Tales from The Asylum -- August 29

(Organ music)

Watch your step, my friend, as we slowly descend these stone stairs leading to the sub-basements of The Asylum. It was Republican National Convention week, and here in the sub-basements, the party never stopped. 

Be very careful to not slip on these steps; the slime tends to build up the deeper you go. Slime can be slippery, but if you know where it is and what it looks like, there's nothing to fear. No one riots in the sub-basements. No one loots. So there is no need for fear.

That stench? Oh, just hold your nose. The smell is coming from the big pit.  Don't get close to the edge and don't look down. Slide your way around the perimeter. That's it; back to the wall, scoot sideways, like a crab. Don't fall. Most of us have been partying down here so long that we don't even notice the smell.

This week in The Asylum has been particularly fun. Abby Johnson, a second day speaker at the RNC, said she stands by her advocacy for one vote per household. And if people disagree, the man gets his say, as God intended. 

I know what you're thinking -- those evangelicals are anti-woman. Nothing could be further from the truth. While Abby Johnson approves of everyone in a household sharing one vote, God approves of everyone in the Jerry Falwell Jr. household, plus a pool boy, sharing one bed. Nothing anti-woman about Becki Falwell opting for pool boy versus her old man. According to the pool boy, Jerry Junior at least got to watch. And you just know there'll be DVDs for sale soon with a holy purpose. Gotta love a triune-a'-trois God.

Speaking of which, thank the Almighty that we're down here in the sub-basement. Up above, in The Asylum proper, you have looting and rioting and all kinds of socialist decadence. Down here, just optimism and glee. 

For example, last week we sent out word that convalescent plasma was a game changer. But it didn't take long before those scientists and epidemiologists threw a wet blanket over the proclamation. We had a cure, and then we didn't. Bummer. Next, we gave the order that all of that Covid-19 testing of asymptomatics could be halted. Sure enough, three days later, those darn scientists upstairs shot down our optimism once again. Don't they understand? Saying makes it so! That's how we ended up in The Asylum, and thank our triune-a'-trois God that we did.

Meanwhile, preseason number one Alabama has racked up, uh, wait a minute. Oh, that's not 1,200 points in the coaches' poll? It's 1,200 students with Covid-19? Huh. Well, number one is still number one. Hard to be the pinnacle of anything, so kudos to Alabama for the double achievement. Still doesn't top the Falwells, though.

The great thing about these sub-basements -- you're sealed off from the nutcases in the rest of The Asylum. Down here, nobody interrupts whatever you rant, unless it's with applause. Nobody fact checks everything you say. Nobody steps on whatever you prefer to believe. No meds (unless it's HCQ). No Keds (outspoken athletes get stopped at the sub-basement door). And no peds (Q-Anon makes sure of that). Down here, it's all the best version of everything. The Trumps are like the von Trapps, if the von Trapps were Nazis, of course, and couldn't sing. And didn't ever want to leave the stage during their performance.

What's that? You're still having trouble with the smell? It's not that bad, my friend. You can't dump 185,000 corpses in a pit without a little bit of stench. Don't worry, though. By Christmas, we'll have dug another pit. Just for the evangelicals. They requested it.

Join us next week (cue organ music) as we somehow get out of the sub-basement and back onto the grounds of The Asylum, where there's looting and rioting. Did I mention the pillaging?

Bob Dietz

August 30, 2020

Black Tips on White Spears

I'm not one to spend much time watching either party's convention. But I have been trying to figure out why mainstream media hasn't debunked some of the GOP convention speakers for the best, most obvious reasons.

Life is about probability. Why do news networks ignore this reality? Instead, we get personal stories and anecdotes and other gibberish that tells you absolutely nothing about what has happened on a large scale and what will happen. Instead, we get a parade of freak show, end-of-the-bell-curve personal outcomes that engage emotions but lack any descriptive or predictive utility. The anecdotal sample is too small to represent anything. The stories, in fact, have usually been chosen for their freakishness, their public pop, their very non-representative elements. They aren't much value in painting any kind of full reality picture or predicting general cause-and-effect.

On Monday, the GOP trotted out Tim Scott, the sole black Republican senator. Scott explained that, since his family had gone from cotton fields to Congress in one generation, the best way forward for those interested in fulfilling their potential was via the GOP and President Trump.

Without numbers, Scott's message is hollow and useless. No numbers about black income. No numbers about black Covid-19 issues. No numbers about vertical mobility in America. No numbers about black health care in general. No numbers about black educational scores. No talk of blacks in Congress other than himself. No numbers at all.

