The gap isn’t nearly so clear cut. In wrestling, we’d do solo drills of shots/sprawls/sit outs/etc every day, and sometimes combine them into chains like sit out->granby->stand up-> shot. The karate guys next to us did their partner katas all the time.
The difference is that when karate dude hits air, it looks like a joke. For all you can tell watching it, not only has this dude never been in a real fight, neither have any of his instructors or his instructors instructors. When Mike Tyson hits air, it’s terrifying, and you can tell just from watching it that this guy is very in touch with what is required for knocking out skilled opponents. It’s more about whether the connection with the ultimate test is still there and informing how the katas are done than whether you’re doing it alone or for multiple moves in a row or anything.
While it’s true that live resistance is an essential component, it’s important to note that effective martial arts do katas as well under different names. In wrestling, it’s “drilling”. In boxing, it’s hitting the bag or pads.
This kind of thing isn’t completely unprecedented.
The advent of audio and especially video recording has made it easier to credibly convey information about people’s emotional states. Instead of “he said she said”, you have a video showing the exact words used, the exact tone of voice in which they were used, and the exact facial expressions used. Polygraphs have given us the ability to move beyond subjective interpretations and get objective numbers for levels of arousal. And this does change things, somewhat.
When was the last time you were hooked up to a polygraph? They’re inconvenient for one, but also just not that useful. Level of arousal becomes common knowledge, but you could already see it for yourself and the reasons behind it still aren’t common knowledge. Analysis is the hard part, and polygraphs don’t remove enough subjectivity to be a slam dunk game changer. They’re not even always admissible in court.
Video is much easier and ubiquitous, but that hasn’t been a hindrance to the culture war as two people can still see the same video and interpret it very differently. And even video isn’t everywhere it could be, since people like their privacy.
And no fancy technology is needed in the first place. Emotions aren’t exactly impossible to notice and introspect honestly on. Neither are they impossible to convey quite credibly. Yet few people are as open as they could be, either with themselves or with others.
The incentives to spin things will always exist, as will the incentives to maintain space in which to do so. Technology makes it such that if you don’t want to be accountable, you have to choose your words to be ambiguous when recorded. If someone integrates automated micro-expression analysis into all video, you can expect people to be more ambiguous still, and to move towards poker faces.
It’s not that technologies won’t change things significantly, it’s that the changes will be on the margin. You won’t suddenly start seeing people persecuted for their emotions, because you’re already seeing that. People already get persecuted for their emotions (look at how people respond to video evidence of controversial events already), so all that can change is that maybe they do it somewhat more or somewhat more accurately.
As far as “Does it pose more risk than benefit”, it depends on how it’s used. Cameras are clearly great on the bodies and guns of police officers. They’re great options to have when you want to prove that nothing nefarious happens behind the closed doors of your office, or that you’re not at fault in any motor vehicle accident. They’re less good as always-recording fixtures of bedrooms or when discussing trade secrets within a company—especially when broadcast publicly.
I would expect further technology to be helpful to the extent that it allows for the option of more credible sharing of information, and bad to the extent that it impinges on the ability to withhold information in the cases where people would want to say “no thanks” to that option—since the latter just pushes obfuscation further back and impairs clear thinking internally. Whether it will become used in a way that allows thoughts/emotions to be developed in private and credibly shared when/to the extent ready, or whether it’ll be used in Orwellian fashion to stop valuable insights before they start is more of a political question and I don’t have any predictions there yet.
“Isn’t that what you’re being paid to do, Miss DiAngelo?”
To reiterate my point, it’s entirely fair to notice that this “grandma” has an awfully long snout and to distrust her. I’m with you on that. I pick up on the same patterns as you. It’s a real problem.
And still, big leap between there and an unqualified “This is insanity wolf”.
I doubt if a conversation with DiAngelo would get very far.
It’s not “a” conversation, as if “conversation” were one thing and the way you go about it doesn’t matter. If you were to go about it the way you’re going about it here, with presumption of guilt, it wouldn’t go far and it wouldn’t be her fault.
If you were to go about it in a way optimized for success, actually giving her the largest possible opening to see anything she might be doing wrong and to persuade you of good will, then it’s not so clear.
There is nothing that a white person can say, including what I’ve said here, that her scheme cannot classify as “White Fragility” and therefore deem invalid.
There’s nothing that can’t be classified that way by the scheme which you assert to be hers. It’s possible, if she really is nothing but 100% this scheme, that nothing a white person can say would get through.
