rallison

In the US, the pre-exposure course is now often just two doses, although three is possible (and used to be more common). The per-dose price at most pharmacies in the US is $400-500.

You'll generally need either a referral or a travel clinic consultation to get one (unless you work in a job where it's deemed essential to get the rabies pre-exposure course). In more reasonable states, you can do something like the Costco Travel Vaccine consultation service (which runs ~$40) and, if you indicate you are traveling to remote areas in certain countries, get a recommendation for the rabies vaccine course.

In some cases, insurance will cover the rabies pre-exposure course. But that is generally rare.

So, in general, best case if you just want to voluntarily receive the vaccine in the US? Around $800 if you live in a state that is reasonable and use an inexpensive travel consultation service (like Costco's offering). And, if you want the full three dose series? That will generally set you back around $1200 minimum.

So, for a lot of people in the US, the cost will be under the $1500-3000 range that was noted. However, it's still expensive, even in the best case in the US!

Vaccines are for pre exposure.

That is correct for most vaccines. However, it's different for rabies. The vaccine is also effective post exposure (as long as it is given soon enough). Human rabies immune globulin (HRIG) is also part of the post exposure treatment, but the vaccine is critical here too.

Also of note: if one has received a course of rabies vaccinations as part of a pre-exposure treatment (high risk jobs, certain types of travel, etc), then the post exposure treatment consists of only a few extra doses of the vaccine (and not HRIG).

I travel to relatively remote places, and hike in those places, so I decided to pay for a course of the rabies vaccine a few years ago (the three dose course). If I do ever end up with a feral dog bite, for example, that makes treatment much easier - the vaccine is much more available globally than HRIG, and the timeframe is more relaxed if you've had the pre-exposure jabs. Granted, that immunity eventually wanes, so I'll occasionally need a booster to maintain enough protection.

Exactly. CO2 is an imperfect proxy, but it's a pretty decent one. And, even for spaces that have high quality air filtration (e.g. a strong commercial central air system with good HEPA/MERV filters), the CO2 measurement can also tell you if the system is configured with a good recirculated to outdoor air ratio (residential systems usually have no such thing, unfortunately).

But yeah, as you said, the best aspect of a CO2 monitor is that it gives you a useful upper bound for the general respiratory virus risk in a space.

Yep, I also run central air in fan only mode much more often now. Since I'm in coastal California, I don't need to run heating/cooling for much of the year, so previously that meant central air was rarely on.

Now, I'll run it fairly often for the recirculation. And, since my house is old and leaky, aside from evening out levels, it no doubt results in more indoor:outdoor air exchange too. That alone made a massive difference at night, since I will usually have the bedroom door closed.

And, while I haven't switched the range over to induction yet (it's on the list to eventually do), I did get a portable induction burner that I use fairly often instead of the gas range. Induction is pretty amazing, so I look forward to eventually going all the way.

For NDIR sensors, the Aranet4 Home is an often recommended one. I have a couple, and they are great little units. A number of scientists recommended them during the heart of covid as a proxy for covid risk in indoor spaces (obviously, an imperfect proxy, but since there are no cheap, portable devices to measure viral concentrations in the air, you work with what you've got).

Yep. Even if the building as a whole is generally well ventilated, particular spaces in a building can still build up CO2 pretty quickly. It's actually quite dramatic to see the rise in chart form at times.

These sensors are really nice to help validate ventilation anywhere.

There is a phenomenal article in Scientific American talking about the phenylephrine/pseudoephedrine debacle: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-two-pharmacis...

It's sort of a different class of failure than with opioids, but it is a notable area of weakness. Basically, for OTC drugs that were initially approved before 1962, many are still on the market despite sometimes having weak efficacy data. While the FDA has been making some progress in reevaluating these older drugs, we're still far from where we should be.

A few quotes from the conclusion of the article (but the entire piece I linked in SA is worth a read!):

In 2023, 16 external experts on the second Nonprescription Drug Advisory Committee looked at all the evidence compiled by FDA staff, heard manufacturers' arguments in favor of oral phenylephrine's efficacy, and heard from experts like me who argued that oral phenylephrine is ineffective. In the end, they concluded that oral phenylephrine is not GRASE. A final ruling on whether decongestants containing the drug can still be sold will take time. We hope science will prevail.

