According to a variety of sources tracking Covid-19, sometime late Tuesday or early Wednesday, the United States hit the 150,000 deaths mark. For those who maintain that this number is exaggerated, I suggest perusing the Yale study as reported July 2 by Arthur Villasanta in the International Business Times.
The number of deaths is almost certainly a drastic undercount. Johns Hopkins' tally, which is the most conservative I've seen, had the U.S. passing 150,000 early today. Interestingly, CNN has bent over backwards to feature low numbers the entire pandemic, using both the Johns Hopkins numbers and the IHME lowball projections as key elements of its broadcasts. The tally game will be moot when all is said and done, as demographers will be able to assign quite accurate "deaths due to Covid-19" when we get a year or two after the fact.
Another milestone was reached this week as Johns Hopkins joined the Association of American Medical Colleges in publicly calling for a comprehensive national virus response. Johns Hopkins laid out specific plans, benchmarks, and timelines to control the virus. It recommends a nationwide restart of the U.S. pandemic response, including mandatory stay-at-home orders for hot spots. Johns Hopkins warns that not doing so could result in deaths reaching many hundreds of thousands. Summaries of the Johns Hopkins and AAMC recommendations were covered today by Jason Hanna, Madeline Holcombe, and Shelby Lin Erdman at CNN.com.
In terms of overall numbers, the virus case totals now show California and Florida having passed New York. Texas will eclipse New York any day now. To put things in perspective, which I do not think is done often enough on national news programs, California has roughly 40 million people. Texas has 29 million. Florida has about 21 million, and New York between 19 and 20 million.
Meanwhile, close to home, Tennessee has passed 100,000 cases this week and exceeded 1,000 statewide deaths yesterday. Tennessee and bordering Kentucky are projected to be the next hot spots, so Tennessee's deaths, modest to this point, figure to increase quickly the next couple of weeks.
Bob Dietz
July 29, 2020
Wednesday, July 29, 2020
Wednesday, July 22, 2020
Dr. Birx and the Black Hole, Plus Articles of Note
"Dr. Birx makes a very transparent sycophant; she probably needs a few acting classes." Bob Dietz (June 27, 2020)
"Birx has gone the fealty route and realizes that she has embarrassed herself. She'd best wear ear plugs at most professional conferences going forward, because people are going to have a lot to say about her." Bob Dietz (June 27, 2020)
Well, it looks as if I was right as rain regarding Dr. Birx. Check out my full "Task Force Review" entry from June 27, 2020. Then read these recent articles of note:
First is from the July 18 New York Times, "Inside Trump's Failure: The Rush to Abandon Leadership Role on the Virus." This comprehensive piece discusses the key role Dr. Birx played in the administration's failures.
Next is CNN's Paula Brown's "How Dr. Deborah Birx's political skills made her the most powerful person on the coronavirus task force." I read this before the N.Y.Times piece. It was the first report I'd read that highlighted Dr. Birx's self-serving wrong-mindedness.
Finally is Heather Digby Parton's July 20 piece in Salon, "Donald Trump's virus-whisperer: the tragic downfall of Dr. Deborah Birx." It follows up on the N.Y.Times report, adding additional details and observations.
Although I'm a big Hunter Thompson fan, I've never been a political junkie. I must say, though, that it's been easy for me to read between the lines and figure out the dynamics of things during the pandemic. Maybe it's the professional gambling and odds making. Or maybe people in the COVID-19 spotlight just can't hide their tells. Whatever the reason, I have damned near nailed everything. For example, I may have been the only reporter who commented on Dr. Fauci's oblique but pointed debunking of Birx's tone and spin when he followed her during the June 26 task force briefing. It was obvious as hell, and I'm sure professional scientists took note, but nobody in the national media highlighted it or asked the right questions. Evidently I have some sixth sense regarding pandemic politics.
I was right, for example, about the IHME models and how IHME as an organization fell into the black hole of the Trump White House, along with Dr. Birx. The IHME models were the rosiest of available projections. So they were adopted by the administration, and IHME became a cable staple. They were brutally wrong, of course, which was plain to see each step of the way. But they had their national exposure, ratings, and celebrity.
Dr. Birx, meanwhile, entered the West Wing echo chamber and fell prey to similar black hole celebrity. The July 18 Dahlia Lithwick piece in Slate reviewed Mary Trump's book and laid out this Donald Trump black hole theory. Competent people glom onto Donald Trump, commit to propping him up, and get swallowed into a black hole of celebrity incompetence. They can't break free because the cost to themselves is too high once they've committed. What they thought was a western frontier town milieu with a competent posse and sheriff turns out to be a Hollywood facade with people around Trump play-acting roles. Tragically, without the people in charge having actual expertise, acting can't save the day when real-world problems arise.
Dr. Birx's self-absorbed self-promotion has been exposed. Of all the health professionals, she routinely offered up the most optimistic vision. So of course her influence expanded. Science, however, does not function well in echo chambers.
Yesterday, July 21, President Trump gave his first "task force" briefing since my "Task Force Review." No health professionals spoke. Dr. Birx, according to Trump, was just outside the door in the next room. She's probably a bit podium-shy since questions regarding this week's reports of her influence and failures would be on the agenda. So she hid.
Evidently we now have a post-science task force. This should be fun.
Bob Dietz
July 22, 2020
"Birx has gone the fealty route and realizes that she has embarrassed herself. She'd best wear ear plugs at most professional conferences going forward, because people are going to have a lot to say about her." Bob Dietz (June 27, 2020)
Well, it looks as if I was right as rain regarding Dr. Birx. Check out my full "Task Force Review" entry from June 27, 2020. Then read these recent articles of note:
First is from the July 18 New York Times, "Inside Trump's Failure: The Rush to Abandon Leadership Role on the Virus." This comprehensive piece discusses the key role Dr. Birx played in the administration's failures.
Next is CNN's Paula Brown's "How Dr. Deborah Birx's political skills made her the most powerful person on the coronavirus task force." I read this before the N.Y.Times piece. It was the first report I'd read that highlighted Dr. Birx's self-serving wrong-mindedness.
Finally is Heather Digby Parton's July 20 piece in Salon, "Donald Trump's virus-whisperer: the tragic downfall of Dr. Deborah Birx." It follows up on the N.Y.Times report, adding additional details and observations.
Although I'm a big Hunter Thompson fan, I've never been a political junkie. I must say, though, that it's been easy for me to read between the lines and figure out the dynamics of things during the pandemic. Maybe it's the professional gambling and odds making. Or maybe people in the COVID-19 spotlight just can't hide their tells. Whatever the reason, I have damned near nailed everything. For example, I may have been the only reporter who commented on Dr. Fauci's oblique but pointed debunking of Birx's tone and spin when he followed her during the June 26 task force briefing. It was obvious as hell, and I'm sure professional scientists took note, but nobody in the national media highlighted it or asked the right questions. Evidently I have some sixth sense regarding pandemic politics.
