Episode 1444 Scott Adams: Biden Babble, Karma Attacks China, and Lots More Provocation
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
VAERS database accuracy
Big problems coming for China
Babbling Biden, actual quote
Sweden defeats kneeling Americans
1/6 commission chess game
Spotting a COVIDIOT
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
You made it on time. Or if you're watching this on replay, it's still the right time.
There's never a wrong time for Coffee with Scott Adams.
It's the best part of your day, by far.
And all you need to make it even a little bit better...
I like coffee.
Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure.
The dopamine here of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip, and it's famous all around the world.
Watch it happen right now.
And yes, this is live.
Unless you're watching it later.
Go. So good.
So good. Don't feel bad about a little bit of slurping.
Now, I don't know if you've noticed this, but the way I try to run my live streams is not so much like a show where I'm presenting and you're just listening.
I try to do this more like I'm your virtual friend.
And we're just having a conversation over coffee.
But for some reason, you can't get a word in edgewise.
So you under-talking me is sort of in the comments.
But here's the answer to why, and I feel like I need to answer this because a lot of people have suggested, that I should use a software like OBS, and I think there are several others, that will take any live stream and send it simultaneously to different platforms.
Okay.
A little thumbs up to that message that just came in there.
So, if you've noticed, the way I run this is that I try to make it as personal as possible.
You get me literally before I've shaved.
You know, I haven't...
I haven't even changed my clothes.
I haven't showered. I'm wearing my pajamas.
You see me in the morning, you almost always see me wearing what I woke up in.
Now, I'm borrowing this technique from the makeup videos on YouTube.
Have you ever watched any of the makeup stars?
Where they literally just sit in front of a camera, and as they put their makeup on, sometimes they'll be giving you a lesson about the makeup, but they'll be just talking about their life.
And you say to yourself, well, I don't think I want to watch a makeup show.
But you would be surprised how well they execute...
You know, their business model.
And it just feels like you're having a conversation with a person.
So if you feel lonely or something, you just put it on and it's like having a friend who's just chatting with you live.
So... So...
I'm your virtual friend, and you should think of me that way.
So the reason I don't use those softwares that broadcast to multiple platforms is that they introduce a delay.
So I see a delay in my own picture as I'm looking at myself because I see myself the same way you see me.
But also there's a little delay in the comments, which I find off-putting.
It doesn't connect me with the audience as much.
So when I'm doing this, I have the weirdest...
If I were doing this recorded, I would be talking to a machine, and I'd be talking, and here's my presentation, blah, blah.
And the people on Locals who watch me do the micro lessons where I do record those, I have a presentation style, which I don't think is nearly as interesting as more of a, you know, more of a, let's say, unfocused personal style.
And I think they both have a place, but that's why I don't use those kinds of software.
People have been asking me that.
All right, let's start with some fake news.
Have you heard of Mediaite?
So some people actually sat around...
Someday, in the past.
And they came up with this idea for a publication.
And when they came up with a name for it, somebody must have suggested the name Mediaite.
And everybody else said, how do you spell that?
And they're like, M-E-D-I-A-I-T-E. And people looked at it and said, but are people going to have trouble pronouncing that?
Well, they say, Mediaite.
Mediaite. Well, anyway, the people who named it are as dumb as the people who write for it, and they've got a little fake news here about Charlie Kirk.
And here's the headline.
The headline on media is, Charlie Kirk engages in insane speculation that more than a million people have died from vaccines.
Now, before I even tell you the details...
Do you think that happened?
Here's your first test for fake news.
If the moment you read the headline, you say to yourself, but did it?
Can you ever ask yourself that question?
It says, Charlie Kirk engages in insane speculation that more than a million people have died from vaccines.
If the first thing you think to yourself is, but did he?
Did he? Did he?
I mean, really? Really, did he?
Do I have to even tell you the details to tell you this didn't happen?
Let me tell you what did happen, which is close enough to this that you can see how they came up with the headline, but it's still fake news.
What he did say is that the so-called VAERS, or however you say it, database, it's the one where all the vaccination bad reports come in.
So anybody who thinks that they might have been hurt with some side effect from a vaccination, can report it to this database, but the database is not meant to be an accurate database.
