One great piece of news about life in the United States of America in July of 2021 is that widely available mRNA vaccines made by Pfizer and Moderna are highly effective against the SARS-Cov-2 virus. They greatly reduce your chances of becoming ill as a result of infection by the virus, and dramatically reduce your chances of dying from it.
Another great piece of news is that while children under 12 are not yet eligible for vaccination, the virus has never been a significant threat to children’s health. American society needed children to abide by certain restrictions on their activities because kids can transmit the virus and we needed to protect more vulnerable members of society. Today, however, the vulnerable can be protected by the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines.
The bad news is that the Delta variant appears to spread like wildfire, with infected individuals shedding tons of virus.
That means that the level of population immunity needed to suppress outbreaks is now really high, and very little of the country is at that kind of really high level. Delta, therefore, poses a few different kinds of threats to the population:
Despite fairly high vaccination rates among the elderly, it’s going to kill a bunch of people if it spreads uncontrollably in the unvaccinated population.
Even mild cases of Covid seem unpleasant, and sensible people would rationally prefer to avoid them, especially given the possibility of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and other long-term consequences.
Overprotective parents may respond to Delta outbreaks in ways that are harmful to their unvaccinated kids’ education and emotional well-being.
America’s already frayed civic fabric is not well-suited to another round of contentious debates about non-pharmaceutical interventions.
I take a somewhat libertarian attitude toward all this. With vaccines widely available, it does not make a lot of sense to try to impose stringent non-pharmaceutical interventions, especially because the non-vaccinated population almost perfectly overlaps with those who don’t comply with NPI rules. If people want to protect themselves against Covid, they should get vaccinated. If they don’t, that’s on some level their problem. I do worry about the impact of outbreaks on families with young kids (my son is six), but given all the available evidence, I think public health communicators should emphasize the low risk level rather than try to use children as a bludgeon to return to high social distancing.
But it doesn’t make sense to have a purely libertarian view of this. Vaccination involves meaningful externalities. The Delta risk to my vaccinated self or to my kid is extremely low but not zero. The risk to my vaccinated father, stepmother, and in-laws is a bit higher. Every marginal person who is vaccinated reduces our risk levels further. And of course, even the spread of nonfatal illnesses damages the economic recovery and other things we care about. The aggregate burden on our healthcare system and our healthcare workers is also a big deal.
Long story short, we should be trying to get more people vaccinated. And even though I get the sense that people feel we’ve tried almost everything and are now deep in the wells of diminishing returns, I think the truth is we’ve barely tried.
The FDA should approve the vaccines
To me, the most striking, glaring, and obvious problem with the current state of the U.S. vaccine rollout is that the Food and Drug Administration has not given official approval to any of the vaccines that we are using. Instead, they have been given Emergency Use Authorization.
Any time you criticize any element of the American public health bureaucracy these days you get assailed by swarms of pro-system tweets, in this case usually accusing me of “not understanding the process.” But I actually think it’s the process-trusters here who don’t understand the process, and if you do you’ll see it’s a process that’s a poor fit for the situation.
After all, when you step back and think about it, the FDA approach to medications is at least a little bit odd. In many cases it’s perfectly legal to sell things that have no scientifically demonstrated medical benefits — that’s the whole world of unregulated supplements. And of course you can sell people things like beer, M&Ms, and cigars that everyone knows are harmful and have no offsetting medical benefits. Selling medicine is subject to a special, unusually high bar because we are trying to safeguard the public interest from a particular class of scam.
For example, a company might come along with a $56,000 Alzheimer’s pill that doesn’t have any clear evidence of efficacy. If you want to try to sell a $56,000 dietary supplement, then that’s between you and your sucker customers. But there is a general presumption that programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and subsidized private insurance plans will cover authorized prescription medications. So there is a real opportunity to damage the public interest with scammy products here. And we need the FDA to protect us. Now as it happens in the case of this drug, the FDA isn’t protecting us. But that’s its function; that’s why we need a fussy scientific agency with a high bar for approval.
But then in a crisis, you maybe want to be less fussy. Hence the FDA, rightly, was handing out EUAs like candy for various Covid treatments all throughout 2020.