I was right, for example, about the IHME models and how IHME as an organization fell into the black hole of the Trump White House, along with Dr. Birx. The IHME models were the rosiest of available projections. So they were adopted by the administration, and IHME became a cable staple. They were brutally wrong, of course, which was plain to see each step of the way. But they had their national exposure, ratings, and celebrity.
Dr. Birx, meanwhile, entered the West Wing echo chamber and fell prey to similar black hole celebrity. The July 18 Dahlia Lithwick piece in Slate reviewed Mary Trump's book and laid out this Donald Trump black hole theory. Competent people glom onto Donald Trump, commit to propping him up, and get swallowed into a black hole of celebrity incompetence. They can't break free because the cost to themselves is too high once they've committed. What they thought was a western frontier town milieu with a competent posse and sheriff turns out to be a Hollywood facade with people around Trump play-acting roles. Tragically, without the people in charge having actual expertise, acting can't save the day when real-world problems arise.
Dr. Birx's self-absorbed self-promotion has been exposed. Of all the health professionals, she routinely offered up the most optimistic vision. So of course her influence expanded. Science, however, does not function well in echo chambers.
Yesterday, July 21, President Trump gave his first "task force" briefing since my "Task Force Review." No health professionals spoke. Dr. Birx, according to Trump, was just outside the door in the next room. She's probably a bit podium-shy since questions regarding this week's reports of her influence and failures would be on the agenda. So she hid.
Evidently we now have a post-science task force. This should be fun.
Bob Dietz
July 22, 2020
Sunday, July 19, 2020
Mary Trump, Rescue Me from Ockham's Razor
Sometime in the next couple of weeks, I'll read Mary Trump's Too Much and Never Enough. Based on some reviews, I'm going to be enormously thankful for her book.
Mary Trump is a clinical psychologist, and she evidently brings insights regarding concerns that have given me the willies. Dahlia Lithwick of Slate offers a fine July 13 column that highlights one of these concerns. Why did people glom onto Donald Trump as a presidential candidate, and how can intelligent, presumably clear-eyed Republican politicians enable what is nation-damaging presidential behavior?
I've often attended speeches or events featuring an outlier, anti-science speaker. What chills me isn't listening to Count Dracula at the podium. It's glancing around and realizing that most of the audience has bite marks in their necks. The idea that education and critical thinking has somehow failed for a large chunk of the U.S. population is always unnerving. What's worse in the case of President Trump is that it was only after the 2016 election that I understood the citizenry I thought I knew had become pod people, hijacked by some deep need to believe in a person obviously ill equipped to do what they wanted him to do. At the time, I found it as amusing as scary. Maybe all those MAGA folks had a deep seated need to live vicariously through someone who could "grab them by the pussy." Now, however, in the middle of a pandemic, it's not so amusing. Mary Trump promises to provide some understanding.
Another reason Mary Trump's book may alleviate some concerns is that I've had a real difficult time coming up with any reasonable explanation for President Trump's recent behaviors. I read a couple of Trump biographies before his Art of the Deal days, and I followed him in the east coast tabloids. Yes, he was rude and a bit of a fraud, but I never had the sense that he hated the United States. Almost all of his actions in the last six months have been serious sabotage. If he were a reasoning, self-aware man, I was at a loss as to why he was ignoring the pandemic, why the U.S. failed to simply copy the templates other nations had used to handle the virus, why he would gas peaceful protesters for a Bible photo-op that looked terribly insincere, and why he would focus on Confederate statues. Why do these things?
The obvious Ockham's Razor conclusion would be that he's some kind of Russian asset, doing as much damage to the country as possible before losing his re-election campaign. Fortunately, Mary Trump's book may provide some explanatory options other than the simple, elegant "Russian asset" theory.
That being said, when the commander-in-chief as self-destructive sociopath voted in by 60 million people is the reasonable alternative to his being a Russian asset, you know 2020 would be a tough time for William of Ockham.
Bob Dietz
July 19, 2020
Mary Trump is a clinical psychologist, and she evidently brings insights regarding concerns that have given me the willies. Dahlia Lithwick of Slate offers a fine July 13 column that highlights one of these concerns. Why did people glom onto Donald Trump as a presidential candidate, and how can intelligent, presumably clear-eyed Republican politicians enable what is nation-damaging presidential behavior?
I've often attended speeches or events featuring an outlier, anti-science speaker. What chills me isn't listening to Count Dracula at the podium. It's glancing around and realizing that most of the audience has bite marks in their necks. The idea that education and critical thinking has somehow failed for a large chunk of the U.S. population is always unnerving. What's worse in the case of President Trump is that it was only after the 2016 election that I understood the citizenry I thought I knew had become pod people, hijacked by some deep need to believe in a person obviously ill equipped to do what they wanted him to do. At the time, I found it as amusing as scary. Maybe all those MAGA folks had a deep seated need to live vicariously through someone who could "grab them by the pussy." Now, however, in the middle of a pandemic, it's not so amusing. Mary Trump promises to provide some understanding.
Another reason Mary Trump's book may alleviate some concerns is that I've had a real difficult time coming up with any reasonable explanation for President Trump's recent behaviors. I read a couple of Trump biographies before his Art of the Deal days, and I followed him in the east coast tabloids. Yes, he was rude and a bit of a fraud, but I never had the sense that he hated the United States. Almost all of his actions in the last six months have been serious sabotage. If he were a reasoning, self-aware man, I was at a loss as to why he was ignoring the pandemic, why the U.S. failed to simply copy the templates other nations had used to handle the virus, why he would gas peaceful protesters for a Bible photo-op that looked terribly insincere, and why he would focus on Confederate statues. Why do these things?
The obvious Ockham's Razor conclusion would be that he's some kind of Russian asset, doing as much damage to the country as possible before losing his re-election campaign. Fortunately, Mary Trump's book may provide some explanatory options other than the simple, elegant "Russian asset" theory.
That being said, when the commander-in-chief as self-destructive sociopath voted in by 60 million people is the reasonable alternative to his being a Russian asset, you know 2020 would be a tough time for William of Ockham.
Bob Dietz
July 19, 2020
My Most Inaccurate Pandemic Prediction
"137,000 deaths by August 4." IHME Model (May 9, 2020)
"The IHME number may make it to July 4th or thereabouts." Bob Dietz (May 10, 2020)
Depending on which tally one uses, the U.S. hit 137,000 deaths from COVID-19 sometime between July 11 and July 15. I was off by between seven and 11 days, if one ungenerously ignores the "or thereabouts" part of my quote.
The University of Washington associated IHME model, at the time, said 137,000 by August 4. The IHME model was off by three weeks, at best. This is as close as the IHME came to out-predicting me.
Not much trick to this. In the early days of the pandemic, the Trump administration trotted out the model with the least projected deaths. The IHME received quite a bit of publicity for months, even though their models always (and I do mean always) predicted fewer deaths than actually had occurred at each date. If you bet the OVER every time the IHME made a projection, you swept the wagers.
President Trump, meanwhile, said on May 8, "We'll be at 100,000, 110,000," and he was talking about the entirety of the pandemic, not just to August 4.
It took about two months for American media to begin surveying various models as opposed to focusing exclusively on IHME numbers. Those alternative numbers were available from the start, albeit without White House blessing.
