I really despise the phony "follow the science" finger-wagging by people like Naomi Wolf who choose to flatten anything that's convenient from "less likely" to "impossible".

This is the same thinking that gave us "kids are immune" out of "older people are more susceptible".

All along evidence has been that the bulk of transmissions comes from people who don't know that they have it (for obvious logistical reasons!) but the risk of asymptomatic transmission is lower. These two facts don't contradict each other!

The article of faith that says "asymptomatic transmission isn't a thing" (direct quote from an anti-masker on video at a grocery store) leads to more people taking more risks, which leads to more transmission.

Like, if you had to choose between a 1 in 10 chance of being electrocuted or a 1 in 100 chance, you'd choose the 1 in 100, but if you KEEP taking that 1 in 100 chance eventually your cumulative odds are worse than 1 in 10, and also... you don't have to choose either one!

And the flaw in this analogy is that it's not just yourself you're risking. Every day on this site there are fresh stories of people who were "naughty" and wound up with a whole family or friend group infected, and who knows how many other people they spread it to outside that.

And also every day on this site there are people going "how are kids spreading a virus they're immune to *thinky emoji*" and "how can you spread a virus without symptoms *thinky emoji*" because people repeat these lies as articles of faith they call "science".

And I know that anecdotes aren't data but we've all heard of asymptomatic transmission happening. Most of us know somebody who caught it that way. We've certainly all seen the stories circulating.

Science can tell us how phenomenally unlucky you have to be to catch an aysmptomatic transmission in a given situation, but... life is an unending series of situations. It's not roll the dice once and move on. The dice never stop rolling themselves.

Thinking that you've read the science and it's told you that indoor dining is safe because of the low odds of asymptomatic transmission is like thinking you're immune to radiation because your body is mostly empty space between atoms so the odds of a given particle strike is low.

And also? Also? Also? As the people who insist we should all be eating in restaurants are clearly aware because they keep referencing it, we live under a coercive economic system where people are definitely coming in to work WITH SYMPTOMS because they'll die otherwise.

Which is why we should be paying people to stay home (and subsidizing businesses such as restaurants to stay in business) instead of opening up for dining. If restaurants are open, sick people are working in them. Full stop, no question. https://twitter.com/AlexandraErin/status/1358475270571851781