What we received was a speech about an individual that offered no real evidence of anything and therefore meant almost nothing. The GOP may as well have lined up some lottery winners to praise the economic miracles of Republican leadership. Bootstrap-hoisting stories are sweet parables, but they are no substitute for facts or numbers. Planning based on parables is no substitute for social policy based on numbers.

When Consumer Reports publishes its automotive issue, it's isn't a bestseller because a handful of car owners give enthusiastic speeches for particular models. It's the most popular issue because an enormous amount of survey information from across the country has been collated and put in a readable format.

Placing successful blacks as political speakers, while referencing no numbers regarding black demographics, health care, or economics, is no different than hiring Michael Jordan to sell sneakers. It's about people holding up personal accomplishments as a reason to buy (or buy into) something. Some people pitch shoes. Some people pitch a political party. It's about trying to sell a white crow as an example of all crows.

Bring on the lottery winners to sell economic policy, the octogenarians to praise American health care, and a Republican who survived a lightning strike to verify that the GOP is both blessed by miracles from a Christian god and has Thor on its side as well. The lottery winners, the octogenarians, and the folks who survived lightning can all be completely sincere. It's not their fault, at least not completely, that they see the world from their narrative stance and ignore all of the numbers. That is, after all, what children do. And America is full of arrested development.

Political parties and voters in democracies should know better than to believe that most crows are white because they're presented with a few examples.

Herschel Walker

Herschel Walker also gave a brief speech in support of President Trump. Trump, buying the USFL New Jersey Generals from J. Walter Duncan in 1983, took over Walker's personal services contract, which was designed to circumvent the fledgling league's salary cap. The contract made Walker the highest paid player in professional football, although technically it was not solely a football contract. In his RNC speech, Walker vouched for Trump as not being racist.

Why would President Trump ever have displayed one iota of racism around Herschel Walker? I'm not sure about this theory of assembling black people to vouch for a white guy's non-racism. Wouldn't you be better served asking white dudes who hung out with the white person suspected of racism? Just a thought, but a pretty obvious one. The Walker speech was almost a "Hey, I have a black friend; I can't be a racist" moment.

Summary 

Biographies are not proof for policies. Why doesn't every news organization state this before launching into personality pieces or analyses of autobiographical speeches? If you trot out people instead of numbers to make your points, it's a sign you have no proof for your policies. 

 

Bob Dietz

August 28, 2020

Curious Lines

Occasionally, a high profile line in print or from a speech has, when viewed from a somewhat oblique perspective, more import than would suspect. A tip-off of sorts, like cultural Nazca Lines that appear part of the landscape from ground level but that provide surprising meanings when viewed from a height. These "Curious Lines" entries are devoted to overlooked clues implicit in snippets of text or speech.

My initial offering has to do with South Carolina Republican Senator Tim Scott and his closing speech Day One of the 2020 Republican National Convention. First, a brief synopsis of how my attention was drawn to a line in this speech.

I am not an avid fan of American politics. As such, I admit to never watching much of any convention by either party. I never watched Bill Clinton or Bush or Obama. I've probably seen a total of 30 minutes live convention broadcasting in the last 30 years. Basically, I figure that it's more efficient (time being valuable) to spend 10 or 15 minutes reading summaries than spending a couple of hours watching these things.

In any case, Scott's speech had gotten high marks from both conservative and progressive pundits, but one talking head read a few highlight quotes, and I heard:

"Joe Biden and Kamala Harris want a cultural revolution. A fundamentally different America. If we let them, they will turn our country into a socialist utopia."

I thought I must have heard this incorrectly. The last line could not be right. So I looked up a transcript of the speech. The transcript read exactly the same. Well, I still wasn't convinced. Perhaps the transcriber had made a simple error. I pulled up a video of the Scott speech. I was surprised. What Scott said was exactly the same as the transcript.

Now, if Noam Chomsky sees this, he'll have a field day with it, but allow me some simple observations. Here's where I'm going with this.

Utopia is a noun. The word utopia means (quoting Merriam-Webster), "A place of ideal perfection, especially in laws, government, and social conditions." My question thus becomes, "How could turning America into a utopia be a bad thing in Senator Scott's mind?" 