Another Prediction
I cannot believe we are at this juncture. The great American health care system reduced to the status of, if you'll pardon the expression, a Wuhan fire drill. A completely disorganized joke. Take a narcissistic president, a pitiably sycophantic collection of GOP governors, adult civilians who would last about 24 hours of the London blitz, and U.S. youngsters whose goal in life is evidently to channel Oedipus. Add them together, and our present reality is what you get.
Quite a mess. And it will get worse. How's that for a prediction?
Bob Dietz
July 19, 2020
"The IHME number may make it to July 4th or thereabouts." Bob Dietz (May 10, 2020)
Depending on which tally one uses, the U.S. hit 137,000 deaths from COVID-19 sometime between July 11 and July 15. I was off by between seven and 11 days, if one ungenerously ignores the "or thereabouts" part of my quote.
The University of Washington associated IHME model, at the time, said 137,000 by August 4. The IHME model was off by three weeks, at best. This is as close as the IHME came to out-predicting me.
Not much trick to this. In the early days of the pandemic, the Trump administration trotted out the model with the least projected deaths. The IHME received quite a bit of publicity for months, even though their models always (and I do mean always) predicted fewer deaths than actually had occurred at each date. If you bet the OVER every time the IHME made a projection, you swept the wagers.
President Trump, meanwhile, said on May 8, "We'll be at 100,000, 110,000," and he was talking about the entirety of the pandemic, not just to August 4.
It took about two months for American media to begin surveying various models as opposed to focusing exclusively on IHME numbers. Those alternative numbers were available from the start, albeit without White House blessing.
Another Prediction
I cannot believe we are at this juncture. The great American health care system reduced to the status of, if you'll pardon the expression, a Wuhan fire drill. A completely disorganized joke. Take a narcissistic president, a pitiably sycophantic collection of GOP governors, adult civilians who would last about 24 hours of the London blitz, and U.S. youngsters whose goal in life is evidently to channel Oedipus. Add them together, and our present reality is what you get.
Quite a mess. And it will get worse. How's that for a prediction?
Bob Dietz
July 19, 2020
Wednesday, July 15, 2020
Interview with the Vampire's Assistant
In the 1931 film Dracula, the vampire's human assistant, Renfield, is a hyperkinetic, fly-eating resident of an insane asylum. I mention this for no compelling reason.
On Thursday, July 9, during a CNN town hall on the pandemic, Anderson Cooper and Dr. Sanjay Gupta welcomed as their primary guest CDC director Robert Redfield. I have never seen an interview quite like it.
I've conducted maybe two dozen interviews in my life, so I have some modest sense of the art form. The back and forth with Redfield made me cringe in a visceral way. I haven't felt that uncomfortable watching a screen since walking out on Nekromantik 2.
Cooper and Gupta asked legitimate questions, the meat of which had to do with the CDC's testing failings and the manner in which their guidelines had largely been ignored by red state governors eager to re-open. The thrust of the questions was that if people didn't follow CDC regs to re-open because of Trumpian pressure, how likely was it that CDC recommendations would be implemented by schools?
Redfield, whose television persona resembled a Megatherium on downers being questioned for murder, managed to say very little in terms of content. In terms of enunciation, he was exceedingly clear, slow, and repetitive. I almost felt sorry for him. He reminded me of Skurge the Executioner in Thor: Ragnarok. Skurge was tasked with doing really bad things for Hela the Goddess of Death. It was clear Skurge was going to do whatever Hela ordered, but looking in his eyes, you felt for him because if he provided any hint of pushback, there would be really nasty consequences.
Anyway, when all was said and done, I understood the point Redfield was trying to make. He didn't state that point clearly because doing so was indelicate. Redfield more or less said that he thought people in charge would be more responsible when it came to the lives of children in school than they had been regarding the lives of adults during the re-opening. Speculative, but a fair argument.
I forced myself to watch the interview again yesterday. I still cringed and squirmed in my chair. Watching this second time, I realized how long and lacking in substance and detail Redfield's replies. It was almost as if he had been trying to run out the clock with meandering monotone non-answers. Extremely difficult to watch.
When Redfield took time to check the interview tape this week, I wonder if he was embarrassed. A fine scientist and doctor reduced to this. Perhaps the shock of actually seeing the interview will fuel self reflection that enables him to escape the vampire's hypnotic sway. Until then, I'm going to save the CDC director some energy and send him a few fly swatters.
Bob Dietz
July 15, 2020
On Thursday, July 9, during a CNN town hall on the pandemic, Anderson Cooper and Dr. Sanjay Gupta welcomed as their primary guest CDC director Robert Redfield. I have never seen an interview quite like it.
I've conducted maybe two dozen interviews in my life, so I have some modest sense of the art form. The back and forth with Redfield made me cringe in a visceral way. I haven't felt that uncomfortable watching a screen since walking out on Nekromantik 2.
Cooper and Gupta asked legitimate questions, the meat of which had to do with the CDC's testing failings and the manner in which their guidelines had largely been ignored by red state governors eager to re-open. The thrust of the questions was that if people didn't follow CDC regs to re-open because of Trumpian pressure, how likely was it that CDC recommendations would be implemented by schools?
Redfield, whose television persona resembled a Megatherium on downers being questioned for murder, managed to say very little in terms of content. In terms of enunciation, he was exceedingly clear, slow, and repetitive. I almost felt sorry for him. He reminded me of Skurge the Executioner in Thor: Ragnarok. Skurge was tasked with doing really bad things for Hela the Goddess of Death. It was clear Skurge was going to do whatever Hela ordered, but looking in his eyes, you felt for him because if he provided any hint of pushback, there would be really nasty consequences.
Anyway, when all was said and done, I understood the point Redfield was trying to make. He didn't state that point clearly because doing so was indelicate. Redfield more or less said that he thought people in charge would be more responsible when it came to the lives of children in school than they had been regarding the lives of adults during the re-opening. Speculative, but a fair argument.
I forced myself to watch the interview again yesterday. I still cringed and squirmed in my chair. Watching this second time, I realized how long and lacking in substance and detail Redfield's replies. It was almost as if he had been trying to run out the clock with meandering monotone non-answers. Extremely difficult to watch.
When Redfield took time to check the interview tape this week, I wonder if he was embarrassed. A fine scientist and doctor reduced to this. Perhaps the shock of actually seeing the interview will fuel self reflection that enables him to escape the vampire's hypnotic sway. Until then, I'm going to save the CDC director some energy and send him a few fly swatters.
Bob Dietz
July 15, 2020
Tuesday, July 14, 2020
Resume (for Dr. Fauci) Redux
With apologies to that genius, Dorothy Parker.
Resume
Covid pains you;
You'll have your own stamp;
Donald blames you;
Bleach causes cramp.
Death threats aren't lawful;
Good science doesn't fit;
Task force is god-awful;
You might as quit.
Note: This is a slight rewrite of the May 17, 2020 column. Who didn't see this coming?
Bob Dietz
July 14, 2020
Resume
Covid pains you;
You'll have your own stamp;
Donald blames you;
Bleach causes cramp.
