The Corruption of Science.

As a kid, I remember being taught some basic science and led to believe science was the pursuit of truth and understanding.  Like most children, I accepted this as a reality in itself, but times have changed.  We see in today’s world that science and politics have blended together and if you disagree with the politics, you are called names.  They can be simple names like “science denier”/ “climate fanatic,” or rude names like “deplorable”/ “Karen,” or vicious names like “homophobe” and “racist.”  Once the name-calling begins all reasonable conversation ends.

As I look at people who call themselves scientists, I realize they can only exist if someone is paying for the science.  I think that has almost always been the case.  It was no different when I was a young boy, it was just the teachers never wanted to point this reality out.  Leonardo DaVinci was a brilliant man, but without sponsors, he would have ended up an unknown beggar.  If we look at the scope of his work we can see the brilliance of his mind, but every once in a while, he had to do something to make a living.  That could have been painting the Mona Lisa, or designing a battle tank.

Galileo and Copernicus studied the stars, and taught at universities, but without sponsorship would we know of their work?  What happened when the Catholic Church, took issue with their findings? It took a generation of more discovery before the Church was willing to alter their position, during that time they were both condemned as heretics, although Copernicus had died before the Church could hold him accountable for his sin. In 15^th Century Europe who had the power to tell the Church, they were wrong?

The same thing holds true today.  Who has the power to tell the government they are wrong about the science they’ve paid so much for, or more importantly what scientist is willing to question the science and risk their future research because of the people who pay for that research question his loyalty?  Are the inquisitions of today any different than the inquisitions of the 15^th century?

For the past 50 years, the world’s scientists have been warning us of the devastation of Climate Change.  Anyone who questioned those predictions was condemned for denying science.  First, we were to enter an ice age, then we discovered global warming.  The oceans would rise as the ice caps melted, the polar bears would die, the coastal cities would flood, there would be world famine and nuclear war.  Over ten years ago Psychologists were predicting everyone would become so depressed by the crisis that mass suicides were likely.  Al Gore gave us until 2010 before the end of the age of man, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is planning on 2030, unless of course, we change our path and abandon fossil fuels and spend a lot more money on something painted green.  NASA, NOAA, and even the DOD have jumped on the bandwagon telling us the end of the world is near.  So, it must be true.  I kind of miss the days when you got these kinds of warnings from some long-haired, wild-eyed dude on the corner.

Now we have the science of the Wuhan Virus, which for political purposes can’t be called by where it originated, so it is COVID-19.  We were told the world population would be devastated if we didn’t listen to all the policies all the politicians put into place at the recommendation of all the government experts who know exactly how this virus will perform.  We’ve gone through lockdowns, mask mandates, school closures, vaccines, boosters, and huge economic impacts yet still the virus continues to kill thousands despite all the assurances that if we only do all the things “some” of the experts say we will be okay.  Unfortunately, those experts don’t take kindly to other “experts” suggesting alternative strategies.  So once again the political opinion media gets called in to assure those who listen to only one side that the other side is responsible for all the bad stuff happening.  

As far as I can tell neither side is really willing to look at the data to see what strategies are effective, and which ones only give the illusion of help.  We have people who wear masks 24/7 to protect themselves and we have those who refuse to be vaccinated because they fear their DNA will be altered and they will wake in the morning with a strong desire for a banana and a branch to hang on.  Of course, our political elites and their media friends all have their opinions, which as far as I can tell are based solely on which government official they like.

Then again we have the fringe “social scientists” who believe basic biology is passe and that a six-year-old should be able to decide what gender they should be, based I assume, on its lifetime of experience.

Finally, just before the age of Trump, we developed “internet fact-checkers” who were supposed to research all the internet rumors and tell us what was real and what was false.  Unfortunately, those same “fact-checkers” have been proven themselves to be political town criers who offer little more than the approved government taking points/opinions, as long as the government is controlled by those they agree with.

I guess it is safe to say I will never view science and those who claim to be scientists with the same idealist view my 10th-grade chemistry teacher tried to instill in me. 

 

With Apologies to Billy Shakespeare

To mask, or not to mask: that is the question:

Whether ‘tis nobler in the public to suffer

The slings and arrows of an outraged public

Or to take arms against a sea of fear,

And by opposing end it?  To die: to sleep;

No more; and by sleep to say we end 

The heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks 

That flesh is heir to, ‘tis a consumption

Devoutly to be wish’d.  To die, to sleep;

To sleep: perchance to dream: ay, there’s the rub;

For in that sleep of death what dreams may come

When we have shuffled off this mortal coil,

Must give us pause: there’s the respect 

That makes calamity of so long life;

For those would bear the whips and scorns of time,

The oppressor’s wrong, the proud man’s conformity

The pangs of guilt, the law’s ignored

The insolence of office holders spurned by the rules

The patient merit of unworthy rules, 

When he himself might quietus make

With bare nostrils? Who would burden bear, 

To wheeze and sweat under such a dreary mask

But that the public dread the plague of increase

The undiscover’d cure forsakes for a grand control

No survivor of that evil does rebuke

And makes us rather bear those ills we have

Than fly to other we know not of.

Thus conscience does make cowards of us all;

And thus the native hue of resolution

Is sicklied o’er with the pale cast of though.

And individuals with little regard to science 

Think ill of those who challenge the mob

And loose the condemnations of virtue

And by losing, condemn virtue to its own.

 

As we progress forward with a society more divided than we can recall in our living memory I choose to share a few observations.  Observations admittedly biased by my own history, and opinions of a global civilization that spans 10 or so millennia.