In the crisis, we don’t really worry that we might be wasting money on convalescent plasma. We don’t have rigorous evidence that it works, but there are some general medical science reasons to think that it might work. And if a patient and his doctor want to try it, it seems counterproductive to block them. If nothing else, letting the treatment move forward is a good way to gather more data. But the FDA rightly emphasizes that it is not actually endorsing convalescent plasma, just as the FDA does not endorse dietary supplements. They are saying that in light of the emergency, and given that there’s no widely available and clearly superior treatment, they’re not going to stop you from trying the experimental therapy.
But that is not what doctors, scientists, and public officials say or believe about the vaccine.
Everyone wants people to get the vaccine
If you just listen to what anyone is saying about the Covid vaccines, they are endorsing them.
The acting director of the FDA and her Trump-era predecessor are encouraging people to get vaccinated. The director of the CDC and her Trump-era predecessor are encouraging people to get vaccinated. The President of the United States is loudly encouraging people to get vaccinated, and his predecessor is quietly doing so. The Surgeon General says you should get vaccinated. Dr. Fauci says you should get vaccinated. It’s possible these people are all lying and full of shit or something, but as a journalist, I am simply conveying what’s clearly true — all the people in positions of authority are endorsing the Covid vaccines and encouraging you to take them.
In other words, they are acting about the Covid vaccines the same way they’d act about a long-approved antibiotic or the measles vaccine, not the way they’d act about a dietary supplement. They are not saying you are allowed to get vaccinated, they are saying you should get vaccinated. Indeed, that’s not just their medical advice to you — it’s their stated belief (and I agree) that getting vaccinated is a pro-social means of safeguarding your entire community.
So I am saying, with a full understanding of the process, that the FDA ought to bring the official regulatory status of mRNA Covid vaccines into line with the scientific community’s actual understanding and attitude toward the vaccines.
The government is not worried that Pfizer and Moderna might be running a scam on us. They are charging $20 a dose, not $56,000. We are begging people to take these shots. So we should act like it.
Formal approval matters
Some people have convinced themselves that formal approval is irrelevant because everyone who’s not vaccinated at this point is like a Q-pilled Trump fanatic who wouldn’t possibly believe what the government says.
I am skeptical.
Donald Trump got 5% of the vote in the District of Columbia, and I know at least one Trump-voting D.C. resident who is definitely vaccinated. But according to the New York Times, only 61% of D.C. residents are fully vaccinated. Only 75% of D.C. seniors are fully vaccinated. Those are not all Trump voters.
They have their own reasons for suspicion of the medical system and that’s all well known; I’m just saying they’re not living in a hermetically sealed information ecosystem. And right now if someone says to you “look, the mayor and the president don’t want to mention this, but these are experimental vaccines that the FDA hasn’t even approved,” that’s not misinformation — that’s true.
Now if I went around tweeting all day “don’t take the vaccines unless you’re highly vulnerable, they’re experimental treatments the FDA hasn’t approved because they say they don’t have enough safety data yet” people would (rightly) get very mad at me. Spreading that message would (rightly) be considered an anti-social and chaotic thing to be doing. But the message is true, and a good way to cut down on its spread would be to make it not be true, rather than trying to informally stigmatize saying it.
And really scroll around the map.
In LA County, 62% of adults are fully vaccinated.
In the Bronx, 56% of adults are fully vaccinated.
Even in a really high-vax county like Multnomah in Oregon (Portland), it’s only 75% of adults.
It’s true, obviously, that the best places to boost vaccination would be the big low-vax swathes of the country in red America. But there are clearly lots and lots of people who are not hard-core right-wingers who still haven’t gotten vaccinated, and I think part of it is that progressive America is not actually aligning around this in an appropriate way.
Low-hanging mandate fruit
Another issue about the lack of authorization is that many institutions, including the U.S. military, believe they legally cannot or should not mandate a vaccine that is available exclusively under EUA. There turns out, inconveniently, to not really be any case law on this. But I think it’s understandable that most major institutions want to tread cautiously here in the absence of a clear FDA thumbs up.
I also think that sensible people are, rightly, a little wary of poking the bear too hard with mandates.