Death threats aren't lawful;
Good science doesn't fit;
Task force is god-awful;
You might as quit.
Note: This is a slight rewrite of the May 17, 2020 column. Who didn't see this coming?
Bob Dietz
July 14, 2020
Monday, July 13, 2020
Trump Bans Probability
"The speculation game doesn't serve the public in any particular way. When it gets to handicapping what's going to happen next, get a cable-news gig. We've conveyed that down to all the doctors." Unnamed senior administration official, as quoted by Yasmeen Abutaleb, Josh Dawsy, and Laurie McGinley of the Washington Post (July 11, 2020)
It's a shame for the White House that the doctors haven't signed NDAs. And neither has something called probability.
Many ridiculous, asinine comments have come from the Trump administration during this pandemic. Peter Navarro said that he was "a social scientist" when asked about his infectious disease expertise. We've had soliloquies on hydroxychloroquine, bleach, and warm summer evenings, all ostensibly solving the issue. We've been gifted with the revelation that if no testing were done, there would be "very few" cases. Utterly brain dead stuff aimed at some unidentified population of zombies. Nothing, however, has cut to the chase of what is wrong with the Trump administration more than the quote above.
What's shocking to me is that the unnamed senior administration official felt comfortable saying this. It's one of those "thinking out loud" moments actually stated to witnesses. Basically, some hubris-drenched, irresponsible non-expert decided it's a stellar idea to impose a kind of non disclosure agreement on experts.
Substitute the word "probability" for "speculation game," and you'll begin to understand my problem. American families have gotten dead wrong information from the Trump administration for five months now. Families have been forced to plan their behaviors, their economic well being, and their very lives on blatantly incorrect, overly optimistic administration statements.
Instead of allowing credentialed experts, the best of the best, to directly tell the public what they think will happen, this senior administration official thinks nothing is wrong with trying to put a lid on what health professionals tell the public about the future. And he says it out loud.
The speculation game, also known as probability, indeed serves the public in very particular ways, namely it helps them plan their lives based on what experts think is likely to happen. This attempt to restrict projections and predictions from reaching the public is actually worse than the science-distorting public relations of the early Soviet Union. It's worse because much more is currently at stake.
The Trump White House is attempting to censor probability. What's truly galling is that they see nothing wrong with their attempt.
Bob Dietz
July 13, 2020
It's a shame for the White House that the doctors haven't signed NDAs. And neither has something called probability.
Many ridiculous, asinine comments have come from the Trump administration during this pandemic. Peter Navarro said that he was "a social scientist" when asked about his infectious disease expertise. We've had soliloquies on hydroxychloroquine, bleach, and warm summer evenings, all ostensibly solving the issue. We've been gifted with the revelation that if no testing were done, there would be "very few" cases. Utterly brain dead stuff aimed at some unidentified population of zombies. Nothing, however, has cut to the chase of what is wrong with the Trump administration more than the quote above.
What's shocking to me is that the unnamed senior administration official felt comfortable saying this. It's one of those "thinking out loud" moments actually stated to witnesses. Basically, some hubris-drenched, irresponsible non-expert decided it's a stellar idea to impose a kind of non disclosure agreement on experts.
Substitute the word "probability" for "speculation game," and you'll begin to understand my problem. American families have gotten dead wrong information from the Trump administration for five months now. Families have been forced to plan their behaviors, their economic well being, and their very lives on blatantly incorrect, overly optimistic administration statements.
Instead of allowing credentialed experts, the best of the best, to directly tell the public what they think will happen, this senior administration official thinks nothing is wrong with trying to put a lid on what health professionals tell the public about the future. And he says it out loud.
The speculation game, also known as probability, indeed serves the public in very particular ways, namely it helps them plan their lives based on what experts think is likely to happen. This attempt to restrict projections and predictions from reaching the public is actually worse than the science-distorting public relations of the early Soviet Union. It's worse because much more is currently at stake.
The Trump White House is attempting to censor probability. What's truly galling is that they see nothing wrong with their attempt.
Bob Dietz
July 13, 2020
Saturday, July 11, 2020
A Gambler Watches the News
This week, as the United States slid deep into a pandemic debacle, I realized that a huge chunk of the American public could probably use a lesson in how to watch the news.
Forty years ago, I would have thought this ridiculous. Every fifth grader should be able to sort out what counts, what's likely garbage, and who does or does not know what they're talking about. But in 2020, as Tom Nichols pointed out in his fine book, The Death of Expertise, American citizens seem to have lost any clear-minded ability to prioritize some sources over others or to put information together. Thus, I am going to halfheartedly list some serious recommendations. I say halfheartedly because my ego has been boosted quite a bit recently as I came to grips with how many Americans lack basic critical thinking skills. I hate to help people catch up, and I hate teaching remedial reasoning. The situation, however, is dire, so at the risk of enabling a reader or two to escape being dumb as rocks, I volunteer the following painfully obvious suggestions.
1) Evaluate the news shows' guests credentials regarding the topic at hand. Rank them. This should be as plain as the nose on a pachyderm, but evidently it's not. Look, if a half dozen epidemiologists agree on one aspect of the pandemic, great. If the President of the United States says something else, put him at the bottom of the list. The man traffics in casinos that failed and New York real estate. He has no medical expertise. Unless he assembles a stellar cast of comparably credentialed (as in degrees and job experience) epidemiologists to publicly back him up, the president has no standing. You may as well ask your chimney sweep.
2) If a network relies on "experts" who have clearly inferior credentials or job experience compared to other network rosters, but who happen to simply have some marginal expertise -- such as celebrity doctors or non specialist medical professionals -- ask yourself why the network could not get nationally recognized specialists. Also, ask if maybe they could have gotten nationally recognized specialists but chose to not do so. What does that tell you about the motives of the network?
3) If no international guests ever appear who are asked to critique the United States, what does that tell you about the guest selection process? The pandemic has been completely and utterly an international event. If you're not getting an international perspective, you're missing most of the story. Don't be so parochial.
4) To make maximally efficient use of your time, skip the anecdotal stuff and profiles. It's fine to get quick samplings from a mayor here or a governor there, but that should be just to get a quick sense of what's happening. The mayors and governors are going to spend a lot of time on self-serving jibber jabber. Skip most of the anecdote and profile junk. Instead, find summary and town hall shows where most of the guests are experts and what's being discussed are numbers. Anecdotal stories aren't really evidence of anything. Profiles may be emotionally engaging but serve little practical purpose if you are reasonably well informed.
5) Don't fall for a spotlight on small subsets of numbers. Just as a news show can attempt to impose a perception via interviews and profiles, it can also spin reality by ignoring nine of 10 relevant statistics and continually pivoting to the one that supports an agenda. If you're getting just a number or two and not an overview, ask yourself why. If a show has to feature some short-term subset to make a case for something, you're being bamboozled.