Evidently, the adjective "socialist" is some kind of deal breaker. And what that implies is most interesting. Scott (or his speechwriters) see "socialist utopia" as a kind of oxymoron. He must believe, given his words, that utopia is not a desirable thing if it incorporates aspects of socialism. Scott views "socialist utopia" as inimical to his preferences, although the very definition of utopia describes ideal laws, government, and social conditions. Taking Scott's perspective to its logical conclusion, Scott therefore does not really see "ideal lives for all" as something towards which society should strive. Given the GOP's comfort with current socioeconomic inequities in the United States, I suppose this should not be surprising. What's surprising is what these few lines expose about utopia being a GOP anathema.

Lifelong struggle and inequality are the noble, American-approved status quo. These are to be maintained as they are preferable to any kind of utopia, because utopias by definition have some kind of leveling socialist features. 

Sometimes a line here and an implication there reveal more subtext than the author, speaker, or speechwriter intended. People say things out loud that really belong in whispers. I think, in this case, what these lines reveal is that striving for utopia and the increasingly Social Darwinist GOP worldview do not blend. American life should be, evidently, about struggle and stratification.

My closing thoughts regarding Scott's curious lines are that, first, this speech was undoubtedly vetted by multiple GOP'ers. So everyone was on board with framing a utopia as a bad outcome since it contains socialist elements. Considering how many people in the United States were a paycheck away from broke before the pandemic, and how things have gotten worse, this is quite a speech-writing commitment to the one-percent. 

Second, and more importantly, the import of defining utopia as a bad thing is truly extraordinary. The people striving for utopia are "the other." They are alien, they are outsiders, they are the opposition. Americans don't strive for "socialist utopia." They are supposed to strive for something else, presumably the status quo en route to record inequality.

Third, and most unsettling, when people write lines into speeches like this, the speeches aren't really being written for the population of a democracy. They are being written for the leadership and constituents of a plutocracy that is quite comfortable with being a plutocracy.

Bob Dietz

August 26, 2020

They Want to Believe

About a week ago, President Trump added Dr. Scott Atlas to the Coronavirus Task Force. Dr. Atlas is not an epidemiologist or public health expert. His main qualification, far as I can tell, is that he was a Fox News fixture who agreed with the president regarding almost everything Covid-related.

As the months of the Trump presidency pass, what strikes me most vividly is the imperviousness of the man and his base to any kind of disconfirmation. He and his base absolutely refuse to acknowledge when he's been wrong, even when it's startlingly, absurdly clear. Dr. Atlas has been carefully vetted. He will not be telling the president that he is wrong. 

I'm a sports handicapper. I am, in a good year, correct 58 to 60 percent of the time. That means 40 percent of the time I am dead wrong, provably incorrect. In the most overpowering, magical years of my life, I have been publicly wrong a third of the time. And, on rare but real occasions, I've had seasons where I was wrong more often than I was right. There's no escaping my wrongness. My partners know when I'm wrong. They and I have email records. The public usually has known when I'm wrong, either through public contests or published records with monitors. The sports books I use have permanent records of the results. I can't just invent a different reality. I have been forced to confront my numerous mistakes and bad judgements every day of every season for 40 professional years and 10 years preceding that. 

What must it be like, I wonder, to go through life pretending to be an expert in all things, and to be able to ignore or jettison all disconfirming evidence? Eventually, one might come to believe in one's omniscience. Living life in the service of propping up one's omniscience would be an adventure. That kind of modus operandi would require periodic wholesale roster changes in both the public and private personnel surrounding you. People who became aware of your errors would have to be discarded. Disconfirming voices would have to be shifted out of one's auditory range. 

I mention all of this because the Republican National Convention has begun. Who will the Republicans trot before the cameras? A parade of B-list sycophants and Trump family members doesn't really impress. Sycophants rarely do. Realistically, the roster for an average Celebrity Apprentice season would have higher Q ratings than whoever the GOP sends to the podiums. More high profile, successful Republicans spoke at the Democratic convention than will speak at the Republican. What will the GOP do for ratings? Recruit a bunch of Fox News celebrities?

Hammering home the idea that Covid-19 is on the run and all is well in America should make for a very curious and tone deaf Republican presentation, sort of like broadcasting a cruise on a Scientology sea org. Out of touch with the outside world because that's become both the mission and the means to stay in charge.

