Half-useful advice

The Cleveland Clinic has a short article on Seven Early Warning Signs of a Heart Attack. It's useful, but only half-useful.

It's useful because it lists symptoms that many of us might not think of when it comes to heart attacks.

1. Pressure or tightness in your chest (rather than pain).
2. Pain in areas such as your arms, jaw, neck or back.
3. Cold sweats.
4. Heartburn or indigestion.
5. Shortness of breath.
6. Nausea or vomiting.
7. Unusual fatigue.
   

I can easily see laypeople not knowing, for example, that cold sweats, arm pain, nausea, or "unusual fatigue" might augur heart trouble. So in that sense, this article is useful.

But what I'd like to see is some sort of discussion on how to interpret these symptoms. Not all arm pain, for example, is heart related, not even most. It's unclear when to be concerned.

The article offers the advice that "[i]f there’s even a chance you think you’re having a heart attack, act quickly to get emergency care." The problem is, there's always "a chance" you're having a heart attack. How do you know when it's a big enough chance to be concerned as opposed to, say, something that theoretically could be happening but is probably not?

I don't mean to glib here. Heart attacks are scary. If someone thinks they're having one, they should call 911. I also understand that public health messaging has to look at worst case scenarios and even "most plausibly bad case scenarios." If I were writing such articles, I'd want to err on the side of encouraging readers to believe false positives than to believe false negatives.

But I'd really like some guidance on how to balance out those types of symptoms.

Unsolicited advice for pro-Palestinian activists

I have very complicated views, rational and emotional, about what's going on in Israel and Palestine. I won't detail them here. I'm not ready to. Instead, I offer advice for those who advocate for the Palestinian cause:

Dedicate the October 7 anniversary to mourning the victims of Hamas's attack. Set aside, for one day, all talk of why Israel is in the wrong. Set aside, for one day, all talk of why the US response is insufficiently pro-Palestinian or too much pro-Israeli. The day before and the day after the anniversary--discuss your critiques. But dedicate the day to mourning the violence that set off this round of the conflict.

I advise that because it's the right thing to do. We should acknowledge and mourn victims. 

But it's also tactically wise. Doing what I suggest demonstrates that the activists are not guilty of the blood lust they're so often accused of. Dedicating the day to flipping the narrative of "I don't approve of what Hamas did, but...."* to "It's wrong what Hamas did" and "The people who were murdered and kidnapped were human beings of intrinsic value, loved by others, and capable of all the good and bad anyone of us is capable of"--doing that centers the humanity of the activists and underscores the sincerity of their wish to establish a peaceful solution.

If the activists can't do that, then one might doubt their sincerity. To be clear, some lacking sincerity doesn't mean all or even most lack sincerity. And lack of sincerity doesn't necessarily mean the insincere are wrong.

*For the record, I don't necessarily criticize people for saying "I don't support x, but...." because talking any morally complicated problem sometimes requires us to say "but," "however," and "nevertheless."