Pandemics have been around since more than a handful of humans lived together as a family group.  As we think back to Egypt and the Hebrews it is alleged the Hebrews and Jehovah brought a variety of plagues upon the heartless Pharaoh in an effort to secure their freedom.  The last was the death of the first-born male of each Egyptian household, which was not marked by the blood of an innocent lamb. This was a big deal because culture called on the first-born male to carry on the family lineage.

Those of us who had a history class in high school probably learned about the black death (bubonic) plague of the 14^th century that cut the population of Afro-Eurasia down by somewhere between 75 and 200 million people.  Of course, there have been a whole bunch of smaller plagues as time went on ranging from Small Pox to the flu.

Speaking of the flu, some may recall Spanish flu, (named back when using a location was fashionable) which caused the pandemic of 1918-1920.  A plague that infected about 1/3 of the world’s population (500 million-ish) and killed somewhere between 17 and 100 million people. Early in this latest pandemic, originating in Wuhan (choose your preferred source) China, the world’s experts took pains to point how much deadlier this SARs virus was than the flu. But let’s start this discussion with a review of what we call “THE FLU.”

NOTE: For this discussion, I am taking my information from the University of Alabama-Birmingham site: https://uabmedicine.org/-/flu-strains-explained-and-how-the-vaccine-works

According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, there are four types of flu.  Three of them can affect humans and the fourth affects cattle.  Of the three types we need to worry about (A, B, and C) A and B are the most dangerous and there are respectively 18 and 11 subtypes. The annual flu shots many of us get each year are made to prevent the CDC’s best guess as to which subtypes will be most likely to spread around.  For example, for the 2020-21 season the flu vaccine cocktail was designed to address the Hawaii/702019 (H1N1)pdm09-like virus, the Hong Kong/45/2019 (H3N1)-like virus, the Washington/02/2019 (B/Victoria lineage)-like virus, and he Phuket/2073-like (Yamagata lineage) virus.  The first two were Type A the last two Type B subtypes.  Some years the CDC guesses right and the resulting flu season seems mild. Other years they are not so right and flu takes a heavier toll on the workforce and our children.

So, what’s my point?  Each year the flu viruses mutate and the CDC has to give its best guess as to what will prevent widespread illness and possibly death.  Up until President Trump, the decisions of the CDC were pretty much accepted by us all and it was viewed as a non-political government agency.  That all changed with this pandemic.  You can blame whoever you want, Trump and the Republicans, or Pelosi and the Democrats, but at the end of the day the CDC was put between a rock and a hard place and it will never again be viewed as god-like and non-partisan.

Now we come to COVID-19.  We are now up to the Delta variant, and I assume it is just a matter of weeks before we hear about the Echo variant.  The virus will mutate as it infects people and is altered by the biology it encounters.  BTW, the fact it mutates does not mean the earlier versions will disappear, it just makes the probability of creating a vaccine that will counter the most recent strain, as well as the previous strains harder. For the average American there is an open question, will this plague behave like the flu, or will it be like smallpox where the vaccine will ultimately be able to stop it for all humanity?

The sad thing is we never see the experts discuss this, which strongly suggests they don’t know, and are afraid to even speculate.  This leads to the question of goals and objectives.  The more cynical of us see this as a pandemic as a huge profit maker and political tool those in power will keep going as long as possible, while the more fearful seek reassurance they are doing everything the experts want in an effort to eliminate all risk to them and their loved ones.  In today’s world of virtue-signaling and social condemnation, this means flooding social media with all the memes they can think of about how important wearing a mask is.

To what purpose do we wear a mask?  In the beginning, it was to protect us, although science suggested the average surgical or cloth mask did little to stop the virus itself since it was so small it would filter in between the strands of material.

Then it was to reduce the spread when coupled with social distancing, until such time as a vaccine could be developed so hospitals would not be overwhelmed.

Next, it was to protect others who might not have had the opportunity to receive the vaccine.

And now we return to protecting ourselves even though we’ve been vaccinated since we may still get COVID and just won’t know it (e.g., asymptomatic) as well as protecting others and stopping the spread.

The fact our media and politicians chose to approach this pandemic as a political opportunity has divided us on what is the right thing to do, but even if we knew there was a “right thing” history has shown a lot of mankind would choose another path.  That stubbornness seems to be a human trait.  For example, let’s look at our professional athletes, some of whom are happy to guide us in what they believe to be the morally right path.  How many of them have been vaccinated?  If you don’t want to ask that question then let’s look at another example.  Performance-enhancing drugs – we are told they are bad, but until everyone started getting caught using them how many athletes decided they didn’t need them to compete, or better yet how many athletes did?  In my opinion, the average professional athlete is not the sharpest pencil in the pack.

So, at the end of the day, should you wear a mask?  The answer to that depends on you and you alone.  If it makes you feel safer then by all means do so.  If you think it will save someone else from you then of course.  If you want to show you are part of the crowd that wants everyone to wear a mask then it’s probably a good idea.  If you refuse the vaccine, then it might make you feel safer, but then again it might make you feel the government is controlling your life so that’s a tough call.  If you think everyone should wear a mask to make you feel safer then stay inside your house with your mask on and leave everyone else alone.

Transitions

The time between the election and the inauguration of the President is one of transition.  Not only for the key political players and their financial backers/ardent supporters but for the common citizen.  It is a time with great similarities to a sporting event where the players on the field move from offense to defense and the spectators’ transition from supporting their team to the condemnation of any event that seems to present a positive gain for the opposition.