The database is meant to capture every speculation of, well, I don't know, I had the vaccination on Tuesday, I had this problem on Thursday, can't say one caused the other, but I'm reporting it so that the medical community, if it sees a pattern...
Maybe everybody two days later had some similar problem.
That would mean something, or if a lot of people did.
So what Charlie Kirk was saying is that the VAERS database is so inaccurate that you wouldn't know the difference if a million people had had problems with the vaccinations, or if 100,000, or if 5,000.
So his point was that the VAERS database is potentially wildly inaccurate.
Now, is that exactly the same as, quote, insane speculation that more than a million people have died from vaccines?
Those are not the same.
Those are not the same.
Talking about how inaccurate the accounting is, is not a speculation that a million people died.
They're just not the same. So fake news from media.
Rasmussen has a poll, I think it's coming out this morning, saying that it was asking if...
People thought that most black people are racist.
Do people think that most white people are racist?
And do people think that most Hispanic people are racist?
And the good news is that most people think most other people are not racist.
Sort of good news, right?
That if you actually ask them, hey, do you think most...
Do you think most white people are racist?
That even the black population says, no, no, not most of them, right?
So the good news is that when we look at our, I was going to say fellow citizens, but is that sexist?
When we look at our other citizens, we mostly think they're not racist.
So that's good news, right?
Is it? But is it?
But is it? Here's the counter to that.
Do you want to make racism go away?
Stop saying that some people are racist and some people are not.
That's what causes racism.
It's the frame. As soon as you accept the false frame that some people are racist and some people are not...
You've got a fight on your hands, right?
Because everybody's going to say, well, if there are racists, and I know for sure I'm not one of them, then I've got a pretty good idea you might be one of them, because I know they exist, because that's the frame I've accepted.
Some are racist, some are not, so they're out there, and I know I'm not one.
So maybe you're one because of those things you said or those things you did.
Here's the most productive frame you could ever have.
Everybody's racist. Now, I don't mean in the sense that they're practicing actively or conscious of it.
But brains are pattern recognition machines.
That's what they do. They recognize patterns.
But the problem is we're really shitty at it.
So we see patterns that are fake patterns.
We imagine that if we see something twice, well, that draws a line, two points make a line, now I know everything in the world about everything.
But it doesn't work that way.
We see patterns where there are no patterns.
But also we see patterns that are true, that just don't tell you anything useful, and you imagine it does, right?
So what does it tell me, for example...
If the pattern is most...
Let's say most Nobel-winning scientists were white guys.
Let's say that's true.
Is that true? I don't know if that's true, but let's say it is because it feels like something that might be true.
Does that help me?
Can I take credit for that?
Can I say, hey, I'm a white guy, and there are a lot of these Nobel Prize-winning white guys, so yay, white guys.
How does that make sense?
Because what exactly did I do in this scenario?
Did I win some kind of Nobel Prize that I don't know about?
The fact that I'm a white guy and that there are other white guys who are maybe bending the curve, like they're skewing the average for white guys, but that doesn't accrue to me.
Like, I don't get any credit for that.
I did nothing. Right?
So as soon as you imagine...
That there's something about the average of your group that's important?
It's not. It doesn't have anything to do with you.
You didn't do those things.
You know, what if you say the average basketball team is black?
Does that help the people who are not on the team who happen to be black?
How does that help them?
They're not on the NBA team.
I'm not on it. So the people who are changing the average for your group, they're not you for the most part, right?
They're just not me and they're not you.
So that doesn't have much effect on us, except maybe in how you understand the situation, I guess.
So here's the most productive thing you could do.
You'd say, everybody's a racist because we're born that way, because we have pattern recognition brains.
Can't turn it off. If you turned off your pattern recognition, you would just be a vegetable.
It's the only thing that causes you to act, is recognizing patterns and say, oh, if I don't go to work, I get fired.
That's a pattern. So I better go to work.
Well, thank you, Stephan or Stephen.
He says, I'm pretty fly for a white guy.
That's the whitest thing anybody ever said, I think.
All right. So I think we should get to the point where we can see the ridiculousness of racism.
Rather than condemn it, it should be mocked.
Because the whole race racism imagines that You're an idiot, first of all.
If you think that you can predict how somebody's going to do in some instance because of their ethnicity, well, you're an idiot.
It's not really racism isn't quite the problem there, is it?
