A couple of days ago (it’s September 17th 2020) Dr. Robert Redfield, the director of The Center for Disease Control, testified to Congress that universal mask wearing in the US would bring Covid-19 under control in the US in six weeks. He’s has said this before but this time he said it under oath to Congress. Once again, didn’t make a ripple.
Dr. Redfield isn’t your drunk uncle Bob—the CDC is the deep duck in the epidemiology puddle and Redfield is their top guy. They have a budget twice as large as the NIAID (Dr. Fauci’s organization) and collectively know more about controlling infectious diseases than any other organization in the world.
His testimony barely made the papers. Control in six weeks with just masks that you can get for a buck a pop. Not masks plus economy-crippling isolation. Not masks plus vaccine. Not even masks plus elaborate social distancing. Just masks. Anything else you do is gravy. Redfield has made the same statements on camera before and it seems to have had no impact whatsoever. I’m at a loss to explain the lack of reaction. It’s a giant get-out-of-jail-free card for the whole country and the economy. It could save 250,000 more lives in the US this Winter for pocket change and make hundreds of millions of people less poor, bored, and anxious. Yet nobody is interested.
It’s not some pipe dream. His calculation is based on definitive research from a recent study on the efficacy of masks and backed up by practical experience around the world. The calculation is trivial, immediately obvious if you read the research. Moreover, the research would have to be wildly wrong to substantially change Dr. Redfield’s conclusion. Any plausible error would mean only that it wouldn’t be six-weeks, but eight, or twelve. The principle would hold up.
Continue reading “He Said Six Weeks”
When I first heard there was an antibody (serum) test I thought wow, this is fantastic! If you are certified to have already had it, then you know that it’s safe for you to be around others and others can be confident that they are safe around you. It could be like a license to go to work.
Then I thought about it. Actually, the test is probably useless for you, personally. (It has other uses, like making policy, but that’s not what we’re talking about here.) The problem has nothing to do with not knowing whether Covid-19 guarantees future immunity. You don’t need to go there in order to show that it’s useless for the average person.
This isn’t an Internet crackpot thing—it’s real math you can verify yourself. It’s a disappointment but the reasons are interesting and the principle applies to all tests that yield a positive/negative result. The smaller the proportion of people in the population that have the condition in question, the more this principle applies.
I’m just going to explain one small aspect of this. One of the main places this applies is in diagnosing illnesses and that water gets very deep. Still, it’s interesting to poke around in it and it might help you understand what your doctor is doing someday.
Continue reading “99% Disappointing”
Geoffrey Chaucer, who lived through the black death, wrote the line “Ech man for himself, ther is non other” in The Knight’s Tale and it quickly entered English permanently as “Every man for himself and the devil take the hindmost.”
Every day I see despairing posts and re-posts of articles and blogs claiming that the pandemic in America is a lost cause. One post that is currently getting massive attention asserts that the epidemic in the USA is now in a runaway state that can no longer be brought under control. Another simply assumes that this is true, and concludes that Covid-19 will eventually infect everyone in America, killing 1% (3.25 million people) and crippling or otherwise disabling many tens of millions of us in gruesome ways.
None of it is true. The ubiquity of graphs like the one below make this feeling understandable on an emotional level but the despair it engenders is completely inconsistent with the facts. The appropriate emotions in response to the graph below are (a) fury and (b) hope.
By way of making the case for hope, I’d like to lay on you one of the most remarkable and under-publicized bits of research I’ve come across but first we need to look at some basics.
Continue reading “You Might Be Thinking About It All Wrong”
It’s May 16th, 2020, and there’s an undeniable feeling of optimism in the US about Covid-19. A vibe that we’ve got this thing on the run. All over the country businesses are opening up and we’re getting ready for Summer.
I feel like I must be missing something. We all see the same data but to me it looks anything but reassuring. The current numbers look like a failure and a setup for a calamity in the fall.
The conclusion I’ll outline below could be wrong—I hope it’s wrong—but when you look at the larger context it’s such an obvious inference that even if it is wrong, it seems like it should be the default conclusion that the uninformed jump to, the one that people in the know contemptuously debunk, as they do when someone says that “it’s no worse than the flu.” So right or wrong, either way, something seems off.
To see why it looks so bad to me, consider a couple of points first.
In What Sense Is Covid-19 Under Control?
First of all, the widespread conviction that the epidemic is winding down in the US is itself a mystery.
Continue reading “Am I Missing Something?”
This sobering article in The Economist last year outlined the consequences to expect from a Brexit-without-a-deal. Most of it still applies, but to me, a non-economist, the diversity and magnitude of malign consequences suggests that Brexit could be a more interesting experiment than anyone thinks.
It’s not that we’ve lacked for economic turmoil since the age of inter-networking for business and the general public took off in the late 1980’s, but the problems have been fairly conventional in economic terms. Recessions, bubbles, the CMO meltdown, and so on; none of it has been greatly different from the trouble we’d gotten into for many decades previous.
