tested, wearing masks, etc.
Vaccines for people who want them are about all we can do. And treatments of course like Paxlovid. Beyond that, we just have to accept that what happens happens.
'BUT one takeaway is that the vaccines do work to limit transmission. And that fact is borne out by the data.'- didn't argue otherwise, and was using the WHO assessment of the data on Delta as a whole for my base premise- which states that double vaccination reduces the chances of catching and spreading COVID by 40% with Delta. Interestingly enough this ties in with a particular study on housemates and cohabiting family members. The study size was fairly small, but it showed that risk of transmission from living in a house or flat with someone self-isolating gave a 25% risk of infection if double vaccinated vs. 38% if unvaccinated.
I've read some of the literature on viral shedding and infectious viral titres, but the problem is most of these studies are quite dated and relate the viral shedding observed before the emergence of COVID. Looking at the vaccination rates and amount of natural immunity (94% from both sources) in the UK, the data on daily case numbers would suggest that this process has somehow changed with Delta (other than from the virus simply being more infectious). It's the only thing which explains the high case numbers and low death rates in the UK over the summer.
It also tallies with what we've observed with transmission and infectiousness. We know that per capita of cases, Delta was less deadly than the original variant, because of relative deaths rates by population profile amongst the unvaccinated. With Omicron, we know the reason for greater transmission is because the infection tends to affect the upper respiratory tract more, whilst infecting the lower lungs less. What's the betting that the reason why Delta was both more transmissible and less deadly than the original variant is because we have been witnessing the natural evolutionary processes of the virus at play- with Delta an intermediate step between Omicron and the original variant? Few people realise that per case Delta was significantly less deadly- it was its communicability that caused the threat.
*before the emergence of Delta.
I didn’t think Delta was less deadly, but could easily be wrong. I’d definitely heard that Omicron was due to natural virus evolution. However, I did hear somewhere that natural immunity from the original variant is no longer as effective against Omicron even though it worked pretty well against Delta. Also I met at least one guy who’d gotten COVID twice (original strain and then omicron).
'I didn’t think Delta was less deadly, but could easily be wrong.' You're not- I was relying on old reports from the initial outbreak of Delta in the UK- so I thought it was best to check against subsequent studies. It appears the data shows that Delta roughly doubled the risk of hospitalisation. They did a whole episode of QI which was information which was right at the time of recording, but which was subsequently proved wrong. Thanks for questioning my priors- it doesn't often happen, but I do occasionally still find I am relying on out-of-date information!
I admire your honesty and intellectual humility and willingness to go out and check yourself against new data! Good for you. We might be in a different political environment if everyone operated that way.
I just find it natural these days, although when I am intellectually attached to an argument or concept the process can be more painful. To me, research which corrects an error or misconception is an improvement. I do wish more people would feel the same way! Thanks for the compliment, regardless. It is nice when people notice.
You’re welcome
Great read Geary. As an Ontarian, I'm saddened by my fellow Canadians behaviour towards others who hold differing viewpoints.
Indeed- it seems to be a system-wide problem in the West.
Hi Geary. Were you channeling that song “Darkness” by The Police for your title? Some lyrics below. From the 1981 album Ghost in the Machine.
I can dream up schemes when I'm sitting in my seat
I don't see any flaws 'til I get to my feet
I wish I never woke up this morning
Life was easy when it was boring
It wasn't something I intended, but it might have happened unintentionally- 'Every Little Thing She Does Is Magic' is one of my all-time favourite songs!
Same here! Always get in a good mood when I hear the hi-hat start from Copeland. You know he did the hi-hat opening on “Red Rain” by Peter Gabriel, another favorite song. Thank you Geary!
We probably has the best era for music. Don't get me wrong- there is plenty of good stuff out there now, but modern music lacks the ecosystem for new tracks to reach anthemic status. To think that back in the day young performers like Ricky Gervais could invent themselves as New Romantics and stand a chance of living the lifestyle, even if their prospects of true commercial success were slim.
