Episode 1483 Scott Adams: Hurricane Ida, the Afghan With Drawl, and Other Things That Totally Blow
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Free vaccine hesitancy
Anti-Trump Smugness Index
Blurred face, CNN ISIS-K interview?
Alex Berenson's Twitter suspension
Economics filter applied to COVID
Long-Haul COVID?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
But does that mean the show will be any less amazing?
Yes. If I keep dropping things on the ground, it will be far less amazing.
Not counting that. Things are going to go really, really well this morning.
In fact, this might be one of the highlights of your whole life.
You just don't know it yet.
Sometimes things turn out better than you think.
Not always, but sometimes.
And if you'd like to increase your chances of good luck, all you need is a cupper mug or a glass of tank or chalice or stein, a canteen jug or flask or vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip, and watch it turn that Category 4 hurricane into a 3.9.
Go! I think it's working.
Well, speaking of that hurricane, Hurricane Ida, here's some news.
This is breaking. I don't think you'll see this anywhere else, but you all know journalist Andy Ngo.
Last name is spelled G-N-O. But Andy Ngo has decided to identify as Wind.
And he's identifying as Wind so that he can marry Hurricane Ida.
And Hurricane Ida will take his last name.
And then when people talk to Hurricane Ida and they say, hey, what's your name?
The Hurricane will say, I don't know.
And then they'll say, no, seriously, what's your name?
I don't know. No, seriously.
What's your name?
I don't know.
All right. Did you see the Sleepy Joe fake video?
There's a video of Joe Biden talking to, I guess, the Prime Minister of Israel, whose face I don't recognize.
Can you imagine not recognizing the Prime Minister of Israel?
Like, I didn't even know who it was.
I couldn't have named him, and I certainly didn't recognize him.
It's like Netanyahu was sort of a genius in self-promotion.
You always knew who he was, right?
Even when he wasn't Prime Minister, you still knew who he was.
But I don't even know who the Prime Minister is now.
But anyway, the Prime Minister was talking to Joe Biden...
At the White House, and there's some misleading video, misleading video of Biden closing his eyes.
Now, it's being debunked as a fake video because he answers a question with his eyes closed, showing that he was awake the whole time and listening to the question.
So there's your fake video.
But is it impossible, is it impossible, That he did nod off for a little bit.
You know what I mean? Maybe he...
He might have nodded off for five or ten seconds and then came back in time to hear a question and answer.
Maybe. But it's being listed as a fake video.
I think it's probably more fake than not, but he may have fallen asleep.
Could have happened. There's also a fake Obama video going around on Facebook.
So I guess in the fake, and it's just misleadingly edited, he is purported to say ordinary men and women are too small-minded to govern their own affairs.
Which, of course, he did not say.
And that order and progress can only come when individuals surrender their rights to an all-powerful sovereign.
Obama never said anything like that, but that's the video going around.
So I guess it's just edited to take out the context.
Here's an interesting persuasion point.
This is probably the least, let's say the least obvious persuasion point you'll ever see.
When I learned hypnosis, one of the things that my hypnosis instructor taught us is that people will be more easily hypnotized if they pay for it.
If you do it for free, people will think it's worth nothing.
That's the problem. If you say, I'll hypnotize you and I'll do it for free...
The person you're going to hypnotize assumes you're not very good at it, or you can't do it, because otherwise you'd charge for it.
It'd be like a service.
So if it's free, it doesn't work, because people assume it won't work, and then you can't get people into the right frame of mind.
But if you charge them a lot, and put them in a fancy-looking office and wear a nice suit and everything, they will expect it to work, because it costs a lot, and then it works.
There's something else like that happening now along those lines, which is maybe a big deal.
And a Twitter user named Machiavelli's Underbelly, who you should be following, Machiavelli's Underbelly, just Google it or just search for it on Twitter, you'll find it.
And he tweets this.
He says, the biggest reason for so much vaccine hesitancy And I'm not joking, parenthetically, is that the vaccine was free.
Now, he doesn't go on to explain the reasoning behind that because it's a fairly well understood psychological phenomenon.