With the announcement that President Trump will more or less be hosting all four days of the convention, things have gotten increasingly curious. It suggests at least three distinct things. First, the roster of GOP standard bearers is a bit thin. Second, Trump doesn't really trust anyone else to keep the backbone of the themes intact for multiple nights. He doesn't trust anyone else's salesmanship. Third, one of the probable reasons for the thin Republican speaking roster is that people don't want to tie themselves to the president. They are willing to cede the limelight to the Trump family because if the convention is perceived as an absurd bust, it's largely on the Trumps.

Thus, the president is going to put in multiple shifts. How can someone who was so absolutely wrong about something of crucial importance step onto a stage night after night and fake that he did a good job? How can you say (as Trump did on February 26),"You have 15 people, and the 15 within a couple of days is going to be down to close to zero" or (on February 28), "It's going to disappear," and then say, with a straight face, that everything is going according to plan? How do you do that? A hundred years from now, improv troupes will be training with the scene, "You were president, and you said the virus would disappear. Now it's six months later, and 180,000 are dead. Go with it!"

If the GOP had any honor, we'd see a seppuku convention finale. Instead, we'll get a political party on roller skates flailing as they try to put lipstick on flying pigs. Sixty million Americans will be duly impressed. 

Loyalty to a party is one thing. Loyalty to a circus is another. All that clown makeup, those safety net pardons, the brutal stench from piles of pachyderm excrement; it's all a bit much. Living under the orange big top is for those either too blind to find their way out or those paid extremely well to follow the elephants with a shovel.

Bob Dietz

August 24, 2020

For Whom the Bell Never Tolls

 ". . . any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee." John Donne (1572-1631)

"Over the last week, the Democrats held the darkest and angriest and gloomiest convention in American history."  President Donald Trump (August 21, 2020)

Today, August 22, we will officially pass 178,000 American deaths due to Covid-19. This number, in fact, is demonstrably low, as demographers and epidemiologists will establish after the pandemic. More than 1,000 Americans are dying every day from the virus. The most rosy projections predict 300,000 dead by December 1. The U.S. pandemic results have, thus far, been horrific. 

Are there reasons for gloom? For anger? Can the president not understand that gloom and anger are reasonable responses? If not, what exactly would be rational reasons for gloom and anger? Ah, but I ask a rhetorical question, because as long as the stock market maintains, as long as one and two percenters thrive, the president can't acknowledge the propriety and even the necessity for anger and for gloom. If you are simply and truly deaf to the bells for 178,000 deaths, many avoidable, then indeed all is well within your world.

As the days pass, my questions about President Trump become more complex. I have never aspired to play psycho-historian or historical psychoanalyst or whatever the titles of those journals. Seems one small step above pure speculation. But questions must be asked.

Does Trump not understand that 178,000 people have actually died? And that these people had families and friends who mourn? Does he also not understand that we are on track to lose another thousand a day for the next three months?

What makes the president's quoted response even more curious is that his younger brother, Robert, died last week. How did that play into the president's criticism of gloom and darkness, if at all?

I suppose that there are two theories here. Either the president is playing cheerleader for the nation (again), and his brother's death has sensitized him, so he refuses to dwell (or even acknowledge) the country's cumulative loss and pain. Or conversely, the president is simply deaf to the tolling of any bell. He cannot process it, so he ignores it, deflects it, and assumes others share his anesthetized sensibilities. His niece's book, Too Much and Never Enough, describes his avoidance of his older brother's death. Does the president lack the ability to emotionally feel others' pain, to get inside "the other's" head, to empathize?

If a man cannot hear a single bell toll up close, then it should not be surprising if he remains unaffected when tens of thousands chime together from a distance. I make no judgements regarding the value of empathy or the public projection of empathy. That seems a subjective debate for people much more versed in politics and civics than me. As I've said previously, I have no problem attending a lecture by Count Dracula. The hair on the back of my neck rises, however, in those moments when I scan the lecture room and realize that most of the audience has bite marks in their necks. 

A man without empathy leading the way doesn't, by itself, bother me. What chills me to my core is the realization that he's the champion of my compatriots in the room. And none of them hear the tolling of the bells. 

Bob Dietz

August 22, 2020

Articles of Note -- August 21

My first recommendation is "Why Americans Are Allergic to the Truth" by Drew Magary at GEN. That August 4 piece is a reaction to an (updated) August 4 article by Ed Yong at The Atlantic, "How the Pandemic Defeated America." Both of these are cogent no-nonsense summaries.