It's the artists in the postmodern era I feel sorry for. The evolution of the market space for writers has at least been more benign in that regardless of the devaluation of most content it has broadened out the range of heterodox voices which can now be heard, allowing for the disputation of the catastrophe porn and angry-nomics found in mainstream corporate outlets, but I don't see anything positive for younger artists in the sphere of music. Success of the type seen for Ed Sheeran or Mumford & Sons is remote and rare to the point of non-existent.
Still, it appears that Tom MacDonald is now worth $800K USD, so perhaps things aren't as bleak as I imagined.
Another satisfying piece, thank you. Something I don't see covered, which many of my conversations or debates come down to . . . is the topic of hospital or health care overload, and the urgency of vaccinating at least those who are most at risk. This connects to the notion of 'flattening the curve', which, I assume, accepts that it would also prolong the curve(s).
I want to be understanding of those who are vaccine hesitant, but this idea is kinda my sticking point. It seems that the real difficulty that many health care workers are experiencing (I've seen it first hand) . . . which often leads to the misery of their patients . . . could be relieved by somehow incentivizing those at risk to take the jab. Unfortunately, this seems to be difficult to implement, without it somehow becoming unhealthy cultural drama.
Most of the healthcare workers I've seen interviewed who are vaccine hesitant are those who have been working on the frontlines for the last two years and have had the virus. They also seem to tend to work in or adjacent to those areas of the hospitals which deal with emergency or ICU- although I have seen one woman in the UK who was a midwife and had a family history of Guillain-Barré.
The doctor at the centre of the UK controversy did an UnHerd interview. Although it is both highly anecdotal and he himself pointed out that his own experience was very rare and anecdotal, he had observed that the young who were very sick from COVID universally and without exception had extreme comorbidities, whilst those who were young and got sick and died from vaccines were at the peak of physical condition. There may well be an extreme health prejudice, where those workers who are refusing the vaccine and at the very tail end of physical health and fitness within their profession (and this is borne out by the appearance of those who have been interviews).
One thing which might help, would be to make some German science from the start of the research process more widely known. They found that generally the Neanderthal DNA found in white and some Asian populations was conducive to better health outcomes from COVID- and this is one of the reasons why comparatively speaking African ancestry groups in the West have had such terrible outcomes by comparison to white and some Asian groups.
But there is a caveat- and my main reason for sharing- their is one particular sequence of Neanderthal DNA which is deadly when exposed to COVID. You could be Jocko Willink and if you have this particular sequence then you are going to hospital with COVID and it will be serious. Knowing that perfect health won't protect you, and that there is a genetic lottery at play might make a major difference to people who think their excellent health protects them.
There also needs to be an extensive study to convince them that their fears are, if not unfounded, then overexaggerated. They need to know that prior infection with COVID doesn't raise their risk of myocarditis above that of the risk of vaccines for them, specifically. General studies comparing the two may convince the public, but they need to know the comparative risks of vaccination after having COVID, as opposed to the risks of and likelihood of infection for a second time. The study would also need to be exclusively for the very healthy under 35s, as the rump of the vaccine hesitant seems to fall into this category.
I suspect that although the numbers may not be as bad as they fear, we will find that vaccination is not a net positive for this specific demographic- the very healthy, under 40s who have already had COVID with mild symptoms or asymptomatically. Remember, we know that vaccination often forces an immune reaction, where normally the alternative would be asymptomatic or mild. We also know from the double vaccination process that the reaction to the second vaccination was worse or much worse than the first (speaking personally here- but it was also quite common amongst my family and friends).
I Know several people who have been vaccinated after having had COVID- in every instance it was extremely unpleasant and in several instances far worse than the virus itself.
This is one thing which Public Health and Government has been terrible at- offering general health advice and mandates when they should tailoring their message specifically to those who are hesitant. In the US there was some success with offering compensation for lost work for the hourly paid- amongst African Americans in particular, the 'wait and see' hesitant tended to be those who were more worried about losing pay or being out sick for several days.
Almost everyone I know in the UK who is hesitant is ultra-healthy. Some are vegans, most are into organic foods, fitness and pastoral lifestyles. There also seems to be a strong link with complementary and alternative medicines. My aunt's friend who was hesitant is a Reiki practitioner (non-commercial). It was flight restrictions that finally convinced her of the error of her ways- foreign flight restrictions seems to be one type of coercion which works, because people tend to be less resentful and stubborn about foreign governments which don't want them in, as opposed to their own government trying to force vaccinations they don't want.