What about that? What do you think about that?
Do you think that the credibility of the vaccination...
is degraded by the fact they're giving it away for free.
Now, free means just free to the consumer, obviously your taxes and inflation will pay for it, and obviously the governments pay for it, and blah, blah.
So it's not that it's free-free, but to the person who makes the decision, it's free-ish in the short term.
I have an economics degree, so I don't like to call anything free, because there's always some related cost.
But here's the thing.
The fact that it's free, has that convinced anybody, and maybe they don't realize it, that it's no good because they don't have to pay for it?
Maybe. Now, I think we'd probably get a lower uptake if it were not free just because people would be making budgeting decisions.
But there is something to the observation.
There is something about the fact that it's free, or feels free, even though it's not, that probably makes it look less credible, I think.
So it's an interesting persuasion point of view.
All right. You may have heard that the anti-Trump smugness index has reached a record low.
You know that smugness?
When you're pretty sure that Joe Biden was a serious adult in the room, and that clown Trump, he was getting everything wrong.
Everything. Absolutely every single thing he got wrong.
Well, that was when the smugness index was at its peak.
Oh, very smug.
Joe Biden's going to fix a lot of problems that Trump left.
But as time goes by...
The smugness index starts to reduce.
For example, people may be thinking that Trump was somewhat right about Black Lives Matter and Antifa because they're not so popular these days and it doesn't look like they did anything good.
I mean, maybe Black Lives Matter did, but I can't think of anything.
Maybe they didn't. Raised awareness, anyway.
But I don't think people are having a great feeling about these groups that were against Trump.
I don't think that critical race theory is as popular as it could be in the United States.
I think people think Trump's largely right about that.
I think people think he could have done better in Afghanistan.
We don't know that, but it feels like anybody could have.
He looks right on immigration.
He looks right on taxes.
He looks right on China. And he looks right on energy policy and gas prices.
So every day that goes by, Trump looks better.
Now, I predicted that.
To me, that was an obvious thing.
Because as soon as the fake news affect the clouds, everything, as soon as that started to dissipate, you would see just the policies.
And then the policies...
Wouldn't look that bad.
But the rhetoric does, right?
If you add the Trump rhetoric to anything, it turns it into a different thing.
But as soon as the rhetoric sort of fades in your memory, and all you're doing is saying to yourself, oh, wait a minute.
Does Remain in Mexico policy make sense?
And then you think, yeah, it does.
It does. It does make sense.
So he continues to look better.
CNN allegedly did an interview, and I guess this was before the explosion at Kabul airport.
It was an interview with what purported to be an ISIS-K leader.
And the ISIS-K leader said he'd have no problem getting into Kabul.
Now, this was before the withdrawal, I guess.
And he met with the CNN crew, and the only thing he asked is that they blur his face and hide his identity.
Now, if you were a leader of ISIS-K, would you trust CNN... To blur your face.
Are you kidding me?
Are you telling me that the CIA didn't talk to CNN and say, you know, we'd like to see the unblurred version of the face, because that'd be pretty helpful?
You don't think CNN would show the CIA an unblurred copy?
Now, I don't know if it makes any difference if only the CIA sees it.
Maybe that doesn't make much of a difference.
Maybe they already knew who it was.
They may have already had a picture of him.
But does it make sense that an ISIS leader would want to give a CNN interview in such a dangerous way?
Well, apparently skeptics are saying, we're not so sure you actually talked to an ISIS leader there.
And, yeah, somebody's asking on locals in the comments, was this guy hit by a drone recently?
And I have to think that he would have been droned by now if he really gave that interview, because I think we'd find him, right?
So I agree with the skepticism.
I'm not saying it's fake news.
But I don't think you could trust that that was really an ISIS leader.
I don't think you could trust it.
I'm just looking at some of your comments there.
Let's talk about this hurricane a little bit more.
Apparently it picked up steam because it passed over a lot of hot air.
I think it went over Congress.
But... How much are we going to talk about climate change because of this hurricane?
Probably a lot, right?