If you say to yourself, yeah, I'm not going to hire this person for a job even though their credentials look good, because of what?
The race? How does that help you?
Because wouldn't you rather have a good employee, all things being equal?
So... So I think we should treat it way less seriously while also being deadly serious about it.
Because the subject is serious, right?
But that doesn't mean that the way you treat it all the time in every interaction, every communication, every social media thing should be serious.
I think you should be able to talk to somebody of any ethnicity and joke about the fact that they have a stereotype That in all likelihood does not apply to them individually.
Just like, you know, I think it's funny.
Now, it's easy, right?
It's easy if you're a white guy to laugh at this stuff.
But I feel like it's the most productive way.
Because if somebody says to me that I can't dance and I like cheese, is that racist?
Yeah, I guess so, right?
Because white people can't dance and we like cheese.
Yeah, it's racist.
But does it apply to me?
Okay, by coincidence, I like cheese and I can't dance.
But that's just a coincidence.
It has nothing to do with me being white.
Or does it?
I don't know. It's funny either way.
Right? How seriously can I take that?
Anyway. We should learn to laugh this stuff off while also treating it like it's deadly serious.
You can't ignore it.
You've got to take care of the important stuff.
Here's a question. Would it be legal or...
I think it would be economical, but would it be legal to have an invitation-only health insurance business where the only people who can join it are people who are recommended by people who are already in it and maybe more than one or something like that?
Some kind of way...
That people who know the other people they know, let me be less redundant, some kind of way where a member of the health insurance group can recommend somebody who has a healthy lifestyle.
And that's all you know about them.
For example, I have a friend who is the most lifestyle-committed person I've ever seen, right?
Eats right, exercises, just does everything that a wise person should do to take care of their own health.
Don't you want to be in the same group as them, somebody who's taking care of themselves, and you get the cheapest rate?
Because if you could only put in people who you knew were pretty healthy...
Now, of course, it'd be hard to bring in the whole family, and then what happens if somebody gets unhealthy after they're in the group?
I think you'd have to keep them.
That would be part of your risk.
But I just wonder if you could do that legally.
Would there be any legal prohibition against that?
The answer is no, currently not legal.
Okay. I'm hearing people say it's not legal.
Because it would be discrimination, would it?
But would it? Would it be discrimination?
I don't know. Could be.
It would be discrimination if the company decided who could be in, but would it be discrimination if the members decided?
That's the question. All right, so have you seen the flooding in, I don't know if I'm pronouncing it right, Zhengzhou, China?
Apparently, I saw the Ian Bremmer tweet today that they got eight months of rainfall in one day.
Is that true? They got eight months of rainfall in one day, and the pictures are horrific, you know, cars underwater and stuff.
And, you know, I like to remind my listeners every now and then That I have nothing against the Chinese public.
The Chinese people are awesome.
The Chinese government, I got a problem with them.
And I have some, I guess, predictions slash speculation.
I think that the Chinese government is a lot closer to falling than we realize.
Because, you know, how often is it that...
You'll think something is a stable situation, say the Soviet Union, you know, the USSR, but then it changes.
You really don't see it coming.
Sometimes things can change pretty quickly.
And there's some bad news happening in China now.
If you look at the level of pollution, they have deadly pollution, and they have now this rainfall stuff that's really messing them up, and they're still locked down because of the COVID, And they also have a population problem, right? I think they have an old people problem.
But they've got some massive problems.
But there's a bigger problem, I think, coming.
And I don't know how they could ever avoid it.
I could be surprised.
But how do they avoid the fact that sooner or later they're either going to have a massive COVID problem...
Or they're going to have to explain why they don't have a massive COVID problem.
Am I right? Now, sure, they can have therapeutics and vaccinations and stuff, but so far it looks like they're not even infected.
What's up with that?
We have a virus that doesn't burn out in the summer with variants like crazy.
Are you telling me that China can avoid infection from this virus?
No. I feel like all they're doing is pushing it down the road.
And maybe they're vaccinating quickly, but they're not going to get there because they've got a lot of people.
So I feel as though there's got to be at least a 50% chance, maybe more, that China's COVID emergency is ahead of them.
Is that reasonable? Would it be reasonable to say that it's ahead?
No. I feel like the Chinese government could fall because there are some serious bad problems happening there.
Let me say in...