Stopped reading after your denial other dangerous ness and Ineffectiveness of the vaccines.
If you can't get that right, nothing else can be trusted.
The vaccines are effective at preventing hospitalisation and death. They are aren't particularly effective at limiting virus spread. The World Health Organisation estimates that since the emergence of Delta, they only reduce the chances of catching and spreading COVID-19 by around 40%. In a society where we have vectors like shop assistants, bus drivers, building security guards, wait staff and bartenders, who routinely have contacts with thousands of contacts, vaccine immunity which is tenuous at best and rapidly waning is not going to stop people from catching the virus.
That being said, I would highly recommend most people get vaccinated on personal health grounds, but we need to stop thinking that targeting the unvaccinated offers any protection for society as a whole- it may have once been true with the original variant, but the science on this notion and long since been declared out-of-date- even if it has not been reported thoroughly in many countries.
Israel is on its fourth round of vaccinations. Daily new cases are at around seven times previous peaks and daily deaths have exceeded their late Jan '21 peak. It is time to institute the Great Barrington Declaration- Fauci himself has stated everyone is going to get Omicron. A majority of world-leading epidemiologists predicted that the virus would likely become endemic in Nature, even before the emergence of Delta, and McKinsey has been briefing the finance and insurance sector that the pandemic will likely become endemic since August of last year. Read the WHO source if you don't believe me- they arrived at their conclusions based upon the best research and scientific studies at the time.
I don't know who this is, but you are being pretty cruel. I am trying to build on income from my writing- if it doesn't work I will try something else. The employment data is inaccurate. You skip out my nervous breakdown and don't mention that I was offered a house for 50K in a will (which I insisted upon in the first place, because I was uncomfortable with being straight-up given a house- when my mum had done so much more for him) which was worth 180K for being a career for a great uncle- and insisted that the money go to my mother instead.
You obviously know me. You might be familiar with my antics from the pub years ago- which is one of the reasons why I don't drink so often these days. When drinking I can occasionally come across as an arrogant tosser, but most of time I am a kind and caring person and spend most of my time trying desperately to build up my writing skills so I can make a go of it or driving my somewhat senile mum around. If it wasn't for me, she would be in a home by now.
This doesn't mean that I don't stick to my principles- I have had some real drawdown and heated debates with my audience over things like housing- their concern is the savings built up in their homes, whilst I think it's terrible that house prices are one of the main reasons why many young people can't settle down and have a family- or when they do have a family can't have the number of kids that they want.
I agree with you that I have wasted large tracts of my life, even if I am not as lazy as I often appear. After my dad died, I spent a long time in a dark hole, even though I often put on a smiling face to the world. I spent about a decade in counselling and didn't even tell my closest friends and family how close I had come to suicide on several occasions- even to the point of having the pills at one point and picking a spot where my family wouldn't be the ones to find me.
One of the company doctors diagnosed me. He said the reason why I had gone off the rails was because of my car accident at 21. He said I should have had counselling at the time, rather than simply being given a diazepam prescription. He had worked for the Army treating PTSD and told me that supressed or ignored traumatic memories could cause what he called 'memory shrapnel'. The other thing he said was that people like me tend to go into a shell and shut off, whenever there is a crisis which comes along- and that it was physiological. The brain learns how to protect itself, and whenever there is problem it will add chemicals to the brain like adding salt to a soup.
It's why I can appear to make mountains out of molehills, and often seem like a wuss. The effect might be reducing with age, or I might be learning to cope with it better- I performed a lot better when my mum and aunt each got breast cancer in sequence. I managed a lot better than might have previously been the case and was a pillar of support.
In the UK we have already reached the limits of what it is possible to tax before economic stagnation sets in, although this does not mean that the tax system could not be fairer, with less paid by the poor and more paid in areas like a Tobin tax. What it does mean is that the only place to get new money for vital new public spending requirements is by cannibalising existing wasteful government- something which the Left seems congenitally incapable of doing.