So every time there's going to be a hurricane, we're going to have that same dumb debate where somebody says, well, it's proven that it's climate change, and then somebody else will say, yeah, it's not proven.
There are some flags and some indications, but it's not proven, proven.
And here's my question.
Where are the places that are getting better On Earth because of climate change.
That has to be a thing, right?
If you imagine that there are just as many places on Earth that are a little too low a temperature to be optimal, and there are some places that maybe were at the right temperature but now they'll be a little too warm, shouldn't we have stories about the amazing, you know, the farming yield that they've never seen so good coming out of, I don't know, some damn place?
Shouldn't we be seeing that? I feel like the news is removing the context of all the places where things are much better.
Because that has to be the case, right?
It seems like it would be.
So Alex Berenson, a famous contrarian, I think I'd call him a contrarian, has been suspended by Twitter for what Twitter calls COVID misinformation.
Now, do you think that Alex Berenson did actually say something that was misleading, dangerously, on Twitter?
Did he? Well, here's the tweet that got him kicked off.
So I won't get kicked off because I'm talking about it.
I think if you state it to be true, you might get kicked off.
But I'm talking about the story, so I can talk about it.
So Berenson said, don't think of it as a vaccine.
Think of it, at best, as a therapeutic with a limited window of efficacy and terrible side effect profile that must be dosed in advance of illness, he says in all caps.
Now, which part of that, as he notes, I guess he indicated he might be thinking of legal action, but which part of that is inaccurate?
Let's take it part at a time, okay?
Okay. Don't think of it as a vaccine.
Is that accurate or inaccurate?
Well, it doesn't matter, because that's just an opinion.
So don't think of it as a vaccine.
It's just an opinion about what to call things.
So you don't get kicked off for that kind of an opinion.
I've said the same opinion, by the way, and I didn't get kicked off.
He goes, think of it, at best, as a therapeutic.
Now, do you get kicked off for that?
I don't think so, because I've said it...
How many times have I said the vaccine is really more of a therapeutic?
I've tweeted it, I've said it in public a bunch of times.
There's no problem. Because when I say it, I give my reasons, and those reasons are known to be true, which is that the vaccine doesn't completely stop you from getting the illness.
So in that way, a reasonable person could call it more like a therapeutic than a vaccine.
So far, it's just opinion.
And it's just opinion about what the words mean, and that's completely fair.
I don't know if it's meaningful, but it's fair.
The next thing he says is a limited window of efficacy.
Well, now you're getting to a little bit more of an opinion that's kind of pushing on fact.
Does it have a limited window of efficacy?
Well, yes and no, right?
Because it does have efficacy that decreases over time, and the booster shots would presumably boost that back up.
So in theory, it doesn't have a limited window of efficacy, as long as boosters are a thing.
So in theory, it would be unlimited forever efficacy, so long as you've got boosters.
Now remember, we're in the fog of war, so people are adjusting as they find out data, and now they're adjusting for the boosters.
And I'm not saying you should get one or not.
I'm just talking about whether there's any disinformation or misinformation in this quote.
All right, so I would say limited window of efficacy is subject to debate.
I know what he means.
He means that if you get one shot, it's going to wear off before the pandemic ends.
So I think what he meant to say is accurate, but because things have changed with the booster, his accurate statement sort of drifted into inaccurate, didn't it?
Now, I think he said it probably after the boosters were already in conversation, but it's kind of an interesting one because it's more about the way he says it than being inaccurate entirely.
Then he says about the vaccination's terrible side effect profile.
Is that true or false?
True or false?
That the vaccinations have a, quote, terrible side effect profile.
What would you say?
What would you say, true or false?
Somebody says true for some, but then would it be fair to say it as just a statement?
If it's only true for some...
I'm seeing lots of truths.
Let's see on YouTube if you think it's true.
I'm seeing no. Too strong.
Too strong a statement? Maybe.
As compared to what?
More than terrible. No idea.
False. Fine.
So this one's a little ambiguous, isn't it?
Because I would agree that if you are one of the people who has a bad side effect, if you happen to be one of those unlucky people...
Could it be said that you got a side effect that was terrible?