My gardener just asked if he could start the leaf blower right below my window.
I'm going to tell him to hold off on that for a few minutes.
Why is everybody contacting me now?
So I just got a text from...
I won't tell you who because that would be part of the story if I told you who.
So I'm being told, oh, that yesterday's volume on YouTube was bad.
Yeah, I do know that.
So I do know that yesterday's volume on YouTube was actually bad.
So, which is why I turned it off.
All right. Let's go back to our show.
Anyway, I think China's got a big problem and it's going to get worse.
God damn it, stop texting me.
Okay, all right. Have you heard Biden's babble?
I want to read for you what Biden said today.
I think, or yesterday, I guess.
So this is Biden's actual quote, and an answer to it doesn't even matter what the question is.
So he said this, and I'll read it exactly as he said it.
The question is whether or not we should be in the position we're in.
Wait, what did he say?
Why can't the experts say we know this virus is in fact going to be the excuse we need?
Wait, that's the wrong part.
God damn it. Sorry.
Didn't mean to use the Lord's name in vain there.
Sometimes it just slips out.
I actually try not to do that, but it does slip out.
Well, you're going to have to go find that because I cut and paste the wrong thing into my notes.
But Biden has another babble session that's just...
It's one for the ages.
And I noted today that Biden is the only president who sounds the same if you read his statements backwards or forwards.
Because they're just sort of words.
They don't have that whole grammar structure thing that you expect.
So... Here's a fascinating thing.
So I guess yesterday, Roger Pielke Jr., who's an expert on climate change disaster stuff, he testified in Congress, and as Michael Schellenberger is tweeting today, that Senator Tester, who apparently is a Democrat, was shocked to learn from Roger Pielke Jr.
that the expense for natural disasters...
As a percentage of GDP has gone down basically consistently for years and years and years.
So we're sort of at a low point for the cost of natural disasters.
And this Democrat, who actually has an important job that's relevant to climate change, just think about this.
This is a senator whose job for the country...
Is, in part, climate change related.
So he's got a responsibility in this field specifically and did not know that we're at the lowest cost of natural disasters in history.
Now, how many of you knew that?
Because I knew that.
Did most of you know that?
If you do any reading of Michael Schellenberger's work, you probably knew that.
If you listen to me, you probably know that, because I quote him all the time.
Bjorn Lomborg, if you read any of his stuff, you probably knew that.
So I'm looking in the comments to see how many people knew it.
I'm saying, yes, yes, no.
You told me, knew it for years.
Yes, yes, via Lomberg.
Nope, Ashley says.
Yes, yes, yes, nope.
So even in this audience, which I would consider far more informed than the average, probably 30% say no.
That's a lot of people.
A lot of people. I believe that...
The deaths are at an all-time low as well as the expense.
I'm not sure if they're all-time, but everything's trending in the right direction.
Now, of course, the reason is not that the disasters are getting less.
The reason is that we're better at preparing and compensating for them.
Oh, here we go. Here's somebody pasted in on Locals.
Somebody pasted in the actual Biden quote.
Let's see if I can make this stop scrolling for a minute.
So Biden said, and the question is whether or not we should be in a position where you are...
Why can't the experts say we know that this virus is in fact...
It's going to be, or, excuse me, we know why all the drugs approved are not temporarily approved, but permanently approved.
It reads the same, forwards or backwards.
Thank you for putting that in there.
One of the reasons that climate science is always going to be a big story is, have I told you to follow the money?
Now, There are lots of reasons that climate change should be a big story.
The obvious reasons, right?
Because the scientific community says the world is in big trouble.
So that's a good reason for a big story, right?
But how many other things fall in this category?
Wouldn't you say that there are many stories that you could put into the category of the experts say we're in big trouble?
Right? There's all kinds of stuff that the experts say we're in big trouble.
We're going to run out of fertilizer or something, phosphates or some damn thing, whatever it is that they put in fertilizer.
So we've got all these big disasters, but climate change will always get the headlines, and here's why.
And the answer is obvious, because it's the easiest thing to write about.
So if you're a journalist and you could do hard work and get paid...
Where you could do easy work and get paid, which one are you going to do?
Follow the money. People are always going to do easy work to get paid if they have the option.
And what could be easier than looking out of the window and saying, it is raining really, really hard.