We are beginning to see that transition in the media now, where according to the broadcasters the incoming team is above approach.  These are the same “professionals” who just a matter of days ago spent most of their time condemning the current administration as incompetent and incapable of finding their way out a paper bag, despite the evidence that seemed to refute that.  For example, according to the Democratic politicians as broadcast by the media the reason we have over 300,000 dead from COVID is all President Trump’s fault, despite the fact under our system it was the decisions of the various Governors which most affect the death rates within their states.

From a common person perspective, those who have rioted and protested just a few short days and weeks ago claiming America was a fascist blight on the face of the earth are now going to have to claim we are once more a shining light of freedom for that same world.  The irony here is that 99% of the government that were all fascist last week will still be at work after January 20^th.

Those politicians in charge of the major cities, who just weeks ago, were justifying the need to defund the police and open their cities to invasion by anarchists are now going to see a need for some limits on what “peaceful” protest really means.  I wonder how the anarchists and the police forces will deal with these political transitions?

On the fashion front, those who thought little of the current first lady’s wardrobe are going now going to be over-the-top in their admiration of the incoming first lady’s fashion sense as she sets the style trends for the nation.  While I doubt she will receive the same adulation as Michele Obama, it seems to me there will be a big demand for extravagant adjectives seeking to reflect how smart she dresses for someone with such brilliant educational credentials.

Speaking of educational credentials, it seems to me to be an amazing thing to have a big kafuffle over.  Some writer says having an Ed. D isn’t the same as being a real doctor and the world goes crazy.  The Ph. Ds and Ed. Ds of the world are united in their belief that having any kind of doctorate is worthy of being called a doctor, while some lawyers with Juris Doctorates seem to disagree.  I’ve not polled the medical community but the few I know are of the opinion they are the only REAL doctors (at least according to Hippocrates). Personally, I know a couple of good ol’ tobacco chewing country boys with Ed. Ds and I think they are good with nicknames, although Dr. REDMAN is probably also acceptable.  I know Whoopi Goldberg weighed in on this at the beginning of the pandemic and claimed Dr. Biden was “a hell of a doctor” so there is that.

But then we can make a dividing controversy out of any and everything.  Take the recently approved COVID immunizations.  Their release this December is a miracle, at least according to the projections of scientists who engage in the political debate. The first doses are going to the frontline workers and those most at risk in the nursing homes.  This seems to be one thing no one is arguing about, but who should get the next release?  Ah, that is worth arguing about.  Should it be the Presidential transition team, the current White House staff, the members of Congress, or those in the public that want to jump on board?  How about those who don’t want the vaccine?  Should they be forced into taking it to use public transportation, or should they have a small yellow COVID star sewn on their clothing so the liberals know who is unclean and not part of this great social movement?

Finally, I wonder if all the entertainment award shows can get back to patting themselves on the back for being so great instead of having to spend the majority of their speaking parts condemning the government.  I know that is probably too much to ask for and now those same celebrities will have to tell us how great it is to be in a nation that supports a unified world solution (except for China and Russia of course) for all the environmental issues the government will now address through its increased taxes.  While we’ve not yet increased taxes I’ll take Biden and Harris at their word that we must do that to rebuild America in their image.

Who Do We Turn To?

Within my lifetime, and before, the American people turned to their Presidents to calm the nation and inspire confidence in the face of national disasters and crisis.  We learned about these great men and the confidence they instilled to the nation either in our history books, or if we were lucky enough in real time as they sought to calm the fears of a people looking for leadership.

Theodore Roosevelt, our 28^th President, is perhaps best known for thinking big as he guided the Nation.  With the passage of the Antiquities Act he began designating areas of national importance and in the course of this is credited for creation of the National Park system.  His speech on the role of a Citizen in a Republic[1] remains today a testament to the value of the individual.  He was also the President who began our entrance onto the global stage with the creation of the Panama Canal, and the sailing of the “Great White Fleet.”

When the Spanish Flu of 1918 hit the world, President Wilson and the government actively down played its dangers to avoid panic.  Of course, they were supported in this effort by the “Committee of Information” he had formed when the U.S. had entered the War to End All Wars.  As the committee noted “Truth and falsehood are arbitrary terms. The force of an idea lies in its inspirational value. It matters very little if it is true or false.” His government continued this charade even when 195,000 Americans died in October 1918.  The Philadelphia Inquirer noted “Worry is useless. Talk of cheerful things instead of disease.”[2]

When the Stock Market saw its historic collapse in 1929 and the nation turned to Franklin Delano Roosevelt to save us from the economic disaster before us, we listened to his inaugural address where he said, “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.”  He then began a rather expansive socialization of our nation where the government, rather than industry, stepped in to put people to work, we created a plan to supplement the income for our elders, and created a way to bring electricity to those who were still living by candlelight.

He again came before the American people when our Pacific Fleet, and most of our holdings in the Pacific were attacked by the Japanese.  Did he suggest we panic in the light of such overwhelming losses or did he seek to calm and assure the nation that in the end we would persevere?  Did the media of the day question his leadership for not anticipating the attack and making sure the Pacific Fleet was ready for an enemy we knew was increasing its naval force far beyond the limits of the “Five Powers Treaty of 1922.”[3] 

Then in 1960 we elected the first of the leaders coming from what Tom Brokaw would later refer to as “The Greatest Generation.”  John F. Kennedy inspired us from his inauguration with “Ask not what America can do for you, rather ask what you can do for America.”  Did we question his leadership when he cancelled support for the Cuban Invasion (AKA Bay of Pigs), or when we went to the brink of nuclear war with the USSR over Intermediate Range Missiles in Cuba?  In each case he went on television to assure the nation everything would be okay, and the press adored him for it.