However it’s also possible that your bald presupposition that there’s nothing else to her could be wrong, and that if you were careful enough in picking what you said, you could find something to say that gets her to deviate from this scheme.
As a general rule, asserting “Nothing can be done” suspicious—especially when nothing has been tried. It’s suspiciously convenient, and too absolute to be likely literally true. The times when a belief would be convenient for you are the last times you should be playing loose with the truth and dismissing known-falsehoods as “rounding errors”, since that’s when your motivated thinking can slip in and pull you away from the truth.
There’s probably someone right now reading this whole discussion and mocking the White Fragility on display.
Sure, that kind of thing definitely exists and is bad. It’s also not the only thing that exists.
This is the Gospel According to Insanity Wolf,
If you encounter an idea for which,however watertight the argument leading to it,you hear it in the voice of Insanity Wolf,screaming at you,a voice that absolutely will not stop, ever,until you are dead,then maybe you should reject that idea,even if you do not have a refutation of it.Anyone speaking in that voice,even if outwardly quiet and reasonable,wants somethingthat you should not give.
There’s definitely a real point in there, in that suspicion is warranted and “little red riding hood” is a cautionary tale. “Roll over and believe whenever asked to” is not the right play.
At the same time, that “maybe” is critically important. Without it, you end up becoming insanity wolf yourself, snapping at your actual grandma and any vaguely-wolf-shaped clouds. Baring teeth is a display of weakness, and should be avoided as long as possible in favor of something closer to “No Chad” so that it’s easier to separate the truth from the power plays.
Notice the presupposition worked in at the start: “you have been socialised into racism.” Therefore your opinions are invalid. Your thoughts are invalid. Your reaction to being told this is invalid. Every objection is invalid. You are invalid. Anything but immediate subservience is invalid. You must say “of course I was; I’m glad I finally found out about it so I can change.” No other response is valid.
All of the objectionable conclusions there are in your own words, but you’re responding to them as if she had actually said them rather than just fit the caricature despite trying to sound good. It’s fair enough to notice that this “grandma” has an awfully long snout and to distrust her, but there’s still a big leap between there and an unqualified “This is insanity wolf”.
There are other explanations that fit [this summary of] the book. It’s also conceivable that she just has a sincere belief that white people have been socialized into racism (even if they don’t realize it yet) and a lack of awareness of the caricature’s she’s fitting. People usually aren’t aware of the caricatures they fit, and often have beliefs that they think are more self-evident-upon-examining than they are, so it doesn’t seem like a big stretch at all.
This caricature fitting can sometimes be due to simply poor communication, but it can also be due to harboring a bit more of the caricature than they realize and would accept if they knew. You kinda have to point it out (and in a non-hostile way) before you can distinguish between “sloppy communication”, “imperfection that escaped notice”, and “endorsed malintent”. “Innocent until proven guilty” is super important, so give her the rope and wait to see if she’ll hang herself with it or pull herself out of the caricature.
In particular, you predict that “No other response [will be seen as] valid”. But what if the response were “Well shoot. I hope I’m not doing anything racist. Can you explain to me what exactly is racist about it so that I can make sure not to do it?” and additional sincere questions about any bit that doesn’t make sense about her story? If you were to do that without a hint of bared teeth yourself, what response do you think you’d get, exactly?
Condescension is the immediate response I’d anticipate for sure, and probably attempts to disengage before getting anywhere interesting, but that’s not what I’m talking about. Assuming she doesn’t actually make a convincing point, and that you don’t allow things to turn confrontational, what happens when you finally get to the point where the flaws in her reasoning start to get hard to avoid? Sociopathic willful lying is definitely a possibility, and if you get that, then yeah, insanity wolf confirmed. But I also wouldn’t be surprised if she were to get genuinely befuddled and not know what her own response is going to be, because no one has actually challenged her and made her think like that. Do you think you have a way of showing that this latter option isn’t on the table?
reddit.com/r/ivermectin talks about it for this purpose (1 2 3 4).
To add an anecdote, I know someone who started taking ivermectin two weeks after getting covid, and their sense of smell returned after ~55hr (3 doses)
Not a 1 in 7 chance that Christianity is right, a 1 in 7 chance that there is a God.