From this experience we've learned that the monograph process for OTC drugs approved before 1962 needs to be reexamined. Systematic reviews of the available evidence indicate that other nonprescription drugs such as guaifenesin (sold in Mucinex and Robitussin), dextromethorphan (sold in Robitussin DM) and antihistamines marketed for colds (for instance, chlorpheniramine) probably don't help with coughs and colds. They are usually not dangerous, but their effects are likely to be the result of a placebo response; more modern research is needed.

The outcome for oral phenylephrine shows that the FDA needs more funding to look at old drugs. We need public funds to support independent researchers who want to examine these products objectively. The government should be able to spend millions to save consumers billions on ineffective products. Companies that market these products have no incentive to prove they don't work. Nonprescription drugs must be effective, not just safe.

Both what you say and what the article says is right.

To the article's point, in urban areas, increased density often happens even when mass transit isn't expanded (which then often leads to ever worsening traffic). So, for urban areas that are organically becoming denser, mass transit becomes ever more important, which was partially the article's point in the section you quoted.

Also, to generously read the article, it seems to be making two related points, but not actually imposing a "one should follow the other" ordering that you read into it. The full paragraph:

Globally, that is nothing notable—in most urban cores a majority of workers take public transportation for work and daily activities. Increasing the density of jobs, hospitals, restaurants, homes, schools, and more is key to the agglomeration effects that make cities such economic powerhouses, and as density grows mass transit becomes essential since it can far surpass the maximum throughput capacity of even the largest roadways.

It is saying two things: 1) high density is critical to be an economic powerhouse and 2) mass transit becomes even more essential as density increases. That paragraph isn't inherently saying mass transit should follow densification (vs preceding densification). Ideally you build out mass transit in anticipation of densification vs playing catch up.

Anyway, to your point, it's absolutely true that building out mass transit is critical in attracting more high-density development (especially very high-density development), and critical in enabling high density development in places that otherwise might not attract that sort of investment.

Yep, I was going to note this too. Assuming the Mini specs are correct and it actually needs 100W (20V/5A) as a minimum profile, most cheaper power banks won't work with it.

But yeah, options like the Anker 737 24K should work great (which supports 20V/5A and 28V/5A). I happened to pick up a few of the 737s recently, so I'll be curious to try them out with the Mini soon. Just waiting for Starlink to actually add the usb-c to DC barrel adapter to the online shop.

The way to tolerate the adaptation is hot water - spray water as hot as you can stand (without damage) on the affected area and you will get substantial relief for about 12 hours.

Yes. Similar to poison oak (in irritant effect), we've also got poodle-dog bush out in California. It thrives in post-fire environments, and isn't as well-known as poison oak. The reaction to it is often even worse than for poison oak. And so, before I was better versed in the "fun" plants of our local mountains, I had a run in with some poodle plants, and.. that was a rough few weeks.

I tried everything to make it more tolerable, and hot water was by far the best. The effect didn't last forever, but it was remarkable how it a) was actually pleasurable and b) muted the itchiness for a fairly significant amount of time (although still not as long as I would have liked..).

It's probably still best to avoid hot water until you've done a good job of getting the offending substance off (as best as possible). And near scalding water isn't otherwise great for the skin, so it's probably not something one should do all the time.

But wow, it was amazing for poodle-dog bush.

It's definitely got some noise to it. Not super loud, but definitely not quiet.

A few photos from my visit:

Pitch black night, illuminated by the crater: https://imgur.com/a/3sgz6oB

Crater at twilight: https://imgur.com/p7BZfYA

Milky Way at night from near my tent, facing away from the crater, and with the moon rising: https://imgur.com/4mq71D5

I was lucky enough to visit in 2018. It is a truly surreal place. I've been a few places, and Darvaza is still one of the most memorable. Since travel in Turkmenistan is quite restricted, I hired a driver to travel from Ashgabat to Darvaza to Konye-Urgench, with an overnight at the crater (and another overnight in Dashoguz, after visiting Konye-Urgench).