6) Most important, read more than you watch. Watching television to get information, as opposed to reading, is inefficient. Don't believe me? Find a transcript of a television interview. Read it and see how long it takes you. Then watch the interview. At minimum, you can read two interviews in the same time you can watch one. The average American speaks 100-120 words per minute, and interviews are usually slower than this. The average American reads 250-300 words per minute. Back when I endured the fifth grade speed reading machine, I was somewhere over 450. And yes, while it's true that you can glean some non-verbal info from watching, this is a fast-evolving pandemic. You want to process maximum information in minimum time. A heavy emphasis on reading is how to get that done. Plus there are no commercials.
Bob Dietz
June 11, 2020
Forty years ago, I would have thought this ridiculous. Every fifth grader should be able to sort out what counts, what's likely garbage, and who does or does not know what they're talking about. But in 2020, as Tom Nichols pointed out in his fine book, The Death of Expertise, American citizens seem to have lost any clear-minded ability to prioritize some sources over others or to put information together. Thus, I am going to halfheartedly list some serious recommendations. I say halfheartedly because my ego has been boosted quite a bit recently as I came to grips with how many Americans lack basic critical thinking skills. I hate to help people catch up, and I hate teaching remedial reasoning. The situation, however, is dire, so at the risk of enabling a reader or two to escape being dumb as rocks, I volunteer the following painfully obvious suggestions.
1) Evaluate the news shows' guests credentials regarding the topic at hand. Rank them. This should be as plain as the nose on a pachyderm, but evidently it's not. Look, if a half dozen epidemiologists agree on one aspect of the pandemic, great. If the President of the United States says something else, put him at the bottom of the list. The man traffics in casinos that failed and New York real estate. He has no medical expertise. Unless he assembles a stellar cast of comparably credentialed (as in degrees and job experience) epidemiologists to publicly back him up, the president has no standing. You may as well ask your chimney sweep.
2) If a network relies on "experts" who have clearly inferior credentials or job experience compared to other network rosters, but who happen to simply have some marginal expertise -- such as celebrity doctors or non specialist medical professionals -- ask yourself why the network could not get nationally recognized specialists. Also, ask if maybe they could have gotten nationally recognized specialists but chose to not do so. What does that tell you about the motives of the network?
3) If no international guests ever appear who are asked to critique the United States, what does that tell you about the guest selection process? The pandemic has been completely and utterly an international event. If you're not getting an international perspective, you're missing most of the story. Don't be so parochial.
4) To make maximally efficient use of your time, skip the anecdotal stuff and profiles. It's fine to get quick samplings from a mayor here or a governor there, but that should be just to get a quick sense of what's happening. The mayors and governors are going to spend a lot of time on self-serving jibber jabber. Skip most of the anecdote and profile junk. Instead, find summary and town hall shows where most of the guests are experts and what's being discussed are numbers. Anecdotal stories aren't really evidence of anything. Profiles may be emotionally engaging but serve little practical purpose if you are reasonably well informed.
5) Don't fall for a spotlight on small subsets of numbers. Just as a news show can attempt to impose a perception via interviews and profiles, it can also spin reality by ignoring nine of 10 relevant statistics and continually pivoting to the one that supports an agenda. If you're getting just a number or two and not an overview, ask yourself why. If a show has to feature some short-term subset to make a case for something, you're being bamboozled.
6) Most important, read more than you watch. Watching television to get information, as opposed to reading, is inefficient. Don't believe me? Find a transcript of a television interview. Read it and see how long it takes you. Then watch the interview. At minimum, you can read two interviews in the same time you can watch one. The average American speaks 100-120 words per minute, and interviews are usually slower than this. The average American reads 250-300 words per minute. Back when I endured the fifth grade speed reading machine, I was somewhere over 450. And yes, while it's true that you can glean some non-verbal info from watching, this is a fast-evolving pandemic. You want to process maximum information in minimum time. A heavy emphasis on reading is how to get that done. Plus there are no commercials.
Bob Dietz
June 11, 2020
Friday, July 10, 2020
The Greatest Opening in American Literature
We were somewhere around Barstow on the edge of the desert when the drugs began to take hold. I remember saying something like "I feel a bit lightheaded; maybe you should drive..." And suddenly there was a terrible roar all around us and the sky was full of what looked like huge bats, all swooping and screeching and diving around the car, which was going about a hundred miles an hour with the top down to Las Vegas. And a voice was screaming: "Holy Jesus! What are those goddamn animals?"
Then it was quiet again. My attorney had taken his shirt off and was pouring beer on his chest, to facilitate the tanning process. "What the hell are you yelling about?" he muttered, staring up at the sun with his eyes closed and covered in wraparound Spanish sunglasses. "Never mind," I said, "It's your turn to drive." I hit the brakes and aimed the Great Red Shark toward the shoulder of the highway. No point mentioning those bats, I thought. The poor bastard will see them soon enough.
Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1971)
Well, we're all seeing bats now, at least those of us who count ourselves among the sane. Of course, there are the deniers, all hopped up on ceremonial patriotism and wearing 401K blinders so as to see only ahead towards a finish line promised many times but receding more and more into the distance as projections fail and U.S. strategies collapse, obvious houses of cards. But those of us without the privilege of coinage-lined blinkers and the advantage of gigantic MAGA cap brims, we see the bats. Swooping and screeching and bringing the inevitable end to The Great American Dream much sooner than anyone expected.
These last five months, the United States has missed Hunter S. Thompson in a deep, familial way. What would that champion of insight and justice have revealed to our minds had he still been alive? Would he have surrendered in disdain and taken his own life in horror, or would he have swallowed hard and mustered inimical responses to the sociological psychedelia and rancid-milk-with-rum of the Trump era?
I want to kick Hunter Thompson's ass right now for depriving us of what would have been some badly needed wisdom and perhaps a call to arms. He had done his job so brilliantly well, however, that I shouldn't criticize avoiding further pain. He taught us well; we just didn't learn very well. He had seen the bats coming from afar, back when they were loud and vicious, but still vulnerable to a well placed left hook and a machete in hand. He could see the Great American Dream dying many leagues away. And he did his best to warn us.
The bats have grown well beyond the size of Madagascar flying foxes. That would have been impossible enough. But now we are confronted with these Pteranodon-size monstrosities, bats so large that one of them can carry one of us away. That's the way democracy works, I'm told. Some people think they come from China, but folks in the know suspect a Russian origin. They are legion. Their noise, so loud, so raucous; no speech is possible. At least not in our convertibles.
Americans have always loved convertibles. Open and daring; dashingly independent. Vehicles in denotative name. Connotatively, vehicles to also display our lack of fear. Americans pride ourselves on a lack of fear. And now that lack of fear has proven our undoing. We drive with our tops down through the deserts of California and Arizona, across Texas, through the heat of a southern summer.
Unfortunately, the bats can smell our sweat. And they come, a deafening flapping of wings. First drowning us out with their non-rational cacophony, then picking us off one by one. When spatters of blood join aerosolized sweat in the air, a feeding frenzy ensues. Hunter Thompson saw all of this on the American horizon. He could hear the wingbeats at great distance. A threat to The Great American Dream. We didn't listen.