Right now some conservative elites have been very irresponsible in their vaccine-related statements, but others have been constructive. What we don’t want to do is create a meta-issue that induces responsible conservatives to start doing lots of anti-mandate politics and further exacerbate polarization. We ought to tread somewhat cautiously with mandates. But “somewhat cautiously” still means “bolder than what we’re currently doing.”
The military, in particular, is a big lever. Servicemembers are routinely required to get vaccinations, including annual flu vaccines, and the military is not an institution where individualism is a core value.
Tony Evers and Gretchen Whitmer shouldn’t launch divisive fights about this, but solidly blue states could make vaccines mandatory for K-12 teachers, staff, and eligible students without too much fuss.
It should not be hard to nudge private colleges and universities into adopting vaccine requirements.
OSHA has been fairly derelict throughout this whole pandemic in terms of specifying Covid-safe work conditions. They ought to tighten the screws around ventilation, provision of quality masks, and other relevant criteria while also making clear that vaccination is a good alternative form of compliance.
We should also forcefully address the concern that vaccine side effects will force you to miss a day of work by finding a way to interpret the special Covid paid leave law as covering vaccine recovery. That will put some people’s minds at ease. Plus some people might go get vaccinated, experience zero side effects, and take the recovery day anyway because people like time off. That would be great! The point is to get more people vaccinated.
One thing that I think is a little underrated in the discourse is that if you inhabit a social circle where the conventional wisdom is that Covid has been overblown from the start, young and healthy people have nothing to fear, and the whole thing is hysteria driven by panicky libs, then you may need an excuse to get vaccinated. If you and all your friends talked yourself into the idea that holding Thanksgiving dinner last fall and continuing to dine indoors through the winter of 2020-21 was a heroic act of courage, then it’s reasonably likely that going to get vaccinated looks like an act of cowardice. And that can be true even if you, personally, would rather hedge and get the shot.
But if you get the shot not because you’re “afraid” of Covid but because you have to for school or because you’ll otherwise have to wear an N-95 mask at work or because it’s a good way to scam yourself into a day off, then that’s fine.
Market like it matters
To the extent that one of the things we want to say is that over and above your personal preferences, you are doing good for society by getting vaccinated, then we ought to pay people to get vaccinated.
You can get a good debate going on the internet by arguing over how much we are dealing with “hesitancy” to get vaccinated versus structural barriers to vaccine “access.” But one thing that helps people overcome barriers to access is money. And one thing that helps people to overcome psychological reluctance to do something is money. In general, one of the great virtues of money in life is its flexibility that allows you to bypass the need for a structural diagnosis of exactly what is needed.
This program in D.C. where you get a $51 gift card seems good to me, and I only wonder why it isn’t more broadly publicized.
But this brings up another example of the utility of full authorization. American media is full of commercial advertising campaigns aimed at getting people to “ask your doctor” about various kinds of prescription drugs.
You can’t market off an EUA, and the vaccine makers have been persuaded to accept low margins for these products. Give a full authorization, bump up the payment rate, and watch the Pfizer and Moderna marketing campaigns explode. Give Donald Trump a bunch of money to be a Moderna pitchman and give LeBron James or whoever a bunch more to do it for Pfizer.
Start with the easy stuff
My big point about this is that the elite discussion of vaccine resistance seems a little bit perversely focused on the hardest problems. How do you persuade distrustful people who live in communities where trust and vaccination levels are so low that you need to be obsessed with avoiding political backlash? I’m not sure.
So we should start with the easy stuff.
Get the FDA to stop fueling vaccine resistance. Let institutions that don’t need to worry about backlash roll out mandates. Somehow Los Angeles County is reacting to Delta by trying to re-impose a county-wide mask mandate but hasn’t mandated vaccination for its own sheriff’s department. In D.C., we’re hand-wringing about schools in the fall but we’re not mandating vaccination for teachers or kids over 12. Offer people some money and some time off to get their shots.
All of this will improve the vaccination rate, which is good. It will also increase the share of the non-vaccinated population who have people in their social circle that have been vaccinated and may serve as validators.
For all the talk right now, we’re really barely doing the minimum to encourage vaccination and we really ought to step it up before our hospitals get in trouble and a new wave of efforts to impose restrictions on social and economic life go back to tearing the country apart.
I have no doubt that a lot of the nasopharyngeal sampling being performed around the country is collecting inadequate and potentially misleading material.