Next is Christiano Lima's August 19 Politico piece, "Report: 'Superspreaders' of bogus health news racked up billions of views on Facebook." The frightening, quantified gist is that people click on the questionable and crazy far more often that they click on guidance from actual credentialed experts or professional organizations.

Finally is an August 20 CNN report by Christina Maxouris, Eric Levenson, and Nicole Chavez, "US coronavirus: Georgia, Texas, and Florida lead the country in cases per capita." The title says it all, as the late closings and early re-openings of these three states have come home to roost. And what, the governors were expecting different outcomes? Based on what? As I said many months ago, these politicians were at odds with the science. Either they were going to be correct, or the science was going to be correct. Unfortunately for me, there were no available betting odds.

These four pieces are each a must read.

Bob Dietz

August 21, 2020

Tales from The Asylum -- August 19

Welcome, once again, to the shadows of The Asylum. Ignore those moans, those howls, those screams of torment. That's just the poor sane bastards visiting their American relatives. We have a very special tour for you this week. From Tobacco Road to the elegant address of One University Drive, we will curl your toes and free your mind. Rationality, after all, has no place in The Asylum (cue organ music).

Some colleges started in-person fall semester last week. Shortly thereafter, hundreds of students tested positive for Covid-19. North Carolina immediately shut down and shipped its students home. I recall Penthouse magazine titling my letter to them "Unmatriculated." That about covers it. The UNC students and their families (and the subjects of that letter, by the way) are all screwed. With hundreds testing positive, it's likely thousands may be infected, and they get to go home and spread it to parents and grandparents. David Perry, a historian at the University of Minnesota, reported to CNN that he was appalled when UNC Provost Robert Blouin said, "I don't apologize for trying." Perhaps Blouin could instead apologize for being a complete dumb-ass who has put lives on the line. 

North Carolina, East Carolina, Oklahoma State, and Notre Dame all felt the pandemic bug last week. Just wait until the majority of universities open for business next week, like ETSU in my backyard. We should be in for some comical administrative excuses and verbal contortions that will make both Yogi Berra and The Asylum proud.

From the east boundary of The Asylum to the west boundary, we seem to have university personnel in need of electric shock. John Eastman, Professor of Law at Chapman University in California, opined in Newsweek that Kamala Harris isn't qualified for the vice presidency. Something about running while black, which is the same as driving while black but without the vehicle searches.

Meanwhile, President Trump's new plan for a second term, leaked by White House Team Trumpers, is to create such an electoral mess that the election gets tossed into the House, with each state getting one vote in the process. I will pay good money to see the bastion of democracy that is The Asylum assign the same clout to Wyoming as to California. Only the President of The Asylum could come up with this, except maybe for that balding guy in Russia. See, this is why I was reincarnated as a white man. If you can't kill 'em, cheat 'em. Then kill 'em. Yeah, let's have half a million pretty-much-all-white folks count the same as 40 million not-so-white folks. Should be a helluva ride.

In The Asylum wing devoted to stable-or-otherwise geniuses, the president's friend from My Pillow made the rounds touting a Covid-19 cure. Gotta love American expertise. Design a pillow, cure a pandemic. Like Leonardo da Vinci, only with a better quality of sleep.

And finally, this uplifting note from the recreational wing of The Asylum. John Focke, broadcaster for the Charlotte Hornets, was suspended indefinitely after referring to the Denver Nuggets as the Denver N*gg*** in a tweet. He claimed it was a spelling error. Somewhere, maybe in the militia-filled wilds of Michigan or Pulaski (TN), there's a judge's chair reserved for next year's spelling bee with Focke's name on it, hopefully spelled correctly.

Join us again (cue organ music) next week as we descend into the sub-basements of The Asylum. It's Republican National Convention time. Can you spell H-Y-D-R-O-X-Y-C-H-L-O-R-O-Q-U-I-N-E?

Bob Dietz

August 19, 2020

Analyzing Louie Gohmert (Part Two): Things to Come

Texas Rep. Louie Gohmert's August 6 East Texas Now interview provided a preview of the GOP template that will be on display the next 11 weeks. Gohmert's interview was carefully crafted, adhering to rules and priorities that the GOP will use to deflect science and data in the days to come.

The more I looked closely at the interview, the more disturbing it became. Gohmert plays at being a folksy every-man, continually providing opinions that he says are backed by facts, data, and names that never materialize. When he presents actual hard numbers, such as his "79% reduced fatality rate" when using hydroxychloroquine, the number is unanchored by precise definition or specific attribution of studies or investigators. Gohmert is able to evade being pinned down because he avoids the adversarial interviewer or any actual expert.