If you happen to be one of those people, then yes, you could actually maybe die.
So that would be terrible.
But when you say it has a terrible side effect profile, are you sort of suggesting that it's a bigger risk than it is?
Because it's certainly terrible if it happens.
But is he referring to what would happen if it does happen, which would be terrible?
I think we'd agree with that.
But it sort of suggests the terrible part, sort of suggests the risk, as well as what would happen if that risk came true.
And I don't think that the risk, the size of the risk, not what would happen, but the size of the risk, I don't know that it would be reasonable to call that terrible.
Because it's sub-1%, well under 1%, right?
Is that a terrible side effect?
It would be a terrible outcome if you're one of the bad ones, you know, you've got a bad case of the side effect.
But the odds of the side effect are really low, aren't they?
As far as we know. I mean, we could find out later.
So I would say I agree with Twitter on this.
Sorry. Sorry.
I agree with Twitter on this opinion.
Now, I do think that he should have gotten a chance to rewrite it for clarity and then, you know, be back on Twitter.
So I'm not sure a suspension makes sense.
But if their standard is misinformation, then I would say that the ambiguity of the tweet, just the ambiguity...
Because I think Berenson is completely correct that what he believes to be true and what he believes he said to be true are accurate.
So I think Berenson has a pretty good argument.
At the same time, there was enough ambiguity there that I think Twitter was within its moral and ethical boundaries.
Now... This is a pretty close call, isn't it?
Now, I'm not saying they should have that standard.
It's a different question.
I'm not defending that they have a standard.
I'm saying that they met the standard.
Not that there should be a standard.
That's a separate question.
But I think they met their standard.
I don't like it.
I would rather see the skeptics than not see them.
I'd rather the debate happen in public than just have them kicked off of Twitter.
I don't think that's the best way to handle it.
But I feel like they met their own standard for what that's worth.
All right. This is the point where those who don't like vaccination stuff, you can find something else to do.
But I'm only going to be talking about the odds of things.
I'm not going to be telling you to get it or don't get it.
And here's the kind of information that we get on vaccinations.
See if this tracks with what you believe to be true.
So here's the only test we're going to do.
I'm not going to tell you something is or is not true.
Is rationalizing censorship a side effect of the jab?
Maybe so. So I'm not going to say these are true.
These are just statistics that come off of CNN. But I want to see if it agrees with what you think is true.
So this is CNN's reporting.
If you're fully vaccinated now, your chances of getting infected go down by three and a half fold.
Is that your understanding?
That if you're vaccinated, the odds of getting infected in the first place are way, way lower.
Three and a half times lower.
Is that your understanding?
Because I actually wasn't sure what that was until I read it today, actually.
How about this? Your chances of having symptoms, if you're vaccinated, go down by eightfold.
Does that agree with sort of, generally speaking, how you thought of it?
Did your sense of it match that?
Chances of having symptoms go down by eightfold.
That's about what I thought it was.
I mean, not necessarily eight, but I thought it was a lot.
Your chances of ending with illness, significant enough to go to the hospital, go down 25-fold.
You probably knew that, right?
You probably did know that your odds of being hospitalized are way, way down.
25 times lower.
And more than 99.99% of people who are fully vaccinated have not had a breakthrough case.
So let me say that again.
Of people who are not vaccinated, the odds of them getting it and then passing it on are pretty good.
But if you're vaccinated, 99.99% chance that you'll not have a breakthrough case.
You could still be infected, but not necessarily get symptoms.
And then here's this last one.
And I'm guessing that these statistics are debatable, right?
You're probably going to debate this.
But according to CNN, states with below average vaccination rates had, on average, almost triple the rate of new COVID cases.
Compared to states with above-average vaccination rates.
This is according to Johns Hopkins University.
Do you believe that?
Do you believe that the vaccination rate of states very highly correlates with how many infections you're getting?
I don't know. Maybe.
All right. Here's my warning of the day on data.
Whenever anybody talks about a specific country...
Assume it's wrong.
Sometimes it won't be.
But that's only 5% of the time.
I'm guessing. This is just based on my observation of life over the years.