Once upon a time, we had a direction. And we could trust the signs on the side of the road. The people who put them there had some interest in our getting to where we wanted to be. The signs are all gone now, ripped from their moorings by massive talons and strewn all over the roadscapes. We no longer have a clear direction. And the sky is always full of bats. Always the bats.
I'm angered and saddened that HST is gone, and he has left the work to ineffectual hacks like me. But his words still echo, "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." The going has gotten sadistic, cruel, and very definitely weird. Our response should be to go pro, as HST implored. Screw the convertibles. Not very practical when you're dealing with bats. Get old monster Cadillacs or huge prison vans, something with lots of metal. Grab fine Beretta shotguns, coolers full of Coronas and kielbasa, and let's go hunt some bats.
If Richard Nixon was, as HST said, "a political monster straight out of Grendel," then these bats are much, much worse. They're like army ants whose queens have died. What they do makes no sense in any grand scheme, but they must be stopped. Show them no mercy.
Bob Dietz
July 11, 2020
Then it was quiet again. My attorney had taken his shirt off and was pouring beer on his chest, to facilitate the tanning process. "What the hell are you yelling about?" he muttered, staring up at the sun with his eyes closed and covered in wraparound Spanish sunglasses. "Never mind," I said, "It's your turn to drive." I hit the brakes and aimed the Great Red Shark toward the shoulder of the highway. No point mentioning those bats, I thought. The poor bastard will see them soon enough.
Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1971)
Well, we're all seeing bats now, at least those of us who count ourselves among the sane. Of course, there are the deniers, all hopped up on ceremonial patriotism and wearing 401K blinders so as to see only ahead towards a finish line promised many times but receding more and more into the distance as projections fail and U.S. strategies collapse, obvious houses of cards. But those of us without the privilege of coinage-lined blinkers and the advantage of gigantic MAGA cap brims, we see the bats. Swooping and screeching and bringing the inevitable end to The Great American Dream much sooner than anyone expected.
These last five months, the United States has missed Hunter S. Thompson in a deep, familial way. What would that champion of insight and justice have revealed to our minds had he still been alive? Would he have surrendered in disdain and taken his own life in horror, or would he have swallowed hard and mustered inimical responses to the sociological psychedelia and rancid-milk-with-rum of the Trump era?
I want to kick Hunter Thompson's ass right now for depriving us of what would have been some badly needed wisdom and perhaps a call to arms. He had done his job so brilliantly well, however, that I shouldn't criticize avoiding further pain. He taught us well; we just didn't learn very well. He had seen the bats coming from afar, back when they were loud and vicious, but still vulnerable to a well placed left hook and a machete in hand. He could see the Great American Dream dying many leagues away. And he did his best to warn us.
The bats have grown well beyond the size of Madagascar flying foxes. That would have been impossible enough. But now we are confronted with these Pteranodon-size monstrosities, bats so large that one of them can carry one of us away. That's the way democracy works, I'm told. Some people think they come from China, but folks in the know suspect a Russian origin. They are legion. Their noise, so loud, so raucous; no speech is possible. At least not in our convertibles.
Americans have always loved convertibles. Open and daring; dashingly independent. Vehicles in denotative name. Connotatively, vehicles to also display our lack of fear. Americans pride ourselves on a lack of fear. And now that lack of fear has proven our undoing. We drive with our tops down through the deserts of California and Arizona, across Texas, through the heat of a southern summer.
Unfortunately, the bats can smell our sweat. And they come, a deafening flapping of wings. First drowning us out with their non-rational cacophony, then picking us off one by one. When spatters of blood join aerosolized sweat in the air, a feeding frenzy ensues. Hunter Thompson saw all of this on the American horizon. He could hear the wingbeats at great distance. A threat to The Great American Dream. We didn't listen.
Once upon a time, we had a direction. And we could trust the signs on the side of the road. The people who put them there had some interest in our getting to where we wanted to be. The signs are all gone now, ripped from their moorings by massive talons and strewn all over the roadscapes. We no longer have a clear direction. And the sky is always full of bats. Always the bats.
I'm angered and saddened that HST is gone, and he has left the work to ineffectual hacks like me. But his words still echo, "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." The going has gotten sadistic, cruel, and very definitely weird. Our response should be to go pro, as HST implored. Screw the convertibles. Not very practical when you're dealing with bats. Get old monster Cadillacs or huge prison vans, something with lots of metal. Grab fine Beretta shotguns, coolers full of Coronas and kielbasa, and let's go hunt some bats.
If Richard Nixon was, as HST said, "a political monster straight out of Grendel," then these bats are much, much worse. They're like army ants whose queens have died. What they do makes no sense in any grand scheme, but they must be stopped. Show them no mercy.
Bob Dietz
July 11, 2020
Articles of Note -- July 10
I just wanted to list a few article recommendations published in the last couple of weeks.
First is "America was Built to Fail," published June 22 by Timothy Kreider at gen.medium.com. The piece comes at our present challenges from the perspective that the United States has remade itself, butterfly-from-chrysalis style, at other points in its history. While this moment is frightening in its fluidness, the country has a long history of course correcting.
Next, a piece in The Atlantic that was recommended by a sociologist friend. The title is "The Decline of the American World," and the author is Tom McTague. This essay, which first appeared June 24, tackles other countries' views of the United States and how the mechanisms behind those views may or may not be severely affected by the Trump years thus far.
The third piece, reported by Kate Kelland of Reuters on July 8:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/scientists-warn-of-potential-wave-of-covid-linked-brain-damage/ar-BB16sd5S?ocid=spartan-ntp-feeds
This UK study, while small, is ominous. Those who think that COVID-19 doesn't present dire long-term consequences for those who "recover" may want to think again and wait until medical professionals can examine long-term data. Making long-term assumptions without long-term data is often a bad idea, especially when lives and health are at stake.
That's it for now. In case you're wondering when I'll do a summary of how the early re-opening debacle unfolded just as predicted here, stay tuned. Even I didn't expect all of the red state governors to look like idiots all at once, but that's what's happened. It was the GOP predictions versus the predictions of science. As I said previously, I wish there'd been odds on that.
Bob Dietz
July 10, 2020
First is "America was Built to Fail," published June 22 by Timothy Kreider at gen.medium.com. The piece comes at our present challenges from the perspective that the United States has remade itself, butterfly-from-chrysalis style, at other points in its history. While this moment is frightening in its fluidness, the country has a long history of course correcting.
Next, a piece in The Atlantic that was recommended by a sociologist friend. The title is "The Decline of the American World," and the author is Tom McTague. This essay, which first appeared June 24, tackles other countries' views of the United States and how the mechanisms behind those views may or may not be severely affected by the Trump years thus far.
The third piece, reported by Kate Kelland of Reuters on July 8:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/scientists-warn-of-potential-wave-of-covid-linked-brain-damage/ar-BB16sd5S?ocid=spartan-ntp-feeds
This UK study, while small, is ominous. Those who think that COVID-19 doesn't present dire long-term consequences for those who "recover" may want to think again and wait until medical professionals can examine long-term data. Making long-term assumptions without long-term data is often a bad idea, especially when lives and health are at stake.