Many Most people assume that the nasal passage continues upward along the bridge of the nose. I have cringed and intervened when observing even experienced medical personnel attempting to pass nasopharyngeal tubes or catheters upward (to the great discomfort of the patient).
The image embedded above is a enhanced photograph showing that access to the nasopharynx is straight back - along the roof of the mouth - NOT upward toward the brain.
The white tip of the swab in the photo is touching the nasopharynx, where Covid-19 lives. The virus may or may not also be present in the anterior nares, and I will bet a dollar to a doughnut that lots of swabs are giving false negative results because the sinus and turbinate area is swabbed, not the nasopharynx.
A full 5-minute video (from which the screencap above was taken) is available for viewing at The New England Journal of Medicine - along with detailed information about protection for the medical worker and processing of the specimen. Note for example the procedure for removing PPE optimally utillizes three pairs of gloves:
Remove your PPE as shown in the video and described here or in accordance with the standards at your institution. First, remove your gown and gloves. Clean your hands with an alcohol-based solution or soap and water. Put on a new [second] pair of gloves, and then remove your face shield and either dispose of it or clean and store it in accordance with the guidelines at your institution. Remove your gloves, rewash your hands, and put on another [third] pair of gloves; then remove your mask and follow your institutional guidelines for disposal or reuse. Finally, remove the last pair of gloves and wash your hands.
Reposted from April of 2020 to add this disappointing screencap from a BBC video:
I've added a red arrow to show the direction the swab should be oriented to access the nasopharynx. We have been living and dying with covid for more than a year, and the people whose job it is to collect vital information still are not being taught the very basics of the process. Drives me up the wall...
“Israel and Palestine are small nations and not strategically significant these days, so it’s notable that conflicts there attract not just more, but orders of magnitude more coverage than conflicts in, say, Chad, that objectively impact more people. And if human rights observers ding the government of Chad for something, you won’t see a swarm of people who feel Chad has been unfairly maligned swooping in to ‘Stand With Chad.’”
“If we’re honest with ourselves, we are probably all underweight on Chad takes. It would not take too much work to become the most knowledgeable person in your social circle on the subject of Chad. In that role, you’d have a great opportunity to change minds about Chad and educate others. Making a meaningful contribution to the Israel/Palestine discourse is a very difficult undertaking. Why not stick to Chad?”
This seemed like a strong point. And also a challenge... was he encouraging, perhaps even daring someone like me — whose career has mostly been spent writing about aggressively obscure topics on Abstruse “Comedy” Gulag Tonight with John Oliver — to focus on Chad? Was this the Substack-wonk equivalent of removing a glove and slapping me across the face? It sure felt like it.
Well, guess what, motherfucker: It’s been two months, and I’ve learned a shit-ton about Chad. You said, “it would not take too much work to become the most knowledgeable person in your social circle on the subject of Chad.” Wrong: It would take a massive amount of work if you’re in my social circle, because I now know so much about Chad that I’m a regular Marie-Christine Koundja. Which is a reference you’d get if you had one-tenth of my galactic-scale Chad knowledge.
Prepare to be wowed, asshat.
Where to start? Perhaps with the incorporation of the Sao people into the Bornu Empire in the 16th century? Or maybe with the Sultanate of Bagirmi? No, better keep this remedial: In April, Idriss Déby, who led Chad for 30 years, died. Déby was oppressive even for a dictator, which is saying something; it might not take much to be “oppressive for an ice cream truck driver” or “oppressive for a child’s puppeteer” (now that Shari Lewis is dead), but oppression is a core job competency for a dictator. It’s like calling someone “creepy for a wrestling coach”. It means something.
Déby’s death is a big event for Chad's 16 million people (which is well more than the population of Israel/Palestine). It also has major implications for Chad’s neighbors, several of which are mired in conflict: There’s a civil war in the Central African Republic, Boko Haram/Islamic State militancy in Nigeria, a decade-long technicolor shit show in Libya, and ethnic conflict/high Bono prevalence in Sudan. Chad is a crossroads for some of the world’s deadliest conflicts. And while “A Crossroads For Some Of The World’s Deadliest Conflicts” isn’t likely to be adopted as a slogan by the Chad Tourism Board, it does underscore Chad’s strategic importance.