The 1980’s brought us Ronald Reagan, a career actor, who knew the power of the media and used it effectively to persuade the nation we could recover from the financial problems brought on by escalating debts from the Vietnam war.  The deficit spending, he put into military arms took the nation deeper into debt, but Americans went back to work, oil shortages ended, the middle class expanded, and in the end he accomplished what no President since Harry Truman was able to. He destroyed the USSR.

The ‘90s gave us George H. Bush who led the nation through an incredibly short and successful, although some believed incomplete, war and into a financial crisis.  He was succeeded by William J. Clinton who taught us that truth depends on the meaning of the word “is.”

So far this century we’ve had George W. Bush, Barrack H. Obama and Donald J. Trump.  The first the media (both News and Hollywood) enjoyed mocking, but supported when he took us to war, first with Afghanistan and then Iraq.  He rallied a country shocked by the terror of September 11, 2001 and guided the nation for eight years.  Barrack Obama came into office on the tails of an economic crisis (perhaps something that links both Bush’s), and promised to unite the nation as no other President ever had the opportunity to, but after his 8-years the nation was just recovering from the economic failures he inherited but he left a legacy of dividing the nation into white and black unlike any of his predecessors.  Yet, the press and Hollywood adored him at the same level they worshiped JFK.

Now we have Donald J. Trump, who came into office despite the best efforts of the DNC and media to vilify him and his supporters.  With his election began the rebellion of the political, media, and social elite who’ve chosen every opportunity to vilify or mock him for his approach to dealing with them.  Rather than accept their mocking, as did the Bush’s, he chose to directly counter-attack their pundits and analysis as “fake news.”  From the first instant when it was clear he had won the election we’ve seen hysterical predictions of doom for the nation.  We can start with Paul Krugman’s prediction the stock market would never recover, and move on to the “not my President” campaign, and the HRC's claims she won the popular vote, as if that was relevant.  In fact, each of the claims by those who supported HRC were only intended to undermine the legitimacy of his win. 

With his inauguration we began the Congressional investigations into his alleged ties with Russia, which we now know were started by the Clinton campaign, and perhaps Hillary herself.  Each week seemed to bring a new promise from Representative Adam Schiff about some new criminal activity only he had knowledge of, but was just about to be revealed.  Again, rather than concede defeat the DNC and its media outlets sought at each stage to show Trump as an incompetent boob, often at the cost of displaying their own incompetence. Of course, this approach has only served to further divide the nation as we seem to tumble willy-nilly into the future. 

We have before us two critical issues: the physical health of the nation from the COVID-19 virus and our economic well-being.  The question for the average American is who do we believe has the best answer to those challenges?

On the one side we have those who’ve said the President is incompetent and has done a poor job leading the nation these past almost four-years.  On the others who believe the President is the duly elected President, who despite his numerous flaws, is responsible for guiding the nation and should be supported. I think the question is really more basic.  In the middle we have the preponderance of media who have a clear agenda against the President and who cherry pick the information they will provide based on that agenda.

Who seems to have the best interests of the nation as a global power at heart?  Is it the media who thrives on controversy, or the social elites who’ve made their fortunes in a system they now disdain?  How about those in Congress who fail each year to perform even their most basic function of passing a budget on time?  How about the unnamed bureaucrats who actually run the nation with little or no accountability, are they the ones? The Governors of the 50-states?  Should we collectively look to them?  How about the spokespeople of the various political entities struggling to gain the wealth of the nation, do they have our best interests as their core belief? 

In this polarized world we see the average citizen has one of three paths to choose.  On the one hand they accept completely the fear the media describes about the dangers of the virus and seek to remain in isolation and would leave the economy in shambles in the hopes the virus will get bored and move on, or we will find some miracle vaccine that will be 100% effective. The opposing side says “screw the virus” let’s go back to life as it was last year and if you get sick you will probably be okay, but if a few people need to die so be it.  Personally, I suspect those two extremes are really very small fractions of our total population, at least that is my hope.  That leaves a sizeable middle ground who is looking for the best risk analysis on how to reopen the economy while maintaining a reasonable level of personal safety. 

The unfortunate fact of today’s world is we really don’t have a unified choice on who we turn to for answers, as we at least thought we did with previous Presidents in earlier generations?  So, good luck with whichever path you choose.

---

[1] https://theodoreroosevelt.org/content.aspx?page_id=22&club_id=991271&module_id=339335

[2] https://history-first.com/2020/03/14/wilson-and-the-1918-flu/

[3] https://www.britannica.com/event/Five-Power-Naval-Limitation-Treaty

A Few Thoughts on COVID-19

Before I start, I’d like to review some factual numbers most can agree with.  First, I’ll start with the 1918 H1N1 (“Spanish”) flu.

There were actually three waves of the flu.  The initial wave was in the first half of 1918, the second, and deadliest was October to December 1918, and the third was in the Spring of 1919.

It is estimated between 50 and 100 million people died and perhaps 500 million people contacted it.  (World population at the time was about 1.5 billion, so almost 1/3 of the world came down with the illness.)

We like to believe science was not as advanced in the day, and perhaps that is true, but the interesting takeaway, at least for me, is widespread immunization was not practiced and had no impact in lessening the outbreaks.[1]

All that is background.  This isn’t 1918, its 100 years later, and the “claims of science” now drive the news and individual choices/decisions.