And here's another one. So Twitter user Peoples Pundit.
Some of you follow him. So he's rich.
The Peoples Pundit, Beres.
And he tweeted that Sweden went the natural immunity route, as opposed to Israel, which went for vaccine immunity.
And that... That even though one went for vaccines and one did not, that Sweden actually is doing better.
Now, is that true?
Well, how long did it take for the very next Twitter person to say, no, Sweden is 50% vaccinated, fully vaccinated, and Israel is only 60% fully vaccinated?
I don't even think those statistics are right.
But... It doesn't take more than a second for somebody to tell anybody who says anything about a country.
It takes about one second for somebody to say, you got the data wrong, here's the right data.
Now, I don't know if the second person's right, maybe the first person is right.
But the thing you need to know is if you're making any kind of decision, any kind of decision, based on what one country did, that's not rational.
Because the one country comparison of anything, Sweden, Israel, China, it doesn't matter.
New Zealand. As soon as you're looking at the one country, you're not in rational territory anymore.
How many people believe that?
I'm still seeing people say, but Sweden is doing pretty good.
Listen to me. I'm going to make the same point, but I'm going to say it in a more emphatic, jerky way.
Because I don't think I'm getting through.
If you're talking about the results of one country, stop it!
It means you're not good at analyzing things.
In fact, that would be the number one flag.
For people who are good at analyzing things, what would be the biggest red flag that you're talking to somebody who's not good at analyzing things?
They tell you that they're looking at one country and they've determined something.
Soon as you hear that, you know you're talking with somebody who's not experienced at analyzing stuff.
Somebody says, read Alex Berenson.
Let me tell you the skeptic problem.
Now, I like to give you these examples of categories of risk, which is different from knowing whether one thing is right or wrong.
So a category, for example, would be there's a rogue doctor who made a viral video saying all the experts are wrong.
In my opinion, whenever you see the rogue doctor, there's a 95% chance at least it's bullshit.
No matter how sensible it sounds, no matter how good his graphs and data are, just know that the category of rogue doctor disagrees with science is going to be wrong 95% of the time.
That's just based on experience, right?
It's not based on some study.
Well, 5%.
5%, if they're ever right, books are written about them and they become heroes.
This scientist was the one who was right when everybody was wrong.
Einstein knew that Newton wasn't completely right about gravity, but nobody thought Einstein was right until it took a while to figure out who he was.
So you hear about all the stories about the 5% time the rogue expert is right.
But just know, if it's day one and you're hearing a rogue expert, 95% chance no.
All right, here's another category.
A professional skeptic tells you something is wrong.
So, Berenson also...
Is a skeptic about marijuana and says it should be...
I guess he wrote a book saying it should not be legalized.
Now, I'm not going to get into the debate of whether it should or should not be legalized, but would you agree that's a contrarian view?
That's the only point. It's a contrarian view.
He might be right, and he might be wrong, but I'm just saying it's a contrarian view.
Did he take a contrarian view about masks?
Yes. Did he take a contrarian view about vaccinations?
Yes. Did he take a contrarian view about basically everything...
Yes. So how much should you treat, how much credibility should you put in someone who has a track record of being the contrarian?
Low. Really, really, really low.
Which doesn't mean he's wrong.
He could be right about everything.
He might be the one contrarian who just gets everything right.
Could happen. But whenever you see the contrarian who's just sort of automatically against everything that's standard belief, just sort of automatically, that pushes on the credibility.
Now, you've seen me disagree with the standard opinions over and over and over again.
But you've also seen me be right about it more often than chance would suggest.
So you have to look for your special cases.
But I'd say if somebody's just automatically a contrarian, you've got to factor that in.
All right. So what are the economics of vaccination?
Here's what I think. And I'm going to give you a little surprise.
There's a little surprise in here coming.
It'll be a surprise coming from me, that's for sure.
If you took an economics filter on the question of natural immunity versus getting vaccinated, what would it look like?
Well, I would say that the price of the coronavirus versus the price of the vaccination is If you were to look at it that way, I would say that not getting vaccinated has an extra price, which is the long-haul COVID risk, whereas getting vaccinated has a smaller price for that.