The heat of the crater. The size of it. The light it puts out into an otherwise perfectly dark surrounding. The remoteness. The bareness of it all. To be there as the sun sets, and as the stars come out, and until the crater is the only source of light.. absolutely amazing.

Of course, sometimes the destination is only part of what is memorable. The drive out was an obstacle course of avoiding potholes at high speed. Once there, healthy amounts of vodka were enjoyed with my driver. Hours of talk, despite minimal shared language. And sleeping involved a rather tiny tent (perfectly serviceable for a night of camping).

It's hard to convey how surreal the place is.

Dalessandro's. Granted, it's been a couple of decades since I last visited, but they were (and still seem to be) an institution.

This was publicly admitted to by Toronto Public Health itself, as early as June 2020:

"Individuals who have died with COVID-19, but not as a result of COVID-19 are included in the case counts for COVID-19 deaths in Toronto."

I don't know the particulars of Toronto Public Health, but this wasn't uncommon for immediate reporting vs death record reporting. Since, in many places, comprehensive death records can take a few weeks (or longer!) to go through the pipeline before ending up on finalized reports, it's useful to have more immediate death reporting during a pandemic. Such immediate reporting is necessarily going to be a little rougher around the edges, but it generally gets you pretty close to the real numbers.

But, it's absolutely true that this immediate reporting isn't perfect. Still, it's very useful, and usually close enough for near term needs. Taking the Toronto example, the main tradeoffs are that a) you include some deaths where Covid wasn't actually a contributing factor and b) you miss deaths where the person was never tested for Covid (especially applicable to deaths that occurred at home). Often, these two somewhat balanced themselves out, but only in places with fairly high levels of testing.

Then, in the medium to longer term, you can switch over to relying on more comprehensive death records. This helps to filter out non-causal scenarios (e.g. the "hit by bus, tested positive for covid, died" scenarios). It also helps add in cases that were initially missed (had symptoms of covid, never went to hospital, died at home, etc).

Finally, to validate numbers, we can also look at excess deaths. This helps ensure that we're not wildly off base with reported numbers. Excess deaths isn't a perfect metric to compare to, but it's still a great benchmark.

To wrap up this comment, let me respond to this:

We have to be extremely cautious when considering any of the death-related statistics for this particular situation.

I fully agree, but.. I would suggest that your comment missed a lot of the accuracy refinement that happens in practice over the medium to longer term. Additionally, it's very much worth pointing out that, with additional analysis (from death records, from excess death analysis, etc), we've found that very few places were likely over-reporting Covid deaths, but that a significant number of places were under-reporting Covid deaths. So, yes, take shorter term Covid death stats with a grain of salt, but know that we've generally ended up reporting too low, not too high.

As mentioned elsewhere, the laptop story was not restricted for being misinformation, it was restricted due to Twitter's policy (at the time) on hacked materials.

Some background: https://www.techdirt.com/2020/10/16/twitter-fixes-bad-policy...

It was a policy that had previously received criticism, and had already come into play in a significant story: https://www.techdirt.com/2020/09/16/content-moderation-case-...

And, following the laptop story, Twitter changed their policy on hacked materials.

And that's the thing with content moderation - specific examples of content moderation often themselves go viral, but often also shed the actual context of said moderation (as was the case in your example), and thus feed into existing narratives around bias in content moderation. With full context, one might still disagree with the policy, but the narrative falls away.

In locations with the food court outside, they generally scan it when ordering at the food court window or at the kiosks.

You are ignoring the comorbidities aspect GP was talking about.

Even if we split this into two groups - those under 18 with comorbidities, and those without, there's still good evidence for both groups to get vaccinated. I don't know if there is a good breakdown nationally, but even just looking at NYC, the evidence becomes compelling. NYC has a dataset that breaks down deaths by age group and by comorbidity status:

https://github.com/nychealth/coronavirus-data/blob/master/to...