If there is a god and we’re simplifying complex things to the point of “Christianity is right” or “Christianity is wrong”, then Christianity is right and Dawkins is wrong. The point stands that Dawkins has not been acting consistently with the idea that there’s a 1 in 7 chance that he’s wrong about the big one.
The assumption here is that someone should have 100% certainty that they have a nose on their face
No, the point is the opposite.
Not only should people not have 100% certainty that they have a nose, they also don’t have that certainty—even when they make unqualified statements like “I have a nose” in response to “What could convince you that you don’t?”
That’s why they’ll say things like “A mirror would show me to have a nose” rather than “Even if a mirror shows no now, I’ll still know I have one”.
So my problem is that she’s treating something that’s still being researched with this same level of certainty.
Yes, I see that. And you could be right that she’s overconfident here.
However, ironically, you’re being overconfident here. The fact that it’s still being researched is not enough to prove a thing to be unknowable to those who have looked at the data and know how to properly analyze it. Read That Alien Message for an intuition pump about how far things can be taken in principle.
Her confidence being higher than you think should be possible means one of two things (or some combination). Either she’s irrationally confident, or she’s calibrated and better at discerning the truth than you realize can even be done. If you jump straight from “(S)he is more confident than I’d expect someone to be” to concluding “They’re being irrational” without first examining and ruling out “They know things I don’t”, you are going to systematically throw away the perspectives that matter most.
If you see a plane crash reported and don’t know that crashes always get reported, it’s good news because you learn crashes are rare enough to be news.[...]Then again, there was also this, in the comments last week:
If you see a plane crash reported and don’t know that crashes always get reported, it’s good news because you learn crashes are rare enough to be news.
Then again, there was also this, in the comments last week:
For the record, the wedding I went to did end up in the news.
But effectively assigning a 100% probability to big questions (there’s no chance I’m wrong, so there’s nothing that will change my mind) is a huge red flag for me. Bill Nye isn’t 100% certain that creationism is wrong. Richard Dawkins isn’t 100% certain that God doesn’t exist.
That’s not what “assigning 100% probability” looks like. Look at anticipated behaviors, rather than what people claim to believe in.
Imagine, if instead of talking about a (seemingly, to you) difficult question like “Does ivermectin work?”, it was a painfully obvious one like “Do you have a nose?”. If she had been asked “What would convince you that you don’t have a nose?” and she responded “I have a nose”, would not the subtext obviously be “and I’m not going to entertain your motivated attempts to gaslight me into questioning what I can see clear as day”? Would not that “Fuck you, you need to show me something surprising before I even take you seriously enough to engage with your (seemingly) nonsense hypotheticals” response seem fitting?
It’s not “assigning 100% probability” just because they don’t take your ideas seriously. It’s “assigning 100% probability” when no matter the evidence, the needle on their belief doesn’t move. If you were to say “What if I gave you a mirror and it showed you to have no nose?”, would she say “It wouldn’t show that”, or would she say “I would believe it’s fancy CGI on a screen disguised as a mirror”? Because only the latter is claiming to ignore the evidence; the former is just predicting that the test won’t show that. If you were actually hand her a mirror so that she could see her missing nose and the bleeding wound where it was, would stick to that rationalization or would she exclaim “OMG what happened to my nose!”? Because only the latter is actually ignoring the evidence, and the state of mind that produces “I have a nose” in almost everyone when asked that question would also give “OMG!” if it manages to be shown to be wrong.
She still might be overconfident, but you can’t jump from “She thinks the chance of being wrong is too small to continue thinking about” to “She’s *over* confident” until you can demonstrate what her proper level of confidence should be. And while you might not buy her arguments, I do expect that she has thought about it and would be ready to argue the case that the proper level of confidence is high.
Absent evidence that she hasn’t actually thought things through, it strikes me more as “Not significant evidence”, or rather “Evidence that either the question is overdetermined OR that she’s crazy” than “red flag”. It really looks like a failure of communication on both sides here.
She should have explained herself better: The equivalent of “Well, the thing is that all of the things which could prove to me that I have no nose are already tests I’ve done and they’ve all come back showing that I have a nose. I looked in the mirror right before I came here, for example. I’m feeling it with my fingers right now, as you can see. Theoretically it’s possible to be wrong about anything, but it’d have to somehow be in a way that causes my nose to consistently show up where I expect it to be, and I can’t imagine any realistic way for that to happen, can you?”
