The NYTimes should not cover Violet Affleck's Comments

Children of famous people should be ignored/ judged on their own merits; But if we must assess the accuracy of the comments...

If an 18 year old testifies in front of a dull, Los Angeles county board that would not be news. It would be ignored. If the 18 year old is the daughter of Ben Affleck and Jennifer Garner apparently the NYTimes thinks it is worth a story.

First, it is inappropriate to place greater weight on a daughter of a celebrity than any other 18 year old. It is an intrusion of her privacy— she didn’t ask for famous parents. She is allowed to say incorrect things like any 18 year old, and that should be lost to the sands of time.

Yet, the New York Times used Violet Affleck’s comments to further their own agenda. The article specifically says this

This statement is false. Wearing a respirator when you go into a room filled with aerosolized coronavirus from a coughing patient for 15 minutes to round on them will almost surely protect against getting the virus, but that is not the subject of the article. Telling people that if they wear masks in 2024, 2025, and beyond (as much as humanly possible) that they will have fewer lifetime respiratory infections has not been proven and is almost certainly false.

That is what Violet Affleck is talking about. That is false.

No one can wear masks for years on end with the discipline to avoid the inevitable. The Cochrane review of community masking is negative. The New York times is spreading misinformation with this statement.

Since, the New York Times deems Violet Affleck’s outlier views on masking (probably because they are matched by their own irrational reporters) as newsworthy, let me provide a point by point rebuttal. The full 1 min video is here.

Her first point, she states she had symptoms after a viral illness in 2019 and “I saw firsthand medicine does not have the answer to the consequences of minor viruses.”

One unstated possibility is that feels of anxiety, brain fog, weakness, fatigue or whatever else people attribute to a "‘prior minor virus’ are possibly entirely unrelated. In several long covid studies, pre-existing anxiety disorder and depression predicted long symptoms better than serologic evidence that you had been infected with covid-19. Medicine might not have answers that she wants to hear, rather than not having answers.

Her second point: 1 in 10 infections lead to long covid, which is a devastating neurological & cv illness that can take away people’s ability to work, move, see or even think.

This is incorrect. 1 in 10 covid ‘survivors’ globally do not suffer from a post viral syndrome that has taken away their ability to work, move, see or think. In fact, there is little credible evidence that aside from anomia— loss of smell— that covid is any different than any other respiratory virus, adjusted for how sick you got. Most people globally have had COVID, and their brains are working just as well/ poorly as they did before.

Her third point: COVID19 hits communities of color, disabled people, trans people the hardest

While the initial waves of covid 19 hit communities of color the hardest, I am not aware of data that at this moment (2024) any of these groups have more COVID19 morbidity or mortality than any other group. Largely covid19 behaves like the a common cold/ flu at this point. Hospitals are not inundated with trans people who have COVID19 for instance.

To confront the long covid crisis, she demands…

There is no evidence that any of these interventions will change the number of times people get COVID19 between 2024 and 2070 (which will be everyone btw, repeatedly). Air filtration specifically failed in a quasi-experimental study in German kindergartens. Providing masks for years on end has no data, and will ensnare sea life as it inevitably is partly thrown in oceans. UV-C light may have negative consequences for indoor air quality and no evidence of benefit.

Testing has no relevance in 2024 and most of Europe has abandoned it. I explain in my video. Mask mandates in county medical facilities have no evidence to support them. There is no treatment that has evidence for people in 2024— paxlovid failed in EPIC SR and Panoramic will report soon.

Overall, the New York Times should give Violet Affleck the gift of ignoring her. That is what we owe all 18 year olds. If however, they wish to use her in a piece with false statements on the effect of masking, then they should provide accurate commentary.

Her entire statement is incorrect. It reflects a certain view of COVID19 that is popular among persons with extreme left political views. It is not surprising to me that she holds these incorrect and unhelpful views given that she is a young person in an extreme liberal enclave. Unfortunately, I don’t think it is good for young people’s mental health to even think twice about COVID19.

I wish Violet Affleck the best. She is undoubtedly a smart person whose thinking will grow and evolve in years to come. When I was 18, I believed a lot of things that were wrong. Thankfully, no one wrote a NYTimes column about it. The Times should be ashamed of their celebrity child exploitation just to further their irrational mask agenda.

I will have a new paper about the NYTimes soon. :)