Otherwise, it's kind of immaterial.
The only price that you would consider, probably, because the risk of actually getting COVID and dying versus the risk of getting...
The side effect from the vaccination and dying.
They're both so small you could just round them to zero.
But the risk of long-haul COVID is big enough that that's actually part of the calculation.
I saw two doctors today on Twitter doubt long-haul COVID is a big deal.
Now, and one of them said, quite reasonably, it's like we're not hearing much about it lately, are we?
To which I thought, oh my god, that's another dog not barking.
You have to look for what's happening, but also what isn't happening that should be happening.
If any of the estimates of long-haul COVID were accurate, I feel like it's all we'd be talking about.
There's something going on.
Now, if you talk to Dr.
Drew, he'll tell you he had long-haul COVID, and there's not much doubt about it.
And he's a doctor. And, you know, he's steeped in this stuff.
So I don't doubt him.
I think he had long-haul COVID. And I know at least one other person who seemed to have had long-haul COVID, as far as I can tell.
Yes, it's anecdotal, right?
It's anecdotal. So you have to say to yourself, well, that one report of the one person, you never know.
You never know. And I'll give you an example of that.
As many of you know, I was on prednisone for too long last year.
And if you get off of prednisone after you've been on it, it just messes, at least in my case, it just messed with my health for months.
But did I have long-haul prednisone?
I don't know. Maybe it was some other problem.
It just happened to happen. It happened at the same time, so I just assumed I did.
So I'm going to agree with the two doctors who questioned my assumption that long haul is going to be a big deal and big enough to be the major part of your decision.
I don't see any headlines about it today or yesterday or the day before.
Do you? I mean, for a while we were talking about it quite a bit.
And then we just sort of stop talking about it?
When it should be the biggest factor.
In other words, if you were trying to convince somebody to take a vaccination, what would be the most convincing data you could give them?
It would be long-haul COVID. That would be the most persuasive thing.
Because everybody thinks the odds of dying of the COVID... And the odds of getting the vaccination side effect are both really, really small.
One is even smaller than the other, but they're both so small you just discount them both.
But long-haul COVID? If that shit's real, that's your biggest decision point.
In my opinion, that would be your biggest decision point.
And we just stopped talking about it?
I think the two doctors who called me out on that just totally got me.
I don't usually...
Well, actually, let me take this as a learning point here.
The learning is this.
I've told you that I uniquely, because of the way I've positioned this podcast, that I uniquely can say I was wrong.
Because I don't have the incentive to say I was right once the data suggests that maybe I wasn't.
My incentive is to tell you I was wrong because the nature of this live stream is showing people's blind spots and psychological mistakes.
So if I make a big psychological mistake...
In analyzing something or have a big blind spot and then I find out about it.
That's exciting to me.
And I would want to tell you that.
I would want to say, man, I was wrong about this.
And it's starting to shape up like this might be one of those cases.
Because I made most of my decision on that long-haul thing.
And now I think it's reasonable to be quite skeptical about it.
Because we're not hearing more about it.
It's the dog not barking as much as it should.
Scott, how is your prion disease coming?
Scott, one minute ago, don't believe quacks.
Scott, now, believe those quacks.
Did I say anything like that?
Did I say anything like that?
No, I didn't. All right, uh...
Long haul is similar to the sonic weapon.
It might be. Yeah, that would be the theory.
The theory would be that it's mass hysteria, along with confirmation bias, along with coincidence, etc.
It seems to me that if COVID kicks the shit out of you for a month, that your health isn't going to be that good for the next three months.
Am I wrong about that? If you get something that just kicks the shit out of you, it doesn't matter what it is.
It could be COVID or something else.
Don't you have three months of bad health after that?
Because it just takes a while to get back.
So, I don't know, maybe it's just that.
Let's see.
Towards the end, we had several people with the exact same symptoms.
Yeah.
So let's put that out there as some skepticism that is earned.
And that is what I'd like to say today.
Now let me do a temperature check.