For under 18, as of 9/11/21 (yes, I wish they'd push a more recent update), 29 total deaths, 19 with an underlying condition, 5 without, and 5 pending/unknown. Underlying conditions by NYC's metric is pretty broad:

Underlying conditions currently include diabetes, lung disease, cancer, immunodeficiency, heart disease, hypertension, asthma, kidney disease, gastrointestinal/liver disease, and obesity.

So, in New York City alone, and as of nearly a year ago, you had 5 kids under the age of 18 with no known underlying conditions who died of Covid. Just an educated guess, but it's quite plausible we've had 100+ deaths nationally in the under 18 with no underlying conditions group. That alone is pretty strong evidence in favor of vaccinating everyone in the under 18 group, and not just those with underlying conditions.

All that said, the primary reason for vaccine mandates for schools is related to transmission. And here too, there is good efficacy.

Ultimately, the harm/benefit calculation is quite clear in favor of vaccinations for kids, outside of rare scenarios. The main debate is whether the risk of backlash from schools mandating vaccination is worth the clear benefits of increasing vaccine uptake in these age groups.

Cloth masks are security theater. Nobody’s disputing properly worn N95s. GP is talking about what has been pushed for two years and the credibility that has been destroyed. They’re not talking about recent shifts.

Cloth masks reduce transmission. They're not great at doing so, but they do still have an effect. Surgical masks are better. KN94/N95/etc are much better. Yes, we should have long ago moved to surgical as the minimum viable mask in mask mandate scenarios. It's unfortunate that we didn't. But even still, cloth masks do still help a small amount.

One of the best-known mask studies is the Bangladesh mask study, which is as close as exists for a masking efficacy RCT.

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abi9069

First, note that this wasn't studying in the context of a mask mandate - in the sample villages, masks were distributed, and people were recommended to wear masks when around others. In practice, this brought mask usage up to 42% on average, as compared to 13% in control villages. So, even in this context where the majority of people weren't wearing masks, they still saw an effect in the cloth mask villages. They also saw a larger effect in the surgical mask villages.

Thread from one of the study authors: https://twitter.com/Jabaluck/status/1433036923610742789

It is worth noting that the effect was smaller and the sample size for cloth mask villages smaller than for surgical mask villages, so the confidence is lower than for surgical masks. But with that said, note this from the study author:

We find a clear and large statistically significant impact on COVID symptoms. We find an imprecise zero for serologically confirmed COVID. The most likely interpretation is that cloth masks reduce COVID, but not as much as surgical masks.

https://twitter.com/Jabaluck/status/1433227618497728514

Now, was the effect relatively small for cloth masks? Yes. But given the results here, plus results we have from mechanistic studies of cloth masks, a reasonable conclusion is something along the lines of: cloth masks have some effect on transmission, albeit a relatively small effect. Other types of masks are better.

Additionally, if the assumption of "the types of masks worn by the vast majority of school children" is correct, then studies showing that mask mandates in schools had an effect on transmission would suggest some efficacy for cloth masks.

Two relatively large-scale observational studies: https://twitter.com/roby_bhatt/status/1502244997764157442

That said, I'm endlessly disappointed that there wasn't a consistent, strong push for people to upgrade from cloth to surgical once supplies of surgical masks were no longer an issue. And mask sizing was also an issue - there are so many masks out there that are oversized for kids. Imagine if the federal government had coordinated with schools across the country to ensure supplies of kid sized surgical masks at every school. Alas.

3 million people is ~5% of the entire UK population. Even using the high end of COVID IFR estimates (2%, from northern Italy), it would have required everyone in the UK to get COVID twice with no natural immunity to reach that kind of death toll.

Looks like the article on the-scientist summarized the relevant study incorrectly. The study itself posits 3.1 million deaths averted across 11 countries in Europe, not just in the UK:

We find that across 11 countries 3.1 (2.8–3.5) million deaths have been averted owing to interventions since the beginning of the epidemic.

A bit concerning though that the second paragraph in the the-scientist article made such a significant mistake in summarizing the research.

