Excellent observation regarding conflation versus reality. Thank you for your contributions to the COVID debate.
I remember once having a discussion with an Australian who told me, breathlessly, how bad gun violence was 'at home' and how something must be done about it. That struck me as odd given the country had confiscated guns in the 1990s, but I listened patiently. From his animated state and word choice, one might conclude uncountable masses were being gunned down in Australia on a daily basis. Frightening stuff.
But it just wasn't true. Australia experiences a whopping 200 or so gun deaths per year nation-wide, which, by unfortunate comparison, is one of the lowest per capita gun death rates in the entire world. Regardless, nothing would dislodge him from his belief gun violence was one of Australia's greatest problems.
The conversation perplexed me. I wondered what could cause such a skewed view of reality? After I dug a little deeper, it turned out his brother was an ER doctor in a major Australian city. He was, therefore, one of the exceptional few people who happened to be in the one place in all of Australia to see exceedingly rare gun shot wounds with any frequency. His uniquely jaded perspective seeped into his family who ended up holding unnecessarily apocalyptic views.
Exactly. This is why we can't let a small group of people decide on far-reaching policies. Think about it this way as well: If politicians had to live where the "average" folks do, they'd (presumably) make better decisions regarding public policy.
Case in point: I have a hunch that people calling for massive restrictions were hardly impacted financially by those measures. If they were put out of a job or were forced to close their business indefinitely, would they have called for endless closures or restrictions? I doubt it. In my personal circle, there was a definite bias toward favoring lockdowns. Not without coincidence, they all had white-collar jobs they could do remotely without fear of losing their job OR they ran "essential businesses" that were allowed to operate without restrictions.
Another eloquent assessment VP! Or as my Ma would say using the well used idiom “You can’t always see the forest for the trees”. We all need to look really hard for the big picture as you so clearly point out- experiential bias is human nature.
Enjoyed reading this but you did make yourself sound like some old sage by using the verbiage, "Years ago when I worked in a pheo clinic....". Sure, it is technically correct as long as it was more than one year ago, but c'mon ! You are fit, young, and a healthy player in the game; you don't need to "buff" your presentation of self one bit. Speaking of "buffing" . . . I did like that comment you dropped about us not being employed to "buff" billing schemes, etc. Sadly true.
It would be worthwhile, speaking of "YouTube" shows et alia. . . .to see you appear on Vince Racaniello's TWIV show on YouTube. He is a very respected virologist at Columbia Univ. and I think the two of you could have a first-rate conversation about the pandemic etc.
Does anyone else think the whole "pandemic of the unvaccinated" narrative is a smokescreen for all the other underlying issues?
structural/systemic issues in healthcare (e.g., underfunding of public health care; forcing staff with natural immunity to get the vaccine or be terminated, etc.)
high proportion of Americans have one or more health issues
I live in SF, listen to all your videos and podcasts, and am a huge fan of your work (as well as ZDogg's & Peter Attia's).
I listened to your latest school masking video today, and wanted you to also address the direction SF is going with mask mandates overall.
I read they will likely roll back the mandate on Feb 15, but you will have to be boosted to qualify. I'm in my late 40's, already double-vaxxed, no comorbidities, in otherwise excellent health, and at this stage would much rather acquire natural immunity if I happen to catch Omicron or whatever the next variant is.
I know the absolute risk of severe illness/issues for me is SUPER low, and that a booster would only offer ~10 weeks of increased antibody protection at best. But my family wants me to get boosted "because you need to do the normal stuff everyone does, the city requires it, we need to reopen, so stop pushing back".
I don't actually care about the booster, I don't think it will harm me, and I am not antivax in any way. But by the same token, I watch everyone walking down the SF city streets wearing 2 or 3 masks outside in the sun and wind, and it drives me crazy! I don't want to get a shot I don't need (or is pointless). I also don't want to buy into the constant need for boosters, or to fall into the bullshit trap of the unsound policies that SF seems to be following.
Can you give me (and people like me) a cogent anchor argument against the booster mandate to be "allowed" to go maskless?
Its remarkable that you can have a 30k ft view despite being a frontline doctor. Give Joe Rogan a call, you'd be a superb guest
(Another) measured, honest, specific outlay of first hand experience and reason. Thank you for your work and commentary on behalf of the silenced.
Excellent observation regarding conflation versus reality. Thank you for your contributions to the COVID debate.