Yeah, this doesn’t work. But there are no bad ideas in brainstorming!
I don’t often say nice things about dictators — except that Ferdinand Marcos had a damn fine head of hair, which he objectively did — but Déby was a bulwark against the worst actors in the region. He opposed Gaddafi’s proxies who crossed the border from Libya, and also Omar al-Bashir’s allies from the Darfur region of Sudan. Refugees from Sudan and the Central African Republic found relative safety in Chad. Also: Remember the #bringbackourgirls campaign? You tossed off a tweet about it while sitting on the toilet one afternoon in 2014. Incredibly, that tweet sort of worked: Many of the girls are now free. Of course, arguably more responsible for that outcome than your mid-defecation hashtag activism is the Multinational Joint Task Force that's been fighting Boko Haram and other militants in the Lake Chad Basin for the last seven years. The MNJTF is a semi-effective force of around 8,000 soldiers from Benin, Cameroon, Chad, Niger, and Nigeria. Chad is highly active in the MNJTF; the force’s headquarters are in Chad’s capital of N’Djamena, and Chad has engaged in some of the deadliestfighting of the campaign. The MNJTF is far from perfect, but they’re just about the only thing opposing Boko Haram. Besides you, of course — you did that tweet, after all.
Chad’s foreign policy interests often align with those of the West. That’s partly because Chad’s enemies tend to be egregiously awful (my extensive Chad research has revealed that Boko Haram is bad), and partly because Chad’s recent politics generally haven’t broken along the religious and ethnic lines that tend to define conflict in the region. Chad is about 41% Christian and 55% Muslim, but that split hasn’t always been deterministic in Chad’s politics; Déby was Muslim but spent much of his presidency fighting Muslim militias in the North and East. He had Christians and members of Chad’s many ethnic groups in his government because he was deeply committed to the liberal principle of pluralism and haha no I’m kidding he was just trying to neutralize his rivals and would do that any way he could. Like many dictators, Déby played the “the alternative to me is chaos” card in his dealings with the West, but it’s not certain that Déby will be followed by Yugoslavia-style ethnoreligious conflict.
Of course, we’re about to find out, because Déby is very dead. Chad’s constitution says that Déby's death should have caused power to fall to the President of the National Assembly and that new elections should be held within 90 days. But that’s not what happened. Instead, a “transitional military council” — accuracy of the first word in that phrase TBD — immediately seized power. They named Déby’s son, Mahamat Idriss Déby, interim president. Mahamat “George W.”1 Déby has promised new elections within 18 months, but that's a real “divorced dad saying he’ll take you to Disneyland” promise — believe it when you're wearing the mouse ears and not a moment before. The unconstitutional power grab sparked protests in a country that has flirted with democracy but never been able to make it stick, leading to a deadly crackdown by the government that was condemned by Human Rights Watch.
And here’s where there’s a nexus with the West — here’s where rank ignorance by the Matt Yglesias’ of the world really starts to matter. The West does have some influence over events in Chad. That’s especially true of France, which was the colonial power in Chad from 1913 to 1960. France has been a difference-maker in Chadian politics before; they deployed troops to counter an invasion from Libya in the ‘70s and ‘80s and stood behind Déby as he fought back numerous insurgencies. Daniel Eizenga, a research fellow at the Africa Center for Strategic Studies who has done extensive fieldwork in Chad — he’s kind of the me of his social circle — confirmed that outside influence matters, telling me: “With Déby gone, even small gestures from the international community—be it France, the U.S., the EU, or the African Union—can greatly influence the political stability and trajectory of Chad during this uncertain time.”
This is a decisive moment for Chad. Things could devolve into chaos. Or Chad could take a big step towards democracy and political pluralism. Or things could stay basically how they’ve been for the past 30 years. It’s all up in the air. And we in the West shouldn’t imagine that we’re anywhere near the center of Chad’s narrative -- none of us, not even long-time Chad experts like myself, will be to Chad what Lady Gaga was to the gay rights movement (though if someone wanted to start the hashtag #LadyGagaOfChad I wouldn’t object). But decisions that Western governments make do matter.