There is still a lack of common sense. Anyone who looked at the age distribution of covid patients and deaths knows that there are hardly any children getting sick from covid, and everything I heard points to the few ones having almost always other severe diseases (cancer, etc), so covid being the drop in the bucket. They are still pushing for vaccine mandates for children that will not change anything materially.

I don't really understand this thinking. Yes, covid deaths in the under 18 group are a drop in the bucket compared to covid deaths in other age groups. But that's only because covid had such a massive toll in other age groups. We're still talking over a thousand deaths in the under 18 group, tens of thousands of hospitalizations, and many many more who had symptoms that persisted beyond a month. Even knocking those numbers down by half would be significant.

And, re masks, the general scientific consensus at this point is that yes, masks do have an effect on transmission rates, and the quality of the mask matters in how much of an impact is seen. Mandates also have an impact, although it depends on how much the mandate actually impacts behavior. It's not security theater, but some mandates will be much more effective than others.

And I'll note - US public health authorities did, in my view, lose some credibility on masks. But for different reasons than you mention. Statements early on saying masks weren't necessary for general use I think did a lot of harm. Personally, I can understand - evidence was weaker for general population usage at the time, and there was a dire shortage of even surgical masks for healthcare workers. So, I get that they wanted to avoid even more shortages for healthcare workers, but this original messaging really hurt later on when masks were being recommended. My second complaint is that, once the supply was there for surgical masks (and then for N95 and equivalents), public health authorities were really slow to push better masks, and only meekly did so.

Credibility takes decades to build and minutes to lose. Look at Ukraine. No one believed the US intelligence when they claimed Putin was serious about invading, because of the bullshit they pushed 20 years earlier with Iraq.

Lots of us who were entirely skeptical of US intelligence re Iraq found US intelligence re Putin's intent to invade entirely believable and plausible.

Agreed. I have a number of criticisms of the CDC, FDA and public institutions with respect to Covid, but this piece is highly biased and is misleading/wrong/cherry-picking with respect to the science. It seems the author has a general position of "interventions bad" and then works back from that to discredit anything related to interventions.

For example, let's take just this single paragraph:

As of February, 75% of children in the U.S. already had natural immunity from prior infection. It could easily be over 90% of children today given how ubiquitous Omicron has been since then. The CDC’s own research shows that natural immunity is better than vaccinated immunity and a recent New England Journal of Medicine study from Israel has questioned the benefits of vaccinating previously infected persons. Many countries have long credited natural immunity towards vaccine mandates. But not the U.S.

First, there's this statement: "The CDC’s own research shows that natural immunity is better than vaccinated immunity." The linked study, reading through it, makes a different claim. The study showed that completion of a course of primary vaccination PLUS having had a prior Covid infection led to reduced severe outcomes more than just having had the primary course of vaccination alone. And even there, the CI (0.27 (0.09–0.84)) on the first scenario overlaps with the CI for vaccination alone.

It would be notable if this showed that prior infection alone conferred better protection than vaccination alone, which is the author's claim. This study doesn't show that. It shows infection plus vaccination confers better immunity than vaccination alone. And, well, that's what basically any expert would have predicted as the most likely result.

The second linked study (the NEJM one) gets closer, but largely only looks at infection rates (it does have some commentary on severe covid-19 rates, but this isn't adjusted for any confounders). It's most useful as a study on how immunity against infection wanes since the last immunity-conferring event, although it allows for some cross comparisons, such as comparing infection rates for natural immunity alone vs 2 doses alone vs 3 doses alone vs hybrid immunity. Possibly the biggest caveat is that the rate of testing for the different cohorts wasn't adjusted for:

Although differences in testing rates among cohorts and among subcohorts within specified cohorts were observed, their overall magnitude was relatively small. The rate of PCR testing was typically lower in the recovered, unvaccinated cohort than in the other cohorts, so the level of protection in this cohort as compared with that in the two-dose cohort may have been overestimated.