That's it for now. In case you're wondering when I'll do a summary of how the early re-opening debacle unfolded just as predicted here, stay tuned. Even I didn't expect all of the red state governors to look like idiots all at once, but that's what's happened. It was the GOP predictions versus the predictions of science. As I said previously, I wish there'd been odds on that.
Bob Dietz
July 10, 2020
Wednesday, July 8, 2020
The Expendables
Sometimes life imitates art.
The 2010 film The Expendables features Sylvester Stallone and Jason Statham heading an all-star action movie roster. Stallone's team of mercenaries opens the story by rescuing hostages held for ransom by Somali pirates. Then the main plot features the squad saving the daughter of an island nation's leader. The leader has been co-opted by rogue American agents with an eye to profit more than politics.
I've seen The Expendables three times now, and enjoyed it on every occasion. I've attempted to watch the sequel, Expendables 2, three times. I made it through the entire film the initial viewing, but I subsequently haven't been able to make it much past the first scenes. Expendables 2 opens with the mercenary team rescuing a Chinese billionaire held in Nepal. In the process, the team kills so many Nepalese soldiers that I couldn't keep a body count. I'm guessing it was at least 50, but it may have been a hundred. Ugly stuff, too. Heads getting shot off and such. So I watch this first rescue mission, and the Expendables escape with the Chinese billionaire, and I sit there wondering why I'm supposed to be cheering for these guys.
I like Stallone and Crews and Ludgren as much as anyone, and I love Jason Statham from his Transporter days, but in Expendables 2, this merc team leaves a hundred families bereft of heads of household just to rescue a billionaire. Hello, whoever's in charge -- how about we just pay the ransom and spare the head-splitting violence and hundred graves? See, to make a long story short, I turn off the movie at that point. The killing was too horrific and unnecessary for me to spend two additional hours rooting for these characters.
How did the screenwriters go from the heroic storyline of The Expendables to the opening unheroic savagery of Expendables 2? Did they assume audiences would react to the different scripts the same way? Is the assumption that Americans won't care if the lead characters are killing people they don't really have much motive to kill? Then I got to thinking about the perceived necessity of rescuing the Chinese billionaire. Does it not matter how many die as long as the billionaire pays the bills? What kind of attitude is that for a U.S. movie? Why is rescuing a billionaire held for ransom worth a hundred lives?
Then, of course, irony kicks in. I've been asking parallel questions regarding the pandemic since Republicans began pushing for early re-opening. Substitute "economy" for "Chinese billionaire." Why was it necessary to sacrifice lives to jump start an economy being held hostage by COVID-19? Why not do what other countries had successfully done, namely stay locked down the recommended length of time? What was so difficult about another six weeks of stay-at-home and shutdowns? Why not, in other words, just pay the ransom?
American priorities throughout this re-opening debate have been incredibly skewed to coin over lives, skewed in a way I would have considered unthinkable. Did Americans really accept the opening of Expendables 2 as making logical or moral sense? Did the screenwriters believe economy-over-all is a national vibe?
The good thing about Expendables 2 is that I can turn it off. The bad news about the pandemic is that I cannot. The aspirational values of the United States have been turned upside down. Our citizens have been deemed eminently expendable.
Bob Dietz
July 8, 2020
The 2010 film The Expendables features Sylvester Stallone and Jason Statham heading an all-star action movie roster. Stallone's team of mercenaries opens the story by rescuing hostages held for ransom by Somali pirates. Then the main plot features the squad saving the daughter of an island nation's leader. The leader has been co-opted by rogue American agents with an eye to profit more than politics.
I've seen The Expendables three times now, and enjoyed it on every occasion. I've attempted to watch the sequel, Expendables 2, three times. I made it through the entire film the initial viewing, but I subsequently haven't been able to make it much past the first scenes. Expendables 2 opens with the mercenary team rescuing a Chinese billionaire held in Nepal. In the process, the team kills so many Nepalese soldiers that I couldn't keep a body count. I'm guessing it was at least 50, but it may have been a hundred. Ugly stuff, too. Heads getting shot off and such. So I watch this first rescue mission, and the Expendables escape with the Chinese billionaire, and I sit there wondering why I'm supposed to be cheering for these guys.
I like Stallone and Crews and Ludgren as much as anyone, and I love Jason Statham from his Transporter days, but in Expendables 2, this merc team leaves a hundred families bereft of heads of household just to rescue a billionaire. Hello, whoever's in charge -- how about we just pay the ransom and spare the head-splitting violence and hundred graves? See, to make a long story short, I turn off the movie at that point. The killing was too horrific and unnecessary for me to spend two additional hours rooting for these characters.
How did the screenwriters go from the heroic storyline of The Expendables to the opening unheroic savagery of Expendables 2? Did they assume audiences would react to the different scripts the same way? Is the assumption that Americans won't care if the lead characters are killing people they don't really have much motive to kill? Then I got to thinking about the perceived necessity of rescuing the Chinese billionaire. Does it not matter how many die as long as the billionaire pays the bills? What kind of attitude is that for a U.S. movie? Why is rescuing a billionaire held for ransom worth a hundred lives?
Then, of course, irony kicks in. I've been asking parallel questions regarding the pandemic since Republicans began pushing for early re-opening. Substitute "economy" for "Chinese billionaire." Why was it necessary to sacrifice lives to jump start an economy being held hostage by COVID-19? Why not do what other countries had successfully done, namely stay locked down the recommended length of time? What was so difficult about another six weeks of stay-at-home and shutdowns? Why not, in other words, just pay the ransom?
American priorities throughout this re-opening debate have been incredibly skewed to coin over lives, skewed in a way I would have considered unthinkable. Did Americans really accept the opening of Expendables 2 as making logical or moral sense? Did the screenwriters believe economy-over-all is a national vibe?
The good thing about Expendables 2 is that I can turn it off. The bad news about the pandemic is that I cannot. The aspirational values of the United States have been turned upside down. Our citizens have been deemed eminently expendable.
Bob Dietz
July 8, 2020
Monday, July 6, 2020
Lie Hard
"Now we have tested almost 40 million people. By so doing, we show cases, 99% of which are totally harmless." President Trump (July 4, 2020)
At some point, putting others' lives at risk should have legal consequences. The president's July 4 statement, flatly proclaimed without hint of speculation or possibility of error, is going to result in deaths. Of all the lies spewed for months, for all of the garbage projections and opinions regarding wish fulfillment cures and outcomes, this July 4 statement stands as the worst of the worst. Trump followers, emboldened by this comment, will take risks they otherwise might not have taken. It's a statement that will undeniably have blood on its hands.
I'm not sure why this kind of lie is legal. It's not simply an uninformed opinion. President Trump has access to every shred of medical data in the United States. It's not a question of gray area debate. The 99% figure is utterly wrong with or without the damning adjective "totally." The man made a decision to have more people die by voicing this statement. He purposefully included the qualifier "totally" so as to make as uncompromising a point as possible. He didn't just lie. He determined in advance, knowing the effects his words would have, to lie hard.