On the other side, they could have understood that this is what she (most likely) meant, and responded to “I have a nose” with “So you would then expect to see it if I handed you a mirror, right?” and try to do the work themselves to find a possibility that she hasn’t already though through, and help clarify what her model actually is, what it’s based on, and what predictions it makes.
It’s also worth noting that Dawkins claiming he “doesn’t absolutely know” and is “a six out of seven” isn’t really demonstrative of the virtue of humility either. “Nothing is 100% certain” is what you’re supposed to say when you’re on team science, but it doesn’t mean you’re actively tracking that remaining uncertainty or doing anything other than giving lip service to the right ideas for that crowd. Watch any Dawkins debate and ask yourself whether he’s really acting the way you’d expect him to act if he thought the betting odds on him being wrong were really as bad as 1 in 7. If *I* thought there was anywhere near a 1 in 7 chance of Christianity being more right than I was, I’d sure as hell be a little more respectful of it than Dawkins is!
and then only two of those continuing to pass it on at all
I’m not sure this is the case. I think there was significant stagger between when the girls started showing symptoms, and I don’t know how many have gotten sick since then or who will get sick soon. My wife just started showing symptoms today, for example (though that’s not evidence of vaccinated->vaccinated transfer because kid).
If I had to bet, I’d guess that it was sub-replacement among vaccinated, I just don’t have all the data in front of me yet
I got my first shot of Pfizer in September and the second in February. I don’t know the exact answer for everyone else, but at least one J&J and I think mostly mRNA, probably at about the time it became available to 30 year olds in the states.
Any given observation can of course but squared with any given level of effectiveness, because randomness, and also because superspreaders are a thing—so the outcomes can be highly correlated.
Yeah, depends on what you mean by “hard” exactly, and what your hypotheses are. If the idea is that the vaccine makes 93% of people completely immune and leaves 7% effectively unvaccinated, then getting at least 6 of 14 should be pretty rare—especially if you expect those 7% to be disproportionately old and unhealthy people and the 14 are all fairly young and healthy. Not impossible, but I’m squinting my eyes and double checking the methodology on anything that implies it was “just a fluke”.
Explanations that assume some correlation are easier to buy, but I’m not sure what it could be correlated with that wouldn’t have also shown up enough pre-delta that we’d have heard of some superspreader event where vaccinated people were passing covid to other vaccinated people.
Hope no one got seriously ill. From the lack of mention of any adverse effects, I am guessing everyone involved is fine?
Too early to tell, but I think everyone will be fine. So far no one high risk has gotten sick.
EDIT: I have some more anecdotal evidence. My cousin just told me that his friend has nearly the exact same story with his wife’s bachelorette party. 6⁄15 so far with symptoms and positive tests, all vaccinated. There’s some selection bias there since I likely wouldn’t have heard about it if it were only 1⁄15, but not enough to make it expected under a “just a fluke” model.
My wife and I went to a wedding last week, and 6 of the 14 girls who went to the bachelorette party (all vaccinated) have since tested positive for covid. I and another one of the guys (also vaccinated) got it a few days later, most likely from one of those girls (and not our partners, who both tested negative).
It’s just a few cases, but nonetheless seems hard to square with the lower bound of vaccines still working super well to prevent symptomatic infection.
You make it sound like I’m not doing anything that’s stressful.
I’m not commenting on what fights you pick or how stressful they are, and wouldn’t be as presumptuous as to think I know which fights you should be picking.
Let’s back up a bit. Your original post asks:
How do you deal emotionally with [people cargo culting COVID-19 defense]? Do you become cynic?
And in a comment further up this chain you say:
I don’t see what’s so hard about saying: “Please only speak in public transport when necessary to reduce the chance of infecting other people”
This reads more like an expression of frustration about the lack of such messaging, rather than an expression of curiosity about why that message doesn’t get pushed by the government.
The answer to your question is that the way I emotionally deal with things like this is to try to notice when I’m getting frustrated and whether getting frustrated is actually going to get me what I want.
I don’t see expressions of indignation as a useful tool for improving governance (in this context, at least), so when I think forward about what’s it’s going to achieve, it kinda kills my motivation to be frustrated at the government. It does require accepting that the government kinda sucks relative to what I would like to see, but they do and I don’t see it changing on its own, so it seems worth accepting.
I’d much rather ask “Why” and be curious. When I do, the answer I get is “Oh yeah, it’s not actually trivial. Here are the difficulties involved”.