Maybe it's because of climate change.
Experts agree that the weather is getting worse.
It's literally the easiest story you could write.
So you always get more of those.
I saw a poll from California Insider, I guess, showing that Larry Elder is leading in the recall race against Gavin Newsom, meaning that as an alternative to Newsom, he's getting more votes than the other alternatives.
So it's just combining.
I think we're only comparing the alternatives not to Newsom.
But everybody's only getting small percentages because it's mostly unknowns running against Newsom.
But Larry Elder's top of the field was 16%.
So this could get interesting.
I said before, I don't know a ton about Larry Elder, but from what I can deduce, he has all the tools.
I think he has the full tool set.
So maybe...
Maybe he could pull off a surprise.
So in the Olympics, Sweden defeated the U.S. women's soccer team, and that was a surprise because the U.S. women's soccer team hasn't lost in two years or something.
They're like crazy dominant.
But Sweden kicked their asses 3-0.
And this was, as many noted, after the entire team knelt to Black Lives Matter...
Now, you've heard from me that kneeling before a competition, if your competition is not kneeling, puts you at a disadvantage.
Because I think your physical body influences your brain in the same way that your brain influences your body.
It's a two-way situation.
So, for example, if you slump your shoulders...
We already know, because when people slump their shoulders looking at their phone, it changes their body chemistry.
chemistry can make them in a less good mood.
My microphone fell off.
Excuse me. And we've heard, but there's some controversy about whether this is true, that if you do the victory pose, you stand up and you put your arms up like this, like victory, that it makes your body chemistry change in a positive way, can put you in a good mood.
Now, I've heard some controversy as to whether that's true.
But I do this all the time, like as an experiment, you have the victory pose, and I can tell you I feel better every time, and it's immediate, and I can feel it.
Now, is it a placebo?
I don't know, but I'm pretty sure it works even as a placebo.
So I don't know why it works, but I definitely get in a better mood if I change my posture, straighten my shoulders.
These things definitely change how you feel.
So I have speculated that putting yourself in the universal position of defeat and submission, which is kneeling, would have some kind of influence on you as an athlete that would be negative and it would come out in your performance.
Now, I don't know if that's been demonstrated yet in any scientifically legitimate way, But I still think it's obviously true that it affects performance.
As a hypnotist, I will make this statement.
I don't have any scientific proof.
Say hi to your nine-year-old who's watching.
Hi. Anyway...
But I think that could be studied.
Anyway... So, the January 6th commission, the idea that Congress, or the House specifically, is going to put together a bipartisan commission to look into the January 6th riot, if you want to call it that, at the White House, or at the Capitol.
And... This has been a really interesting chess game.
So the first part of the chess game is that the Democrats want to have this commission because it keeps the news on what Trump did and it can keep him out of the presidency.
It makes the Republicans look bad, they figure.
So the first move of the chess game is they say we've got to have this commission and Pelosi can make it happen because they got the majority.
Now here's the second play.
The second play is that Kevin McCarthy, a Republican, decides who's going to be put on the committee for his side, and he picks two people who have to be rejected, Jim Jordan and Jim Banks, because both of them had said things somewhat dismissive of the problem,
I think, in the Capitol riots, or supportive of Actually, I think they both said something supportive of Trump's baseless claims of election fraud, as CNN likes to phrase it.
So, by Kevin McCarthy intentionally poison-pilling the committee, it caused Nancy Pelosi to say, no, I reject them.
But it's bipartisan.
And these are the people that the other side wants as their representatives.
So are you being bipartisan if you reject the other side's team?
You could reject your own team, but if you're being bipartisan, you can't reject the other side's team.
That's their team. And so McCarthy quite cleverly poison pills this whole thing by sending two people that have to be rejected.
You figure, right?
It was a good play. So...
So sure enough, Pelosi rejects them.
And then Kevin McCarthy, what's his next play?
His next play is to say the whole thing is illegitimate, so all five of our members are going to be pulled back.
So it gives McCarthy this really good poison pill delegitimacy play where he can say the whole thing is not bipartisan because you rejected our team.
But he made sure that there were people who could be rejected.
It's pretty good.
So if you're sort of seeing who's playing the best chess game, I would say Pelosi started strong because it keeps it in the news.
So she gets the win for keeping it in the news.