The novel coronavirus, (AKA COVID-19, China Virus, Wuhan Virus, and SARS-CoV-2) is this year’s pandemic and in an effort to avoid the devastation of the 1918 H1N1 most of the western nations have gone to the extreme of demanding their citizens remain in isolation and have effectively shut down the economies in the hopes of letting the virus play itself out through lack of social interaction.

As of today, there have been 28,292,846 cases worldwide, of which 6,431,885 have been in the U.S.  From a mortality rate, 911,770 deaths, with of which 192, 663 have been here.

It appears, at least on paper, China, where the virus originated, has been far more successful by just stopping the reporting on the number of ill and dying people. Nobody in the media seems at all interested in actually challenging that approach so it must be okay.

So, has the approach of the world been effective?  The answer is a resounding – maybe, kinda, sort of.

It looked like we in the US had the virus under control and then we began to reopen the economy and BOOM, the cases grew!  States that had horrific death rates remained locked down and their cases remained low.  We are now seeing the same kinds of things in Europe.  Spain which had a terrible experience and went into almost complete lock-down now has among the highest rate of infections.  As a way of explanation, effective 9/11/2020, the USA has a rate of 8,447 cases per million, while Spain has a rate of 12,418/1M[2]

Ultimately, the question for all of us is what is the acceptable level of risk for us as individuals and for a society?

For some, that number appears to be zero, but that will never be achieved.  Even when an effective immunization comes out, we can expect to see both adverse reactions to the immunization as well as immunizations that seem to have been ineffective.  For the majority though there will be benefit.

For others, that level of acceptable risks seems to be at the levels of mortality we see today.  According to the World Health Organization that number should be 3.6%.  Today in the U.S. we are at 3%, and here in FL we are actually at 1.9%[3].  So, while the media will shout about the number of cases we have, for me the real concern should be what is the probability it will take a life?  In that sense it truly does appear we’ve turned the corner on this pandemic.

As each of us decide what is best for us individually, the one thing I’ve seen as this became a political issue, rather than simply a medical problem, is how one’s political belief in the power of their party’s recommendations is reflected in how they accept risk, both for themselves and for others.  From a social perspective that seems a bit crazy, but in a polarized world I guess it is to be expected.

I respect each person’s choice, whether it is to remain cloistered away, wear a mask in limited public excursions, or attempt to return to a fully social life within the guidelines of the state.  Sadly, that acceptance does not seem to be a common approach for all.

---

[1] https://www.healthline.com/health/1918-flu-pandemic-facts#8.-Widespread-immunization-ended-the-pandemic

[2] https://covid19statistics.org/

[3] https://covidusa.net/

Does Your Political Orientation Affect Your Risk Management Philosophy?

This whole worldwide Pandemic and Social Media thing has created a wonderful social science experiment.  Since I have no real need to publish research papers, I’ve kind of

watched it all unfold and have listened as my lovely wife has interjected her opinions.  I think of myself as a kind of a center of the road person.  I certainly tend toward conservative in my beliefs, but see the value of social programs.  The older I’ve become the more I distrust the government to be magnanimous and see politicians as more self-serving than selfless servants.  I would love for a progressive to explain to me how they would implement universal health care so we as a nation can afford it without going deeper in debt, but that seems to be a lost cause.  All anyone wants to do is create a bigger and more expensive government, and therein lies my frustration.  But let’s put all that aside and get back to this grand social experiment playing out before our eyes.

Beginning at the end of last year or the first of this year the Chinese coronavirus, now known as COVID-19 began its spread from Wuhan to take over the world. It hit first in China (obviously) and then spread to Europe, the USA, South America, and beyond.  As of today, 20 July 2020, there are 14,766,464 cases and 611,750 dead from this virus.  I suppose we could get into the who’s and how’s of the virus, but that seems kind of pointless.  What I would like to talk about is how various people, and to some extent, various governments have managed the risk of contamination and treatment, and how various messaging is played out on social media.

As we saw the spread and the lethality of this virus rapidly strike Italy and then Spain, and its first indications here in the U.S. there was a sense of panic and a variety of actions taken by the governments.  Of course, here in the U.S., the Congress was more interested in Impeachment than any little old Pandemic, but as soon as that was behind them, they found time to make the whole issue of management a big political furball.  Trump could do no right, and the Democratic party could do no wrong.  The media played this over and over again on the nightly news, even when the statistics seemed to fail their claims.  

What that political battle did accomplish was to leave each of us individuals trying to sort out who to believe, what the actual risk to us and our loved ones was, and what should each of us do to protect ourselves and our families.  We had medical experts, research experts, statisticians, and politicians all offering us opinions on what was or wasn’t right at any instant in time. 

For example, the World Health Organization went from human to human transmission is unlikely, to yes it was.  All the talking heads told us masks don’t work, then to yes, they do.  Social distancing was our best defense, to masks and social distancing was important.  Groups of 10 could meet, but 11 was too many.  Restaurants must close, but take out was okay.  Churches must close but protests were okay.  The list goes on and on.

So, as I watch the meme wars and all the social media posts we are now at a point where we are “discussing” the return to school options.  Of course, there are almost as many opinions on what we should or should not do as people are willing to offer those opinions.

As this all plays out what I find most interesting is how our fear seems to be manifest by our political orientations.  The DNC has, as their principal argument against Trump and the GOP argued that this virus is so deadly, we must remain locked down until it a) disappears, or b) we have a vaccine capable of preventing it.  Both options conveniently come after the election of November 2020.  The President and the GOP are arguing the economy can’t survive until then and we must reopen and resume a somewhat normal life.  Both positions come from science, unfortunately, it is not medical science but political science.