And no- the Scandinavians and Germany really don't spend money than us as a portion of national wealth, with the exception of Denmark, who seem to be able to get away with it by running an extraordinarily efficient government, and because substantial elements of their government spending relates to tax rebates (such as a 30% refund on interest paid on mortgages).
Consider this- if it were at all possible to confiscate all the wealth of all the American billionaires, it would only run American government for 6 months before they ran out of money. Yet the American people are consistently told (as in the UK, by Jeremy Corbyn) that taxing the wealth of the rich is going to solve all their money- when, in fact, it would only represent a bucket in the ocean of government spending.
As I stated their are fairer ways to tax- another couple are a planning uplift tax (which hits developers) and a land value tax (similar to a mansion tax)- but overall we are at the limit. It's the problem confronting most advanced economies.
Your reasoning is contingent upon the idea that Conservatives are somehow bad people, and that the Left are somehow the good guys. This is an overly simplistic view of the world- both have their virtues and their faults, and both perform a vital service to democracy.
On balance, if the Left were more detail focused in their policies and more willing to get rid of obsolete and wasteful government spending, then there might be something to their claim. But public employment is not a public good, per se- and in most countries their are legions of public workers who spend their days insisting upon bureaucracy which only makes ordinary people's lives harder- whilst mental crisis helplines are only open 9 to 5, Monday to Friday.
That is truly immoral, and on this point the conservatives do really have a point.
I did get a first in a philosophy paper in my first year, and I have been honest and upfront about dropping out of university after my car accident. The subject of the essay was comparing Plato's cave with the Descartes quote 'I think therefore I am'- my tutor said it was both a tautology but also a highly original argument, and one which he hadn't heard before- which is presumably why I got the first.
The current prescription cost is £9.35, it may have been a typo or an old post- but I do pay for my prescription. The data on fathers being the most important thing in terms of social mobility is compelling. The research was performed by Dr Raj Chetty at Harvard and tracked the life path of every child in America over the course of their life, and compared address information with data from the IRS. Here is an article on the topic, I have obviously read the research, but this provides ample links and is presented in an easy format: https://slate.com/human-interest/2014/01/new-harvard-study-where-is-the-land-of-opportunity-finds-single-parents-are-the-key-link-to-economic-opportunity.html .
I take your criticism on diction, sentence structure and my discursive approach- my readers have always been complimentary, but it may because they are a specific audience in highly technical fields and as such enjoy reading technically dense subject matters. I may need to simplify and plan more before writing an essay, if I want to appeal to a broader audience. I am also conscious of the fact that I need to employ narrative more- and tell a story. Mostly my essays are generated spontaneously- I have tried a more planned approach- but it tends to peter out. It may well be that I have been prioritising quantity over quality- I will try to take a different approach, but I make no promises.
To be fair I haven't been at this for long- not seriously. I have sporadically tried to write a novel over the years, but there is always some distraction which takes me away from my task. Commenting on Quillette on a regular basis was a means of employing a technique called deliberate practice, with which others have had some success. Apparently, Victoria Wood wrote for years before it finally all just clicked. The Substack has been going for less than a year, and was a deliberate effort to take things more seriously. The time stamps on my posts are correct- but I also post on a couple of discourse forums, so I have to respond to my readers elsewhere, who don't really subscribe to my Substack or choose not to post there. I generally only sleep about four hours at night- 10 till 2 or 3. On occasion I have posted after drinking but it is not generally the case. Part of the reason for my interrupted sleeping is smoking. Another is my bladder. I can't get to sleep after I've got up to go for a piss, and I can correspond with my readers in forums in real time, because many live in different time zones.
The reason for my choice of content and political/cultural approach is because of one of several books which highly influenced my thinking. The book was The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion by Jonathan Haidt, the world renowned public intellectual, social psychologist and heterodox thinker. For years, I was Liberal Democrat voter, I believed the conservatives were mean and had become a completely intolerant Remainer who believed in a very narrow set of causes as to why people would vote Brexit from ignorance, to being lied to, to xenophobia and bigotry.
