That being said, CWU looks to have screwed this up royally, and having a vote on international affiliation surrounded by a bunch of pomp would have been a great way to generate press.

And, similarly, different countries have had wildly different rates of success at dealing with covid, but history will not remember Ardern or Phúc as a hero for the lives they saved, and it won't remember any national leader who didn't manage to do the same (Trump, Biden, or especially Löfven and Tegnell) as villains. It will remember Trump and Biden as leaders of a superpower, and it will remember, falsely, that covid surprised everyone and everyone dealt with it as best they could. Again, the incentives are bad. Why bother to try your hardest if people don't mind if you fail and you get some temporary popularity from saying "Everything is fine, go party"?

People respond to incentives, and this applies to everything from national politics to, oh, workplace politics. Remember that Twitter banned Trump because enough of their employees finally had enough (https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/01/16/how-twi...) more than any policy reason per se. Companies listen to unions when having the unionized employees present enough of an incentive for management to listen. Companies listen to non-unionized employees under the same conditions, too. A union just makes things more formal.

The fact that Biden did not feel compelled to suspend all military activity and lock down the country immediately upon assuming the presidency is certainly a failure of our society. If you want to say it's a personal failure, I (a Biden voter) will gladly join you. Let's just make sure we keep saying it for every president.

Citation?

> In fact, my hyperacctive chief of staff [Rahm Emanuel] - who'd spent enough time in Washington to know that his new, liberal president couldn't afford to look soft on terrorism - was obsessed with the list, cornering those responsible for our targeting operations to find out what was taking so long when it came to locating number 10 or 14.

> I took no joy in any of this. It didn't make me feel powerful. I'd entered politics to help kids get a better education, to help families get healthcare, to help poor countries grow more food - it was that kind of power that I measured myself against.

https://covid19.healthdata.org/sweden?view=total-deaths&tab=...

I’m not sure why Tegnell gets so much hate for doing a softer economic shutdown, and getting similar results as more draconian approaches. As a bonus, projections say they’ll hit herd immunity sooner than many countries (assuming vaccine rollouts).

I guess, as you point out, history is written by the victorious, and Sweden’s minority approach will always be backed by a minority political voice.

So for Sweden to be doing about as well (in deaths per capita) as the rest of Europe is a sign of failure on Sweden's part. To be doing better than the US is no comparison at all.

If you compare it to other Nordic countries (which are more comparable in terms of population density), it's doing much worse: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1113834/cumulative-coron...

Anyway, isn't this all my point? Sweden gets an excuse because other countries aren't doing well. Nobody is expecting anyone to do well. Why bother trying to save lives if nobody else is trying either? Why bother trying to do as well as Vietnam (which literally shares a land border with China!) if nobody is going to hold you to that standard?

But that doesn't seem to match what Our World in Data is actually showing right now: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/covid-stringency-index?ta...

Sweden's stringency peaked around 65 and has never dropped below 55. Since early June, Norway has mostly been above 40.

So I'm curious what happened - did Our World in Data change their methodology? Did they add new data?

They also mention that 1) they are aggregating all policies, so this isn't a measure of "lockdown," 2) they are measuring the stringency of policies, not their effect (e.g., "Hard curfew at 10pm unless you're going to/from work" is pretty stringent, but probably less effective than "No indoor dining"), and 3) that they measure the maximum stringency of any subnational unit. I'd be very curious to see how exactly they compute their numbers. For instance, if there's a weak national policy on things like travel and quarantine that causes municipalities to do whatever smaller things are in their power like restricting visits to nursing homes, does that add up to a "more stringent" response in their measurement?

Or put more simply - apart from numbers on this chart, what is it that backs up the claim that Sweden had a more aggressive response than Norway and Finland did?

(Furthermore, FEE is a hard-capitalist advocacy organization and is interested in pushing a narrative around reduced government policies around everything, so their interpretations should be taken with a grain of salt, which is why I'm trying to find the original data. The conclusion of their article offers no policy position other than admitting we are powerless to control the course of virulent disease, which seems ... rather contradicted by history.)

100% of the Capitol Protests are known to break into the capitol.

Second, there wasn't just one Capitol Protest. So no, you're wrong.

You’re also wrong on that 100%.

How would that even be possible? I want to know the logistics of your theory of the 10s of thousands of people who were in DC that day, all being funneled into a single building

Youtube will filter on some blackbox intersection of heightened speech that has the potential to rile people up on the one hand, and a balance of cases such that Republicans cannot grandstand in Congressional testimony that Google is targeting the right.

So Jimmy Dore-- who generally yells, is unpleasant, and calls people names as he spews truths (mixed with the occasional naive opinion)-- might hit the filter. Or some boring socialist collective that nobody's heard of, like that case that Dorsey clearly used just so he'd have the name of a left-leaning organization that Twitter had banned.

Another way to say this: I do believe in "more speech" as a way to fight "bad speech," but if "more speech" does not include the freedom to read, understand, modify, and publish modifications of the recommendation algos that prime over a hundred million people then it's a dangerously constrained and misleading debate.

Furthermore-- if we depend on the "temporary" solution of trusting the companies to do cherry-picked bans to appease hundreds of millions of users, the companies will use all their data, money, and connections to paint that as a long term solution and leverage it to their bigger fight against monopoly regulation.