We see experts claim Democratic states (which are responsible for about 70% of all deaths) are doing a bang-up job.  Those who follow that position are in absolute fear of resuming their lives.  We see irrational arguments of how risk is multiplied beyond what is reasonable based not on science but on impression.

How do we ever develop a reasonable approach when your political orientation defines your ability to understand risk?

As Minneapolis Burns

This past week we saw the racism of a city, and perhaps a state and nation, on full display as the police of Minneapolis held down and strangled an African-American to death.  As a result of that horrific act, the aggrieved community has risen up and is in the process of destroying parts of the city and stealing whatever they can get their hands on.  News networks and their “influencers” are taking sides and mincing words to help keep this story alive and growing.  Is the destruction of the city riots and vandalism, or is it simply angry protest? You decide for I guess it all comes down to how you feel emotionally since rational thought seems to escape most of us in these times.

In addition to the racism on display, we are seeing the rise of police states as the various governments deal with the threat of the COVID-19 pandemic.  It is interesting to see how differently the two main political parties handle the fear of a virus we are unfamiliar with, while the anointed medical experts fill the airwaves with guidance that is little-better than informed opinion.  Should we wear masks or not?  Does the virus thrive in sunlight or not?  Is it transmitted beyond 6’ or not?  Will people who flock to a beach, kill hundreds or thousands of others by their action or not?  When is the right time to resume our lives and livelihoods?

We see in the states with the worst impacts – governments who’ve made callous choices for the care of their elderly.  These same governments are praised for their courageous actions by a media that has long abandoned the idea of impartial and unbiased reporting.  These states continue with the pandemic lockdown and daily enforce the idea the government knows what is best and will do whatever is necessary to enforce their will.  The only thing that stands in their way is a citizenry and a court that will hold them accountable to the constitutions that are intended to define and limit the authority of the government.

Minnesota and Minneapolis are governments with a long history of being run by liberal/progressive Democrats.  Supposedly the party of the working man and woman, the party of the African-American, the party of equality and equity, the party of human rights, etc.  What this pandemic should have taught anyone willing to look closely at the approaches of the Democratic politicians, the truth is the party is really about control and domination.  They give lip service to all those ideals they claim, but the bottom line is it is about power and the wealth that comes from maintaining that power.

That thirst for power and control flows from the very top down to the lowest entity and is, in my opinion, why we see in a police force commanded by an African-American such obvious disregard for the rights of their citizens.  Not to single out Minneapolis, for we saw exactly the same thing in New York City where the police executed a government policy of stopping anyone they thought was suspicious, regardless of probable cause.

What seems most unfortunate in these revelations is the principles of the party won’t change.  They will continue to mutter the platitudes they think people want to hear, they will blame their opponents for creating the conditions they have governed to, and the people will continue to believe their empty promises that bigger government is better for everyone.  What we’ve learned is the bigger government is actually only better for the politicians in power.

An Observation on Fear.

The one thing social media is really good at is showing us the polarization of our choices.  Take, for example, the whole idea of self-protection with wearing masks.  While this shouldn’t really be a political debate it has certainly turned into one as those with fear of the COVID-19 pandemic condemning those who question the value of some of the government mandates.  The political parties are happy to take advantage of this division to show their superiority over those who oppose them.

Here in the United States, and hopefully, in Europe, we seem to be on the backside of the crisis.  While a tragically large number of sick and elderly have succumbed to this Chinese virus as of 5/17/2020 (e.g. England 34,546, Italy 31,763, Spain 27,563, France 27,532 and US 88,754) and the rate of mortality for those who’ve been diagnosed is high; as a percent of the total population the mortality rates are not that outrageous (i.e. England .05%, Italy .05%, Spain .06%, France .04% and US .03%)[1].

Let’s compare this to the Avian Flu Pandemic of 1918.  According to the CDC, one third (1/3) of the world’s population (500 million) became infected, and an estimated 50 million died.[2]  Taking this as fact, in gross numbers this means the mortality rate for those infected would be 10% and the total global mortality rate 3%.  In the case of COVID-19 medical science has progressed and our ability to deal with this has also progressed.  According to Johns Hopkins, there have been only 4,656,639[3] confirmed cases and a total death count of 312,188, for a mortality rate of those infected of 6.7% and a total global mortality rate of .004%.  We are not done with this disease, but who among us thinks it will reach the levels of the 1918 episode as we work on treatments and vaccines?

As we begin to recover from this medical crisis what are we to do, and who should we believe? There is an interesting transition in the works right now.  Those who would put all their faith in the “experts” would have us continue with all the protective/restrictive measures we have in place until some undefined point of wellness is reached.  Others who see the effects on the world’s economy would have us remove those restrictions and begin to return to a post-pandemic world (however that is defined).   These two competing views are on-going right now, with all the pseudo-experts weighing in with all the emotional appeals they can dig up.  Which is really the reason for this post.  It got me thinking about “experts” and the fear they can generate within the populations they seem to speak to and for.