Brexit brings up the possibility of a truly modern meltdown—an economic calamity that as yet has no name.
Continue reading “We Ain’t Seen Nothing Yet”
Atheists invariably haul out the religious wars of Europe to make the case that religion is pernicious. It is indisputable that from The Age of Faith to the Reformation/Counter Reformation numerous bloody wars and slaughters were committed in the name if the Christian God and there were countless more if you include the wars fought in His second best known name, Allah. It’s not an obviously wacky point.
But hold on there—religious war is monstrous just as all war is monstrous, and it is possible that religion is monstrous as well, but the proposition that wars being fought over religion proves that religion is monstrous is a classic example of what philosophers call “an association fallacy of the red herring type.” The herring, i.e., the thing dragged in that is not logically connected is religion. Helen’s face launched a thousand ships only in a poetic sense; Paris and Agamemnon are to blame for the Trojan war, not Helen, love, or beauty.
Such a fundamentally flawed attack shouldn’t require any defense, but logic isn’t a central concern in religion; Christians consistently fall for this argument and end up defending Christianity from the accusation with words to the effect that “sure, there were wars, but those people weren’t real Christians” or “they weren’t acting consistently with Christian principles.“
This is a terrible argument but not because it’s inherently fallacious. It’s weak because it invites the accuser to apply what is known as the duck test, AKA Occam’s Razor. You’d sneer if I defended, say, Nazism, using the same logic. Try it out: “Nazism didn’t really underly the horrors of the Holocaust; the problem was that bad people coopted a good idea. Let’s let bygones be bygones and give it another chance.” No, the killers were Nazis and the actions were consistent with the principles of Nazism as advocated by the founders, so you can go out on a limb and say Nazism caused the Holocaust. It is logically possible that a small animal that looks like a duck, swims like a duck, quacks like a duck, and is often seen in the company of ducks, is not a duck, but that’s not where a wise ornithologist will take the argument.
Continue reading “Christianity and Ducks”
Against a cultural background of morbid touchiness about references to gender, race, etc., the word bitch is a lens into what’s going on beneath the fig leaf of political correctness.
Calling a particular person a bitch in private is bad manners but if you disregard all the ostentatious political posturing, the visceral reaction most people have to bitch used in that way isn’t much different from their reaction to gender-neutral epithets such asshole, or to male-specific insults such as prick, or dick. Bitch, used in this way, is an insult to a particular person, and after all, offending is the goal. Bitch is not nearly as shocking to the ears as the c-word-that-dare-not-be-spoken (here in the US, anyway—in the UK cunt is practically a term of endearment when applied to a man.)
Gender-specific insults are tricky but you have to be willfully obtuse to deny that much obnoxious behavior has gender. I’m not talking about the gender of the obnoxious person, but the behavior itself. Being a prick is definitely a yang personality trait and being a bitch is yin, regardless of the sex of the insulted or insulting party. Asshole, on the other hand, is neuter, despite the fact that many more men than women are assholes. Assholes are like happy families but the epithet pig can connote at least three distinct kinds of obnoxiousness, one specific to each gender plus one neuter. I like the gender-specificity of all of these words and usages and doubly applaud their use when the target is not gender-consistent with the epithet. The comprehensibility of cross-gender insults is a sign of progress in the relationship of the sexes.
Continue reading “Bitchin’”
I wasn’t a reflexive Kavanaugh hater when this started. His politics are deplorable but they are pretty much of a piece with those of anyone else who was in the running. His evasive responses to virtually all questions were dismaying but they were not much worse than has become customary in Senate hearings.
The spectacle only strayed into the bizarre with Kavanaugh’s response to Christine Blasey Ford’s testimony. Who carries on like that at a job interview, attacking and insulting the interviewers, raging, crying, acting hurt, citing massive conspiracies to get revenge for work he did for Ken Starr twenty-some years ago? You can lose touch with how weird that performance was.
Continue reading “Yep, I Definitely Believe Her.”
We shouldn’t be thinking of Trump’s campaign shenanigans with the Russians and his payoffs to silence former mistresses as normal, Watergate-style scandals. Either of these clumps of mini-scandals would be enough to bring a normal presidency crashing to the ground, but they are more likely to end up a footnote, remembered not for their intrinsic importance but as the threads investigators first pulled on that ultimately unraveled the Republican party and exposed the bizarre epochal political disaster that started America on an historic decline as a world power.
What’s going on is widely recognized as a scandal, but it’s not usually spoken of in such cataclysmic terms. Is this author overly excited or will we look back one day and feel that the mainstream press missed something obvious?
The media is struggling because what’s going is unprecedented. To be fair, everyone else is struggling too: law enforcement, our intelligence apparatus, the courts; even the KGB doesn’t know quite what to do. Trump’s Russia problem is morphing into that rarest political thing: something new under the sun.
Continue reading “We’re Looking At It All Wrong”