I remember once having a discussion with an Australian who told me, breathlessly, how bad gun violence was 'at home' and how something must be done about it. That struck me as odd given the country had confiscated guns in the 1990s, but I listened patiently. From his animated state and word choice, one might conclude uncountable masses were being gunned down in Australia on a daily basis. Frightening stuff.
But it just wasn't true. Australia experiences a whopping 200 or so gun deaths per year nation-wide, which, by unfortunate comparison, is one of the lowest per capita gun death rates in the entire world. Regardless, nothing would dislodge him from his belief gun violence was one of Australia's greatest problems.
The conversation perplexed me. I wondered what could cause such a skewed view of reality? After I dug a little deeper, it turned out his brother was an ER doctor in a major Australian city. He was, therefore, one of the exceptional few people who happened to be in the one place in all of Australia to see exceedingly rare gun shot wounds with any frequency. His uniquely jaded perspective seeped into his family who ended up holding unnecessarily apocalyptic views.
Exactly. This is why we can't let a small group of people decide on far-reaching policies. Think about it this way as well: If politicians had to live where the "average" folks do, they'd (presumably) make better decisions regarding public policy.
Case in point: I have a hunch that people calling for massive restrictions were hardly impacted financially by those measures. If they were put out of a job or were forced to close their business indefinitely, would they have called for endless closures or restrictions? I doubt it. In my personal circle, there was a definite bias toward favoring lockdowns. Not without coincidence, they all had white-collar jobs they could do remotely without fear of losing their job OR they ran "essential businesses" that were allowed to operate without restrictions.
What makes this dangerous is that these are the voices "of experience" that the media focuses on almost exclusively
Well said... Thanks' again for bringing sanity back into the practice of medicine.
Another eloquent assessment VP! Or as my Ma would say using the well used idiom “You can’t always see the forest for the trees”. We all need to look really hard for the big picture as you so clearly point out- experiential bias is human nature.
Enjoyed reading this but you did make yourself sound like some old sage by using the verbiage, "Years ago when I worked in a pheo clinic....". Sure, it is technically correct as long as it was more than one year ago, but c'mon ! You are fit, young, and a healthy player in the game; you don't need to "buff" your presentation of self one bit. Speaking of "buffing" . . . I did like that comment you dropped about us not being employed to "buff" billing schemes, etc. Sadly true.
VP Is so smart and so prolific in his output, it probably seemed like a lifetime ago for him :)
Please dont ever stop writing. This is a lifeline to me. Thank you.
It would be worthwhile, speaking of "YouTube" shows et alia. . . .to see you appear on Vince Racaniello's TWIV show on YouTube. He is a very respected virologist at Columbia Univ. and I think the two of you could have a first-rate conversation about the pandemic etc.
Does anyone else think the whole "pandemic of the unvaccinated" narrative is a smokescreen for all the other underlying issues?
structural/systemic issues in healthcare (e.g., underfunding of public health care; forcing staff with natural immunity to get the vaccine or be terminated, etc.)
high proportion of Americans have one or more health issues
(I'm sure there are others...)
Well said.
The title of the article could be something like "Bias of experience aka saliency".
VP,
I live in SF, listen to all your videos and podcasts, and am a huge fan of your work (as well as ZDogg's & Peter Attia's).
I listened to your latest school masking video today, and wanted you to also address the direction SF is going with mask mandates overall.
I read they will likely roll back the mandate on Feb 15, but you will have to be boosted to qualify. I'm in my late 40's, already double-vaxxed, no comorbidities, in otherwise excellent health, and at this stage would much rather acquire natural immunity if I happen to catch Omicron or whatever the next variant is.
I know the absolute risk of severe illness/issues for me is SUPER low, and that a booster would only offer ~10 weeks of increased antibody protection at best. But my family wants me to get boosted "because you need to do the normal stuff everyone does, the city requires it, we need to reopen, so stop pushing back".
I don't actually care about the booster, I don't think it will harm me, and I am not antivax in any way. But by the same token, I watch everyone walking down the SF city streets wearing 2 or 3 masks outside in the sun and wind, and it drives me crazy! I don't want to get a shot I don't need (or is pointless). I also don't want to buy into the constant need for boosters, or to fall into the bullshit trap of the unsound policies that SF seems to be following.
Can you give me (and people like me) a cogent anchor argument against the booster mandate to be "allowed" to go maskless?
"Skin in the game" is the closest thing to a policy panacea there is