The way COVID discussion works now, when someone says "I think X and Y",

people no longer know how to say:

"X is a good idea, but I am not convinced on Y. Here are some ways I think we could do X."

Because it is all out war. No comfort can be given to the enemy.
1/?

Also: your "enemy" is anyone who might share any views in common with someone you disagree with; moreover, this relation is applied transitively: X shares views with Y who shares views with Z who is my enemy. Yikes! We all have a lot of enemies. 2/?

And in sum these enemies have a lot of viewpoints! Now we have to be skeptical of all of them (or at least not vocally support them).

I think this is the way to explain the lack of advocacy for school openings from people with strong opinions on other policies. Similarly, 3/?

the lack of consistent advocacy for resources and policies to protect the most vulnerable populations, particularly those in nursing homes or who depend on caregivers, is difficult to understand without being given the context that ... 4/ https://twitter.com/WesPegden/status/1315046422417469442

this is sometimes the X paired with a Y (some degree of "reduce restrictions on younger people") which is seen as an "enemy" position.

If we can learn to think less strategically about scientific truth and effective policy-making, we may manage to get closer to these goals.
5/5