To the extent that it’s really difficult, it helps explain why the government doesn’t “just” do that, which helps to alleviate any sense that the government “shouldn’t be fucking up easy things”.
To the extent that I realize it’s hard for other people but easy (or just achievable) for me, I try to actually go do it and teach others how to do it—because that’s what needs to be done, and apparently there haven’t been enough people teaching and doing these things.
To the extent that it seems like it’d actually be easy for other people too and they’re still not doing it, then the thread of curiosity has to go deeper and you have to figure out what’s causing people to not do things they could and “should” do.
In short, frustration works best as a transient state, and as a sign that something isn’t working—much like tires slipping in a car would be. The way I emotionally handle this kind of thing, to the extent that I handle it well, is by noticing frustrations as signals that what I’m doing isn’t working, and redirecting that into curiosity about why things actually are the way they are and how I would like to respond.
That’s not true. There are many ways to change government policy without getting directly elected.
“Directly change”, not “directly elected”. You can certainly influence government policy without getting elected, but I would consider those to be “indirect”.
I’m not extroverted and pick different fights then you but it’s not like I’m just doing nothing. Given my resources I don’t think there’s a fight about people speaking in trains that I can effectively fight.
I’m not very extroverted either, so I absolutely get where you’re coming from. If that’s not a fight you can effectively fight, then it’s not a fight you can effectively fight. No pressure from me.
If you’re still feeling a conflict between “this should be easy” and “the government isn’t doing it”, then trying it yourself (or at least figuring out what you’d have to do in order to be effective) might help you figure out why other people aren’t doing it effectively either, and that tends to make things emotionally easier.
Maybe it’s because you feel like it should be easy for them but not for you?
You can’t (directly) change government policy without getting elected, but you can work to shape social norms around you. You’re not in a universally recognized position of authority, but neither is the government, and you have earned some respect and know how to earn more from people around you.
When the pandemic was first kicking off and people weren’t yet taking it seriously, I was actively giving social permission to friends to prepare for a pandemic, and to medical professionals to start wearing N-95 masks at work. It was clear to me that no one wanted to be the weirdo “freaking out” and “over reacting”, and social permission was needed, so I tried to give it to anyone I thought I could reach, and to give them permission and motivation to extend the permission further. It’s hard to tell how much effect I really had, but it basically seemed to work on the scale I could manage. With people close to me, I *know* their attitude and behaviors changed as a direct result of talking to me. I know at least one doctor started taking the need for N-95 masks more seriously after talking to someone I persuaded, and I get the impression that many other healthcare workers were given a good nudge in that direction from other people that I talked to.
It just wasn’t trivial or stress free.
You don’t have to convince the people who are annoyed by other people’s phone calls not to talk. You have to convince the people having the phone calls not to have them. And you have to convince the people silently watching in annoyance to speak up and tell people to get off the phone.
If you think it’s easy, give it a shot.
It seems like in your model, what happens is that the authorities switch from “Please wear masks” to “Please wear masks and avoid unnecessary talking”, people nod along in unison, and a new social norm is created which functions similarly to the norms against talking too much in a library or movie theater.
I don’t think it’s that simple. For one, I don’t think people would get it. I don’t think many people are going to say “Oh yeah, from that one simple sentence I now understand exactly how much talking increases the risk of spreading covid, how important it is, what level we should tolerate and how we should punish it, how we should deal with people who are too lax/harsh on punishing others/etc”. We’re still struggling to coordinate on “How big a deal is covid?” norms on wearing masks and enforcing mask wearing. Given how much more inconvenient staying silent is, I wouldn’t expect norms against talking to be easier to coordinate on.
If you remember back to the beginning of the pandemic, no one knew what to make of this thing, and so everyone was slow trying to wait to see what other people say before they decide what to think. This has all the obvious problems, but it’s also worth noting that when people try to “think for themselves” you don’t get a bunch of good answers, you get varied answers and dumb answers. A good example of this is Eddie Bravo, who is sometimes as being a brilliant jiu jitsu mind and has added a lot to the sport, but at the same time believes obviously crazy/dumb things. When you look at the debates he gets in about flat earth stuff, he actually makes better arguments than his round earth opponents because he’s actually thought things through (albeit poorly) and his opponents are stuck trying to rationalize on the fly. Thinking things through from first principles only works when social consensus is less thought through than that, and while it worked for him in a new and niche sport, it’s not that great for problems as tricky as “Is the earth round” let alone “How should we handle a pandemic”. This sort of “follow the herd” mentality is necessary.