Here is my question for the experts.  Were the political-military experts ever able to predict the advent of wars, their cost, or their outcome?  If so why didn’t they stop them, if not why are they called experts?  Were the intelligence experts able to accurately forecast the sneak attacks of our opponents (e.g. Pearl Harbor, World Trade Center)?  If so, why didn’t they alert our political-military experts, or if not, why are they called intelligence experts?  Were the economic experts able to foresee the market crashes that led to the global financial crisis?  If so, why didn’t they convince people to alter their at-risk behavior?  Have the political experts ever accurately foreseen the outcomes of truly democratic contests, for example, the 2016 U.S. Presidential election where the DNC experts forecast with a 98% certainty Hillary would win? Were the pandemic medical experts able to see this pandemic coming and how it would actually play out with all their modern modeling techniques?  If so why didn’t the politicians listen to them?  Why were all their modeling forecasts so wrong?  For example, the models showed NY would be overwhelmed and the governor asked for far more ventilators and hospital support than they came close to needing.  The USNS Comfort and the Javits Center was converted into a hospital, but both were hardly used.  There is a cost to this, but at the time the “experts” all said they were absolutely necessary and the politicians all agreed.

Here is my opinion on all those questions.  Experts get to be experts because someone with an agenda wants to call them experts or other “experts” call them such.  Take for example Paul Krugman, a noble laureate in economics, who now writes opinion for the NY Times.  I believe he is viewed as an economics “expert” who when asked about a slight dip in the stock market after Donald Trump was elected said the market would never recover. It took almost a whole day to prove this estimate was based not on some great insight but was a purely emotional response to his grief that Hillary Rodham Clinton had lost.

So, at the end of the day each of us should ask ourselves; are the experts really worth listening to?  Each of us must answer that question -- as well as the two questions which spring from its answer.  How real is the fear they are warning about, and how much fear can I control, or do I want to live with?

It was Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who in his first inauguration speech attempted to assure a nation panicked by the collapse of the stock market that “the only thing we have to fear, is fear itself.”  That advice seems to be as good today as it was when FDR first offered it.  The difference today is we’ve created a generation that is more concerned with their personal desires than the general good of society, and we’ve given a wide forum for individual voices who can spread those fears we all must face.

---

[1] All values round to nearest whole 1/100^th percent

[2] https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-resources/1918-commemoration/1918-pandemic-history.htm

[3] Total confirmed is suspect based on the assumption of Chinese under-reporting.

The Problem with Liberal White Priviledge

We hear a lot about “white privilege” from minority groups who are seeking a dominant position within the political system.  The accusation comes on the heels of the legal theory that racial bias is inherent in the justice system and the minorities cannot get a fair trial in a political system dominated by the white majority.  One has only to look at the percentages of whites, blacks, and Hispanics in the penal system to see there is probably some merit to that theory.  Unfortunately for daily interaction, those with racial political agendas will use that theory as a club to beat everyone over the head and shoulders to demonstrate their superiority.

The white privilege argument is because of our “whiteness” we have some sort of advantage in life that a minority can never overcome.  For most of the middle class who have to compete every day, this is kind of a nonsensical argument, but there are always those who will use it, as well as those who will believe a minority is getting an “unfair” step up through some sort of reverse discrimination.  This is pretty much in keeping with the human traits of personal bias and opportunism.

 Of course, there are those in our “classless” society who believe they are privileged and who do look on the world and see it as their responsibility to bring those poor unfortunate minorities along so they may prosper as they do.  Just not quite as well as they do, but still better than those others who aren’t as good as them.  They claim to buy into all the social justice issues and strive to do all the socially progressive things.  So long as those poor hapless minorities remain supportive of their ruling class.

Let’s review how that philosophy is working out in what we view as the cultural and economic center of the country, New York City.

You might remember a few years ago as the government tried to get a handle on street crime in the city, so the businessmen/women and the tourists felt safe and would spend their dollars.  They implemented a policy called “stop and frisk.”  Unfortunately, for the liberal politicians, the majority of those stopped, frisked and arrested turned out to be black youth who was somehow suspicious by their being black youth and little else.  The discrimination of this policy became so onerous that the current Mayor actually had to call a halt to avoid riots in the city, and the former Mayor (Bloomberg) had to kind of apologize before he was allowed to continue his failed campaign for President.

Fast forward to today, where “social distancing” is all the rage, and the liberal white politicians, who know better than anyone how to govern fairly and equitably are implementing those policies that will keep everyone safe from a virus they don’t fully understand, but one that allows them to enforce rules that are at times draconian. 

It seems like they are returning to the same mindset they thought was such a good idea with “stop and frisk” where the police are now arresting anyone they feel is not social distancing responsibly.  Unfortunately, it appears to be implemented with exactly the same social dynamic where the majority of those arrested are minorities (i.e. African-American).  It is almost as if those liberal white politicians can’t understand that the privilege that got them the limos and bodyguards are not available to the poorest in the city, and running a city isn’t the same thing as running a plantation.  JMO

Fear

While I don’t think of myself as especially unique I’ve come to believe in some aspects I must be.  As I watch this pandemic unfold I watch the responses of some and see the anger and fear in their posts.  I made the mistake of asking one person to explain why she was angry and what she would do differently.  This exercise failed for all it did was solicit a non-committal response.  The individual was mad at how others were behaving.  Those others were behaving in ways the politicians and talking heads had told them were inappropriate and now the individual was mad.

This seems to be the way for so many of us.  We want the government to keep us safe, and when it appears the government isn’t doing enough to keep us safe we are mad.  We’re mad at the governments, we’re mad at those who might possibly threaten us, and we’re mad in general because we are afraid.  Fear is a powerful emotion, it overwhelms reason, and for those who have come to believe we in the United States have so little to fear when it strikes all else is put aside.