But McCarthy's chess match here, pretty good.
Pretty good. So who knows what happens next?
You know, this is not the end of the game, so this continues.
But as a chess game, well played.
Both sides, well played.
This is fun to watch because it doesn't really have any real meaning, I don't think.
But the politics of it are really fun.
I guess Biden actually got fact-checked by CNN, and badly, because Biden said in his town hall, you're not going to get COVID if you get these vaccinations.
And as we know, you will get, sometimes, COVID if you have the vaccinations.
But I think this was the case, and I'm going to use the Trump-on-the-other-foot standard, which is if Trump had said this...
Would I have defended Trump?
The answer is yes. Because to me this looks more like just getting a word mixed up, which is a different problem.
I don't think there's any chance that Biden is unaware that you can still get the COVID if you have a vaccination.
So I don't think that was that kind of a problem.
But I'm speculating, right?
I would say the most likely explanation is that what he meant to say is that you're not going to die if you get the vaccinations.
Now, that would also be a little bit of an over-claim because some people will, in fact, die who are vaccinated and still got the COVID. But hardly any.
There's so few people...
That if he had said, you're not going to die if you get these vaccinations, I would have said that's fair enough, you know, for a speaking-off-the-cuff non-scientist to say.
So I'm going to defend Biden from CNN's fact check.
I'll bet you never thought you'd see that, right?
But I think CNN... is corrected to fact-check him, of course.
But I think they should have given a little bit more thought to why he was wrong.
It looks like he just misplaced a word.
That would be my guess.
I doubt he misunderstands that.
Here's how to spot a COVIDiot.
That would be somebody talking about COVID who is also an idiot.
A COVIDiot.
Well, I'm looking at Sparky's comment about January 6th being an FBI false flag.
I don't think we're going to find that.
I don't think it's ruled out in the sense that, you know, I suppose anything's possible.
But I'd be really surprised if the January 6th event was anything but what we think it was.
It looks like we know exactly what it was.
I don't think there are going to be any surprises.
Now, will there be informants and FBI people who were part of it?
Did they act like they were promoting it to be part of the undercover?
Yeah, probably. But I don't think that made the difference.
I think we'll be surprised if we find any surprises.
Alright, here's how to spot somebody talking about COVID who is also an idiot.
If somebody talks in certainty about, you know, this is definitely riskier than that, they don't know what they're talking about.
Because we can't really estimate the risks of any of this stuff.
Not at this point. And if somebody leaves out any of the big risks, then you should not take them seriously.
For example, if somebody talks about the risk of vaccination versus not vaccination and they don't mention the long-haul risk, then I think they're not really...
They shouldn't be taken seriously, right?
Because if you're ignoring the long-haul as part of your decision-making, you're probably ignoring the most important part because the risk of the vaccination and the risk of dying from COVID are both about the same.
Zero. So you could just round those to zero and then just look at the things that are a real risk, which is long-haul COVID. So if people don't speak in terms of risk and they leave out the biggest risk, the long-haul, they're just not serious people, and you shouldn't take them serious.
Yeah. Somebody says, my opinion.
What part was my opinion that you disagree with?
I don't think there's anything you said there.
Now, how many of you are bothered by the Sean Hannity's and anybody else who's telling you to get vaccinated?
Does that bother you?
That any, let's say, non-doctor tells you to get vaccinated?
No. I'm just looking at your comments.
I'm seeing almost all no's.
I see one yes.
It's unethical. Yes.
I see some people, yeah, I hate it.
Yeah, some of you are bothered by it.
Now, I hope you all remember my take on this.
My take on vaccinations for the millionth time is that I'm not a doctor, so don't listen to me.
The last thing I'm going to do is tell you to get a vaccination.
That's up to you. You and your doctor, you work that out.
Don't come to me for your vaccination advice.
But, that said, I think it's useful for us all to talk about the logic of it and the risks and to fully understand the whole architecture of the decision.
But then it's your decision, and yours won't look like mine, and it doesn't need to.
So... It is now a pandemic of the unvaccinated, and if the unvaccinated want to have a pandemic that doesn't have much effect on me at this point, I'm okay with that.
That's a choice.
And it's not irrational.
It's maybe different than I would make, but I'm not going to say anybody's an idiot for making that choice.
I think reasonable people can come out on this in different places.