So, what should our priorities be? Virtually everyone agrees: Road Warrior-style chaos — though awesome on film — would be bad in real life. Nobody is looking at Libya and thinking “seems fun.” Civil war would be horrific for the people of Chad and would likely add fuel to the fire in Nigeria, Libya, and Sudan. The word on everyone’s lips — from Very Serious Diplomats to human rights do-gooders — is “stability”.
Here’s where simple thinking might take over. Traditionally, when you think “stability”, you think “strongman”. That’s the strongman sales pitch: They’ll bring order, stability, and on-time trains. And, yes, they’ll put a 50-foot portrait of themselves outside your window, and you'll have to participate in an elaborate theatre production every year to amuse the Dear Leader on his birthday, and he might also, you know... eat you a little bit (if we’re talking about Idi Amin). But hey: those trains. I live in New York; I’d vote for Idi Amin if he’d make the R train run on time.
But the “strongman = stability” logic might not apply here. After all, Chad under Déby wasn’t an exemplar of stability. One reason for that is that the only way to gain power was to fight for it. To the extent that Déby achieved peace, he often did so by bringing his armed opponents into the government, which incentivized insurgency. A government that allows more autonomy and legitimate paths to power might well be more stable than a dictatorship.
So, the primary goal of stability might be compatible with the secondary goal of promoting democracy. Democracy’s not impossible in Chad; they have some civil society, and neighbors Niger and Nigeria are trending towards more democracy, not less. Also, since Chad’s international posture is largely the product of circumstance, it’s likely that a non-Déby government would maintain Déby’s alliances. Chad isn't facing a binary choice between Western-aligned dictatorship and Boko Haram-friendly Islamist theocracy.
If I’m making things sound simple, that’s not my intent. To be clear: The situation in Chad is not simple. It is an eight-way zeppelin crash. If Idriss Déby’s death is to ultimately result in a more stable Chad that reflects the desires of its people, actors both inside and outside of Chad will need to make shrewd decisions that balance sometimes-competing priorities. Many Chadians have already made their voices heard by taking to the streets. France seems to be fine-tuning their position; they were effusive of Déby after his death, but criticized the subsequent crackdown against protesters and called for elections, albeit within the military council’s 18-month timeframe. The African Union has responded in basically the sameway as France. It’s a complex situation; pushing the right buttons here will require — if you can believe this — more Chad knowledge than even I possess. Me! The Lady Gaga of Chad!
The United States has been quiet. Our actions towards Chad are possibly being affected by the hollowing out of the State Department that happened under Trump. This is exactly the type of situation where that neglect could cost us; I was a bureaucrat for nine years (speechwriter for the EPA), and I felt that our best work often happened when knowledgeable people were allowed to work on complex, non-hot-button issues. But that can only happen if your knowledgeable people are still in the building. It’s probably not great that there hasn’t been a U.S. ambassador to Chad since 2018; Biden hasn’t even nominated one yet. Also, virtually the only visible action by the State Department has been twoshort statements — 238 words combined — condemning the violence and calling for elections. Now: That’s only public action. Maybe things are happening behind the scenes. But I’ll admit to being slightly troubled by the fact that our entire public response to events in a country of 16 million, in a region with a quarter of a billion people, contains half as many words as Salt ‘N Pepa’s Push It.2
So there: Chad take achieved. Suck it, Matt! Though I have to admit: While Matt might be a real Luddite on Chad, he was probably right that the marginal value of a Chad take dwarfs the value of an Israel/Palestine take. Similarly, the effect of diplomatic action in Chad is likely to be far greater than in Israel/Palestine, and that would be true even if Israel/Palestine hadn’t established itself as the sword in the stone of world diplomacy. Déby’s death provides the first opening in 30 years for the people of Chad to have their voices heard, and I hope my government is doing everything in its power to stand behind them. But I don’t know that they are. It’s clearly well down their priorities list; after all, the headline “Biden Defeated as Voters Express Displeasure with Chad Diplomacy” seems unlikely. But maybe Biden should study up. After all, there will be presidential debates in 2024, and one might be town hall-style, and you just never know: I might be in the audience, holding a notecard, with my hand raised, ready to thoroughly embarrass any candidate who can’t adequately match my almost-godlike knowledge of Chad.