For me, I’ve been in situations where fear was real, but all I could do was follow my training and do my job.  I expect that is true for most defenders of our nation, whether in the military or in public services like a fire or police department.  While I can’t personally speak to the courage of a firefighter I am sure it is real for they willingly go into situations where their lives are at risk, and many of them don’t come out.  Are they afraid when they go?  I’m sure there is a degree of fear, but like so many brave souls, they’ve learned to compartmentalize it and follow their training.  Trusting in God, or in their training, all will work out in the end.  When you’ve not had to make these kinds of choices in your life I think you are struck by the risks you had not thought existed.

That is what this pandemic has done, it has brought to so many a fear they can’t control and how they react is unique and individual for each of us.  Some become compulsive in their actions, others look to the guidelines as if they are sacred scripture and others lock themselves away afraid for their own safety, as well as others, from an enemy they can’t see and don’t know how to fight.

Securing Safety in the Modern Age

“Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790)

Our nation was built by those willing to risk all for the hopes of a better life.  Our past generations risked their lives to leave the oppressive hierarchy of Europe, where the divine right of kings and queens could not be questioned.  Where the hopes of better lives rested with the decisions of a removed and stratified upper class.  Where religious freedom was subject to the whims of whatever church was in power and where war and the sacrifices of the common man were frequently demanded.

For generations of Americans, we risked everything in the hopes of providing a future that was ours to build.  We traveled across the raging oceans and in the process settled on land where opportunity offered something our ancestors could not imagine, freedom to choose.  Of course, in the process, we made many selfish and morally questionable choices.  But the morality of those choices is only now apparent when we reflect back on them with the luxury of second-guessing those choices made when daily survival was a real concern.

We displaced a race of people who had themselves immigrated a thousand years earlier.  We fought them, conquered them, and placed them onto reservations.  We made promises we would routinely break for we are greedy people.  Now the grandchildren and great-grandchildren of those peoples are beginning to gain a stake in our prosperity as they feed off that same human greed with the creation of gambling centers.

We grew our nation on the backs of slaves brought to our shores by those willing to profit off the trafficking of human beings sold into lives of servitude where their lives were viewed as little more important than the animal stock that constituted the wealth of the farmers and plantation owners who owned them.  We’ve not changed dramatically in the idea that it is okay to traffic in human beings as that is still a major enterprise in most of the world, including here in the Americas.

In the course of our growth into a nation, with our own national identity, we created a document that has withstood the changes of 230 years.  A document, which created the framework for a limited government, by the men who dared to write a previous document that stated our rights came not from government but from God when we told the King of Great Britain to take a hike. 

As more individuals of our nation reject the idea of God as the source of our rights, then it would seem inevitable they believe the power of government must come from them.  That the power of government is only limited by their willingness to stand against the wrongs of government overreach.  But what if their fears of the unknown outweigh their fear of government?  What then?

Let’s take a look at our current pandemic, and how it differs from previous pandemics.

First, we now have experts.  Not that we didn’t have experts before, but now we have a whole industry of experts on the television almost non-stop telling us how expert they are and how we need to believe them or we are all going to die.  In past pandemics, we would get snippets of advice and the media supporting the government would feed it to us in dribs and drabs.  Now we have them giving it to us in fear-producing bucketsful to convince us this pandemic is far worse than all the other pandemics around.

Of course, there may be an underlying motivation in a lot of these experts or the media channels that push them out to us.  We would have to be insane if we didn’t realize this, but then the fear of death can certainly push that insanity aside for a while.  For the past four years now, the political pundits on ABCNNBCBS and MSNBC have been vilifying the President while glorifying the professional politicians and bureaucrats that make up the core of the government in Washington DC.  Despite all the implications of fraud and deceit coming out of investigation after investigation the most we’ve seen about real punishment have been a couple of forced retirements.  This doesn’t count the cases the professional politicians and bureaucrats have brought against the Trump administration and the President himself.  But let’s focus on the impeachment for a minute.

As hard as the Democrats tried they could not come up with a criminal event to hang their impeachment on.  Two years of investigations came down to “an abuse of power” impeachment demonstrating it was a purely political exercise bound to fail in a Senate trial.  Then along came the Wuhan Virus, Chinese Virus, Corona Virus, or COVID-19 virus (take your pick).   

To keep us all safe from the dangers of a virus that threatened to kill us all we’ve shut down the economy.  I have a friend, who at the beginning of this said, “I’ll take this seriously when they close Disney World.”  The next day they announced its closure.  Even as they closed you could sense the panic being raised as they were widely criticized for having one last party on the last Sunday they were open.

At first, the administration was condemned for acting too hastily and when that proved not to be a good argument the drumbeat changed to not taking the virus seriously enough.  The governors demanded actions, the administration scrambled to meet their needs, but always with the political experts offering their political opinions, and the medical experts (both known and unknown) offering their scientific opinions.  Along the way we, as a population has had very little to say about what we should or should not do.  Of course, we are not experts in anything other than living our lives.  For the most part, we don’t make grand decisions that affect more than a few dozen lives and for that we are grateful.

But we’ve become a nation where half of us are willing to condemn the other half of us simply because we disagree with their political views.  Thanks to the internet and applications like Twitter® and Face Book® we can scream to the world all that is wrong with those other guys and why we must listen to this or that half of our politicians/media experts.

Now that we have surrendered our independence for the promised safety from this virus, how exactly will we regain it?  In looking at the roles of our politicians it appears to me that some are unwilling to give it back.  Of course, they are doing this in the name of keeping us safe.  Then we have those who would steal our independence because they are above the purview of our laws, how will we change that if we can’t agree even on the most obvious of points that individual liberty is the foundation of this nation.