So, it makes it harder to directly compare across cohorts. But, even assuming the cross comparison does hold up if you did correct for testing rates, there are a couple of things to call out in this study. First, three doses had significantly better numbers than two doses. However, the three-dose cohort was new at the time of this study, so this cohort only has results for the very first time slice, and that time slice doesn't exist for the natural immunity scenario, so we can't directly compare them. Second, this study also seems to show, with respect to immunity, that infection followed by vaccination is better than infection alone.

Third, and most notably given this piece's commentary, is vaccination after natural immunity has waned. The study linked explicitly ends with this sentence in its discussion section:

We found that protection against the delta variant waned over time in both vaccinated and previously infected persons and that an additional vaccine dose restored protection.

Let's look back at the wording in the original piece:

a recent New England Journal of Medicine study from Israel has questioned the benefits of vaccinating previously infected persons

It is telling that a study that ends by recommending a dose of vaccine to restore waning natural immunity is used to "question the benefits of vaccinating previously infected persons" in this piece.

Now, there's a reasonable debate around how previous infection should be counted w.r.t. to immune status. E.g. one can make a reasonable case that documented prior infection plus a single dose should count as "fully vaccinated." Or, that hitting a minimum threshold on an antibody test should count as documentation of immunity. Etc. But, that's not what the piece is arguing - it misrepresents both of the studies linked in this one paragraph, and then puts forward a conclusion that is unsupported by either study. If anything, both studies provide evidence that is quite supportive of getting vaccinated at some point after infection, yet you'd never know that if you just read the paragraph from this piece.

Pieces like this one are frustrating because they have the veneer of legitimacy - written by someone in the field, linking studies, etc. It takes a lot of time to really dive in to understand whether or not the claims being made are supported. And even then, it often takes broader knowledge of the state of research in the field. It's easy to cherry pick research that supports a bias while simply leaving out competing research.

Ultimately, this piece does not come off as a good faith review of the scientific evidence.

When people reference the CDC not being able to study gun violence, they're referring to the Dickey Amendment of 1996. With the ambiguity in interpretation of "none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) may be used to advocate or promote gun control" coupled with an earmark that shifted the exact amount the CDC had allocated to gun violence research to something unrelated, it ended up being, at minimum, a de facto ban on gun violence research (with a strongly implied threat of funding cuts for breaking the ban). There were exceptions to the de facto ban when they had marching orders from elsewhere, e.g. Obama's directive after Parkland.

That said, 2018 finally saw an interpretation of the Dickey Amendment codified that allowed, unambiguously, research into gun violence. And 2020 finally saw funding allocated for gun violence research. So, after over two decades, the CDC finally regained both the go ahead and the funding.

Given the above, I think it's still reasonable for people to use the shorthand of saying the CDC had been banned from doing gun violence research. Softening the language to be slightly less absolute would help, but I'd consider people to be in the ballpark of correct when they call it a ban on research. And it's also correct that that's no longer the case, thankfully.

Auras are great. I gave some to family and friends, and they became the go-to good masks for a decent portion of them.

My personal favorite is the 3M V-Flex N95. Super comfortable, great seal, and relatively large interior volume (great breathability). It's pretty close to a perfect mask. I also gave some of these away, and they were similarly popular.

In general, Aura seemed to be liked more for smaller faces, and V-Flex for larger faces. So, nowadays, my go-to recommendations are V-Flexes and Auras.

In this study, there were more infections in the vaccinated group. That defies logic, though, and intuitively the infection rate of the vaccinated group cannot be higher than that of the unvaccinated. That's why I mentioned confounding factors.

From this study and others, I believe the vaccines used in the US do not provide substantial protection against infection by delta.

This is a common error, but an error nonetheless. Take an extreme example of a population that is 100%. Any clusters of cases that pop up will thus be 100% in vaccinated folks. Of course, would would never see that and think "well, I should be unvaccinated, because 0% of infections happen for unvaccinated people."

Focus on this conflation that you are making:

there were more infections in the vaccinated group and and intuitively the infection rate of the vaccinated group cannot be higher than that of the unvaccinated.