President Trump made a completely false statement which he knew would result in deaths, and he did it regardless of consequences. As the theater lobby catches on fire, the president strolls to the restrooms to tell those inside to take their time, everything is fine.
Quick Numbers
Roughly 20% of virus victims in the United States require hospitalization. The mortality rate in the U.S. is more than four percent. Many long-term debilitating effects result from "mild cases" not requiring hospitalization, as discussed today by The Guardian's Adrienne Matei.
Death by Impact
Words have power. Considering how "the base" treats President Trump's words as gospel, what must it be like to lie to people and have them believe you, evidence to the contrary? What a power trip, sending your followers to their deaths, but obliquely, gently, the dying of their own direct doing. Hypnotic suicide, really. Statistically provable, as demonstrated by studies of Fox News effects. What a high. What a narcissistic skydive. Everyone jumps when you tell them, and not all of them have chutes.
Bob Dietz
July 6, 2020
At some point, putting others' lives at risk should have legal consequences. The president's July 4 statement, flatly proclaimed without hint of speculation or possibility of error, is going to result in deaths. Of all the lies spewed for months, for all of the garbage projections and opinions regarding wish fulfillment cures and outcomes, this July 4 statement stands as the worst of the worst. Trump followers, emboldened by this comment, will take risks they otherwise might not have taken. It's a statement that will undeniably have blood on its hands.
I'm not sure why this kind of lie is legal. It's not simply an uninformed opinion. President Trump has access to every shred of medical data in the United States. It's not a question of gray area debate. The 99% figure is utterly wrong with or without the damning adjective "totally." The man made a decision to have more people die by voicing this statement. He purposefully included the qualifier "totally" so as to make as uncompromising a point as possible. He didn't just lie. He determined in advance, knowing the effects his words would have, to lie hard.
President Trump made a completely false statement which he knew would result in deaths, and he did it regardless of consequences. As the theater lobby catches on fire, the president strolls to the restrooms to tell those inside to take their time, everything is fine.
Quick Numbers
Roughly 20% of virus victims in the United States require hospitalization. The mortality rate in the U.S. is more than four percent. Many long-term debilitating effects result from "mild cases" not requiring hospitalization, as discussed today by The Guardian's Adrienne Matei.
Death by Impact
Words have power. Considering how "the base" treats President Trump's words as gospel, what must it be like to lie to people and have them believe you, evidence to the contrary? What a power trip, sending your followers to their deaths, but obliquely, gently, the dying of their own direct doing. Hypnotic suicide, really. Statistically provable, as demonstrated by studies of Fox News effects. What a high. What a narcissistic skydive. Everyone jumps when you tell them, and not all of them have chutes.
Bob Dietz
July 6, 2020
Saturday, July 4, 2020
Observations on a Fourth of July
I'll address more numbers tomorrow, but I'll start this brief collection of observations with a mention of coronavirus case numbers.
It was only a matter of time until Texas and Florida cases eclipsed New Jersey and moved quickly into third and fourth place behind New York and California. What's stunning is that Georgia and Arizona have blown past Pennsylvania this week. It's actually very surprising given the populations. This speaks to the exceptional failure of red state governors to evaluate the threat facing them. Georgia and Arizona butchered the process of handling COVID-19. In point of fact, they did nothing by the CDC or task force book. Virtually every decision these states made has been wrong from a health care perspective.
My second comment is simply that I'd like to mention the danger inherent in crowds present for both the president's D.C. speech and the accompanying protests. Now was not the time for either.
Third, regarding the Mt. Rushmore speech last night. I have no particular comments regarding the content. I was just looking at the design of the site for the speech. I believe that the stage and podium were basically a killing field. Any virus in the air was likely to carry down to the stage. Despite being outdoors, the set design may have likely been more dangerous to the president than the Tulsa rally scenario. I think that the president put himself in significant danger. The outdoor setting may not have ameliorated the risk much at all.
Here's some predictions going forward, and they're just a little bit ironic. Despite President Trump mentioning the wall in the Mt. Rushmore speech, I suspect we will not hear much about the wall for the next month. The public is going to discover that Mexico is shutting down entry points to keep America's COVID-soaked citizens at bay. Mexico is trying to keep the criminally stupid, diseased Americans out. Turns out the wall may be a convenience for Mexico, at least for the next few months. Also, we may not hear much about the president's one intelligent early-COVID move, namely banning some travel from China. It's tough to brag about that when the United States is the country now banned for its failures to control the virus.
When the pandemic began, I was pessimistic regarding United States leaders and citizenry. I did not think they would strategize well or cope well. The reality is actually much worse than I imagined. The EU banning American travelers? This is an indictment of how truly horrendous the U.S. response has been. Unbelievable, really. And who would have dreamed two months ago that New York would require Bible Belt red state tourists to quarantine themselves if traveling north?
I'm not sure that I've ever witnessed a country's strategic capability and judgement disintegrate so quickly. The scary thing? July 5 figures to be worse than July 4.
Bob Dietz
July 4, 2020
It was only a matter of time until Texas and Florida cases eclipsed New Jersey and moved quickly into third and fourth place behind New York and California. What's stunning is that Georgia and Arizona have blown past Pennsylvania this week. It's actually very surprising given the populations. This speaks to the exceptional failure of red state governors to evaluate the threat facing them. Georgia and Arizona butchered the process of handling COVID-19. In point of fact, they did nothing by the CDC or task force book. Virtually every decision these states made has been wrong from a health care perspective.
My second comment is simply that I'd like to mention the danger inherent in crowds present for both the president's D.C. speech and the accompanying protests. Now was not the time for either.
Third, regarding the Mt. Rushmore speech last night. I have no particular comments regarding the content. I was just looking at the design of the site for the speech. I believe that the stage and podium were basically a killing field. Any virus in the air was likely to carry down to the stage. Despite being outdoors, the set design may have likely been more dangerous to the president than the Tulsa rally scenario. I think that the president put himself in significant danger. The outdoor setting may not have ameliorated the risk much at all.
Here's some predictions going forward, and they're just a little bit ironic. Despite President Trump mentioning the wall in the Mt. Rushmore speech, I suspect we will not hear much about the wall for the next month. The public is going to discover that Mexico is shutting down entry points to keep America's COVID-soaked citizens at bay. Mexico is trying to keep the criminally stupid, diseased Americans out. Turns out the wall may be a convenience for Mexico, at least for the next few months. Also, we may not hear much about the president's one intelligent early-COVID move, namely banning some travel from China. It's tough to brag about that when the United States is the country now banned for its failures to control the virus.
When the pandemic began, I was pessimistic regarding United States leaders and citizenry. I did not think they would strategize well or cope well. The reality is actually much worse than I imagined. The EU banning American travelers? This is an indictment of how truly horrendous the U.S. response has been. Unbelievable, really. And who would have dreamed two months ago that New York would require Bible Belt red state tourists to quarantine themselves if traveling north?
I'm not sure that I've ever witnessed a country's strategic capability and judgement disintegrate so quickly. The scary thing? July 5 figures to be worse than July 4.
Bob Dietz
July 4, 2020
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)