Imagine my surprise when I discovered that I was completely wrong. That conservatives, with their psychology which more closely resembles everyone else in the rest of world, other than the West, were simply prioritising at issues which I had not considered and were programmed by their background to prefer their own culture to others. I had thought it simply a matter of education and experience, when it actually tends to get coded into us by family environment (particularly parental education levels), socio-economics, community attachment and a few other things. There is even some evidence that there may be genetic factors at play- liberals like myself tend to have larger areas of the brain for the processing of new information. Here is Jonathan Haidt giving an early and very popular TED talk on the subject- you will probably find it funny, as it is designed to be humorous to a liberal audience: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SOQduoLgRw . Sufficed to say I was deeply ashamed about my former intolerance. The didn't vote Brexit because they were against anybody (other than the EU political structure)- it is more a case that they are deeply attached to preserving community, culture and nation.
The vocational training argument is one that I am not alone in making. It has been made by figures across the political spectrum in America from Andrew Yang to Dan Crenshaw. It is also one of the 25 things the government is implementing as a result of the Sewell report. I don't necessarily agree with Sewell completely- there is proven bias in hiring for example, but he was right in stating that often situations were more complex than people realised. For example, do we really expect Indian specialists to give up lucrative private practice in addition to their NHS duties, just to become lower paid NHS managers?
In many ways the UK does better on race than most other countries- we are one of the lowest worldwide in implicit bias and earnings are about equal in the 18 to 30 age range, regardless of whether we are looking at the Black or White groups of ethnicities as a whole. But one area where we fail is in relative levels of unemployment. Drilling down into this discrepancy the reports authors found that many parents of young Black men didn't want their sons working on building sites or vocational roles because they had quite outdated notions of these workplaces. Quite often, someone who goes the apprenticeship route will enjoy higher earnings and better prospects than most degree qualifications.
I am trying to develop a unique Heterodox voice, one which blends liberal or Left thinking with conservative thought. Don't get me wrong, conservatives have their flaws just as the Left does, their attachment to their own culture can be as overdone as can the Left's bigoted oikophobia, and at the extremes- without more mainstream conservative thought to act as barrier- can lead to the types of far right extremism we have seen across Europe, in America and, to a far lesser extent, in the UK.
To sum it up, the Left is great at generating new ideas- they are the innovators, the visionaries, the heretics and the people primary responsible for pushing society forward in terms of social progress. However, they are absolutely terrible at vetting their own ideas, and come out with some real stinkers. This is not a problem in most of their domains, because ultimately the market decides and eliminates bad ideas naturally. But government and the universities possesses no natural mechanisms for eliminating bad ideas, which is why some bad ideas have come to prevail and why so many bureaucracies persist in government long past their sell by date. This in itself would it not be problem, were it not for the fact that the monies involved are precious, and although the tax system could be a hell of a lot fairer, we are at about at the limit of what it is possible to tax a society before economic stagnations sets in.
Conservatives also have their problems. They can be overly judgemental, prefer the status quo and as a result have often been on the wrong side of history, in terms of social progress. But they have always performed a vital service and function. There natural scepticism tends to eliminate the worst ideas the Left generates and to remind the Left of ideas which have been tried in the past and failed. And there have been some really bad ideas- generally high density public housing is a good idea, provided it is construed as a means of providing good cheap housing for those on low incomes, but if indiscriminate and lacking the ability to evict, it can become an amplifier of social ills- as witnessed in America with their housing projects. This is but one example, but there are plenty.
I will also admit to another reason for mainly focusing on a conservative, heterodox and centrist audience. The Left and Centre Left are saturated in terms of written content. It would be much harder to build a paid subscriber base in this part of the political spectrum, as the competition is so much fiercer. The Left tends to be more prevalent in the young who often don't have the incomes to add a paid subscription, and are often find ways to get access to paid content for free, with services like Netflix, Prime, etc- as well as the NYT, Medium and the Atlantic. Amongst conservatives in particular, the older demographic and frustration with sites like the Federalist and National Review, means they are more likely to pay for content from me, when I build my subscriber base to a sufficient level. There are good sites- The Spectator and UnHerd, and I have often thought about starting to submit articles to these sites as well as Quillette, but at the moment I have to admit to being a bit lacking in confidence.