You are conflating total number of infections with infection rate, which is what is leading you astray. Imagine you have 100 people. 90 are vaccinated. 10 aren't. Imagine that all 100 of those people are exposed to the Delta variant, and 10% of vaccinated folks end up testing positive, while 50% of of unvaccinated folks end up positive. In pure numbers, you end up with 9 vaccinated folks who are positive, and 5 unvaccinated folks who are positive. Voila, more infections in the vaccinated group! But, clearly, that's misleading, because comparing raw infection numbers is meaningless without also looking at percentages vaccinated.

Yes, this theory was always ridiculous. Like many other things we hear from the prestige media, it barely merits an eye-roll, let alone a full refutation. Nevertheless, I appreciate Bruenig taking the time.

I don't think that's fair. I find Bruenig's analysis reductive. It doesn't even look at Black vaccine hesitancy over time, which a halfway decent analysis would have done. What you see is that there is high hesitancy early on, and that hesitancy drops faster than many other groups as time progresses. It could be the case that skepticism, given the history of healthcare and the Black community, drove initial hesitancy, and then that waned as people saw millions of others do just fine. Bruenig's analysis would entirely miss that.

He also takes a huge leap in equating skepticism of healthcare more broadly in the Black community with skepticism of the vaccine in particular. There are so, so many assumptions he is just completely skating past here. E.g., it could entirely be the case that there is broad skepticism of healthcare in the Black community at all educational levels because of issues that persist to this very day (e.g. it's pretty well known that many people working in healthcare believe Black people are less susceptible to physical pain than white people). So, it's entirely plausible that you can start with a higher level of skepticism with respect to anything healthcare related within the Black community (e.g. because of both historical and/or current problems), but see decreasing vaccine hesitancy as education levels increase (e.g. because that correlates with better understanding of the vaccines and the trials it goes through). All of this would be entirely consistent with the data Bruenig presents, but would be entirely inconsistent with his conclusions.

What I am fundamentally getting at is that his analysis is reductive, and could potentially be explained by scenarios that are 100% counter to his conclusion.

I thought this way too until the Beyond/Impossible burgers. Before them, the garden burgers and similar options mostly got a "why bother?" reaction from me. Give me a dish that is meant to be vegetarian, not something trying and failing to replicate a meat dish.

But I also love a good burger. To each their own, of course, but a well cooked burger (well cooked, not well done) made with quality meat.. it's hard to top. And that's the thing with Beyond and Impossible - while they don't hit the level of top tier burgers, they're actually "close enough" to the taste and texture of real beef that I actually enjoy them as a burger, not just as a burger substitute.

And being close enough is massively important. You aren't going to get the world to go vegetarian on ethical appeals. But plant-based meats that are able to get close enough, especially if they can end up priced cheaper than meat, will provide a much easier transition to less meat consumption. And hey, it doesn't even need to mean that people go to 100% vegetarian; significant reductions would help a lot.

It's definitely true that just switching over to plant-based foods and away from animal-based foods won't solve all the issues, it's also worth noting that a lot of cattle, at least in the US, are not raised on a foraging model, so most feed that cattle consume come from plants raised elsewhere, which are going to largely be those same cropping properties. And, further, the amount of feed to raise cattle mean that those cropping properties have to grow significantly more product than if they were producing for plant-based foods.

I do have a lot of respect for smaller cattle operations that run an ecologically sensitive operation, such that the land is used in a way that sustains itself and the cattle on it. It's just that, those are the exceptions, at least in countries like the US.

It just depends on one's use cases. If you're primarily traveling to large conferences such that airports are especially packed, just Priority Pass is probably a poor match. But that's not everyone's scenario.

Priority Pass is great internationally. In the US, the lounge access is usually fairly mediocre, but the airport restaurant access they have at some airports is great - up to $56 credit for food and drink each visit if you're there with another person (e.g. https://www.prioritypass.com/en/lounges/usa/los-angeles-ca-l...). It's been a while since I've last been on a plane thanks to the pandemic, but I was generally getting a few hundred dollars worth of value from the restaurant access alone each year.