I don’t know about you, but I find creating this sort of social consensus (and defying any existing consensus) to be stressful and I expect that most others do as well. In the beginning, for example, I remember really not liking having to be the one taking people from the comfortable mental space where they wanted to be and conveying to them that there’s very likely a full blown pandemic coming that the entire world is unprepared for, and that they should probably start thinking ahead and planning accordingly. There were plenty of people I didn’t even bother telling, because I didn’t feel like I had enough social credit for it to be worth the effort. Once “We’re in a pandemic, duh” had been established, it became trivial to convey to these same people “Keeping a door open and a fan on is probably much more important than washing surfaces”, but that’s because it’s a smaller deviation from the accepted narrative and one that is emotionally “cheap” for them to consider.
When I put myself in the shoes of the authority having to say “Please avoid unnecessary talking”, I anticipate getting a lot of push back. I anticipate people trying to frame me as a scaremonger, trying to ruin peoples social lives for my own political ends. I anticipate other people agreeing with me, either silently or in a way that further polarizes things rather than helps things. I anticipate it feeling qualitatively more similar to breaking through the ice to go swimming in a frozen lake than settling into a nice warm hot tub.
Ice swims can still feel good with the right incentives and mindsets, and it would definitely be awesome if our leadership were more competent and motivated to find out what is the actual best course of action and communicate it credibly and understandably to a partially hostile population without raising their own defensive shields and mucking things up. At the same time, I think it’s pretty understandable why even trivial things like “Please don’t talk more than necessary” don’t get asserted/communicated.
This is one of the times it helps to visualize things to see what’s going on.
Let’s pick target shooting for example, since it’s easy to picture and makes for a good metaphor. The goal is to get as close as possible to the bulls eye, and for each inch of miss you score one less point. Visually, you see a group of concentric “rings” around the bulls eye which score fewer and fewer points as they get bigger. Simplifying to one dimension for a moment, V = -abs(x).
However, it’s not easy to point the rifle right at the bulls eye. You do your best, of course, and it’s much much closer to the bulls eye than any random orientation would be, but maybe you end up aiming one inch to the right, and that the more accurate your ammo is the closer you get to this aimpoint of x=1. This makes U = -abs(1-x), or -abs(1-x)+constant or whatever. It doesn’t really matter, but if we pick -abs(1-x)+1, U = V when you miss sufficiently far to the left so it fits nicely with your picture.
When we plot U, V, and 2U-V, we can see that your mathematical truth holds and it looks immediately suspicious. Going back to two dimensions, instead of having nice concentric rings around the actual target, you’re pointing out that if the bulls eye had instead been placed exactly where you ended up aiming, and if the rings were distorted and non-concentric in this certain way, then V would actually increase twice as fast as U.
But it’s sorta missing the point. Because for one, the absolute scaling is fairly meaningless in the first place because it brings you towards the same place anyway, and more importantly you don’t get the luxury of drawing your bullseye after you shoot. If you had been aiming for V’ in the first place, you almost certainly wouldn’t have managed to pull off a proxy as perfect as U. (in general V’ and U don’t have to line up in the exact same spot like this, but in those cases you still wouldn’t have happened to miss V’ in this particular way)
Goodhart has nothing to do with human values being “funny”, it has to do with the fundamental difficulty of setting your sights in just the right place. Once you’re within the range of the distance between your proxy and actual goal, it’s no longer guaranteed that getting closer to the proxy gets you closer to your goal and it can actually bring you further away—and if it brings you further away, that’s bad. If you did a good job on all axes, maybe you end up hitting the 9 ring and that’s good enough.
The thing that makes it “inevitable disaster” rather than just “not suboptimal improvement” is when you forget to take into account a whole dimension. Say, if you aim your rifle well in azimuth and elevation but instead of telling the bullet to stop at a certain distance, you tell it to keep going in that direction forever and it manages to succeed well beyond the target range.
(Technical point: the phase 3′s still were randomized controlled trials, they just weren’t double-blind. But double-blind is the relevant characteristic when asking whether the different results are due to partying Israelis, so that’s fine.)
Yeah, the part I was objecting to there was “the placebo group was given a fake injection and everything”. Not only did they do far less than “everything” that is supposed to go with giving fake injections, they also failed to give me a fake injection! My second “placebo” was a real vaccine and my dad’s second “vaccine” was a placebo!