So I just talked about vaccinations again, and you hate that.
You've told me loud and clear you're sick of it.
Was this discussion, especially if I put it at the end...
Somebody says, yes, I hate it.
Well, I'll put it at the end, and then I'll flag it so you can know to go do something else.
And I don't mind that you do, by the way.
If anybody says, hey, that content is not for me, well, that's certainly subjective, and I respect that completely.
And I also respect that you told me.
I don't know if I've told you this before, but I have an attitude about criticism.
And it goes like this.
If it's just a troll, then, you know, I like to use them as entertainment and mock them online.
But if somebody has a criticism that actually hits home, and I feel like, oh, well, that's not my opinion, but there sure are a lot of people who have that opinion, so I'm going to take it seriously.
To me, I hear this sound, cha-ching, cha-ching, cha-ching.
When people brutally criticize me, if they're right, right?
Sometimes I'll say, yeah, you got a point.
And this is one of those.
You're definitely right that I talk too much about, you know, masks and vaccines.
And I told you why, because there's not much else going on.
But that's not really, doesn't help you, right?
That's my problem. That's not your problem.
$25 from Chad.
Chad! Did I make a credible and persuasive argument?
Did your fact-checkers find fault with my claims or questions?
Chad, for $25, I don't know what your exact question is.
Did I make a credible and persuasive argument?
Tell me the exact persuasive argument you're talking about.
The fear factor seems inflamed.
And...
Oh, Glenn Beck is funding Afghan extractions.
I saw something about him trending, so that would make sense.
Scott is doing mental gymnastics because he's jabbed.
Well, what would that be?
What mental gymnastics would I do?
I just told you that the biggest variable that I considered, I now doubt to be even true.
If I had confirmation bias, it would look the opposite of that.
So confirmation bias would be me saying, yeah, yeah, all those studies about long-haul COVID, totally true.
I believe them.
That's what it would look like if I were rationalizing.
But I just did the opposite.
I got the shot and then told you that my biggest variable for my reason, forgetting it, could be very flawed, like completely fake news.
Now, do you not hear me say that there's really good evidence that my biggest decision variable wasn't even true?
Chad says, about no wide-scale serology being done, no acknowledgement of recovered included.
Yes, I think, Chad, I think other people agree with that as well.
You're definitely overpaying to make these comments, but I agree with you.
That we should have continuous widespread serology to find out how many people have already been infected.
And we should... As far as I can tell, it doesn't make sense to give vaccinations to people who have been infected.
But, you know, unless they have some immunity problem.
But I'm no expert, so I'm not going to...
I don't think I would be inclined to override the experts on that.
But I would certainly want people to have an option...
It's one thing to say that you should or should not get the vaccine if you're already immune.
That part I can't speak to.
That's science beyond me.
Chad just tipped me $5 just to say thank you for reading his comment for $25.
Chad, you're overpaying.
All right, but he's entertaining.
All right. Yeah, Chad's getting his money's worth, I guess.
All right. He has good points.
Yeah, I agree. Do vaccinated people get long-haul?
That, I believe, has not been studied.
But if you do believe that vaccinated people get far less symptoms in general, it seems reasonable.
I mean, I would be amazed...
If long-haul COVID actually exists, I would be amazed if vaccinations don't substantially reduce the risk of it.
But, you know, we could be surprised.
Our common sense only goes so far in this kind of domain.
You have to be kind of careful about whether your common sense is really sensible.
Somebody says long-haul seems to be something made up to scare.
Well, I can tell you that the people who think they had it didn't make it up.
I mean, it could be a coincidence, but a lot of real people think they had it.
Why do our experts push vaccines but not diet and exercise?
Well, you know, there are plenty of experts you see saying, hey, do more diet and exercise.
But... I don't think people can do that as quickly as they need to.
It's not the quick solution.
But yeah, I feel like we should be at least persuading on that.
All right, that's all I've got for now.
And I am going to go do something else.
And as usual, I enjoy our time here today.
I hope you're using it to exercise or take a walk, which is exercise.
Or I hope you're using these podcasts to get something done while you're listening.