The question thus arises, is Louie Gohmert doing this accidentally in a naive and offhanded way? Or is his presentation practical, precise, and coldly manipulative under the auspices of a folksy every-man public persona?

Well, it took me awhile, but I finally realized which author from my youth was a dead presentation-ringer for Gohmert. I was 10 or 11 when I first read Play Poker to Win by Amarillo Slim Preston. Gohmert has the same physical presentation as Slim and those same icy reptilian eyes that betray his persona facade. My worst poker nightmare would be sitting at a table filled with Amarillo Slims and Louie Gohmerts. I'm not sure, Slim's cowboy hat aside, if I could tell Preston and Gohmert apart. Besides their physical similarities, they're both apex predators, gunslingers warping the minds of those who wander into their magnetic fields. Amarillo Slim oversaw the advent of Texas Hold 'Em (a game notorious for it's ease of cheating) and rode math skills and collusion to success. Louie Gohmert has ridden America's lack of science and critical thinking to GOP success. These Texas boys have both been master strategists. 

In answer to the original question, Gohmert knows exactly what he is saying each sentence of the way.

The GOP Anti-Science Template

Using the Louie Gohmert interview as a map, I'm going to predict the talking points and emphases of President Trump and the GOP during the next 80 days. If you thought that the GOP had been anti-science before, you haven't seen anything yet. 

The key theme of the president and his allies will be the alleged effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine. Considering that it failed double blind studies and the FDA revoked its general use, how can this be? Easy. Science has been all but ignored for the last six months. Now science won't just be ignored. Its recommendations and conclusions will be fought tooth and nail.

The first GOP priority is to pry the responsibility for the Covid-19 response from its own back and somehow dilute the blame. This is best done by publicizing the idea that hydroxychloroquine not only works, but works quite well against the virus. The "79% fewer fatalities with hydroxy" phrase will make the rounds. Failure to use hydroxychloroquine will be assigned a conspiratorial cause, with Dr. Fauci as figurehead for the proverbial Deep State. The Deep State and Big Pharma will be getting the blame. The thrust will be that it's all about making money, hating Trump, and squashing the little guy.

Something like this: "The best treatment was here all along, but Democrats, the Deep State, and Dr. Fauci would not allow it to be used to cut fatalities by 79%. The Dems, scientists, and doctors are responsible for the awful death toll. The GOP fought for the people, but the FDA and the rest of the system were rigged."

The hope isn't necessarily that voters will buy this story hook, line, and sinker, but that a good chunk of personal responsibility will be lifted from the GOP's back. Hard core believers may swallow the entire spiel. At the other end of the continuum, GOP doubters may be de-motivated to vote the non-GOP side.

The next theme will feature the chorus of "the deaths have been exaggerated." Anecdotes and stories of misdiagnoses with Covid-19 assignations will fill Fox News. So if you did blame the GOP for deaths, best to blame them somewhat less. 

Tied in with these first two themes will be the idea that the lack of widespread use of hydroxychloroquine was the reason for the shutdowns that froze the economy. It wasn't that closings and re-openings were botched. That's scientist speak. The real problem was that people weren't allowed to use the HCQ. That's what tanked the economy.

Meanwhile, Fauci, Redfield and Birx will be sidelined. Hired intellectual hands will be brought in, no matter their inferior credentials. Early vaccines and new breakthrough cures will be hyped. Supporting data for the GOP claims will be mentioned in fleeting, general, non-descript ways. Everything will be generalities and promises. Data from the most credible studies will not be mentioned.

It would not surprise me if, during the Republican convention, Trump promised hydroxychloroquine for everyone who wants it. What better way to relieve stress-stricken Americans than to promise a cheap effective cure? Then, if you vote against Trump, you're voting against a cure. You're the bad guy. Evil incarnate.That's where we're going.

The GOP convention will feature non-experts giving expert advice on life and death medical strategies. This will put people like Fauci and Birx and Redfield in a bind. They are government employees. Will they muster the energy to go toe to toe against the president to countervail whatever claptrap is unveiled in the next 80 days? They will be in a no-win situation for themselves. Will they have the intestinal fortitude to say, "The GOP is pushing bunk?" Will they have the guts to go up against "the cure?"

People are looking for safety and salvation and villains to blame. The GOP will provide it all.

More (and Worse) Things to Come

We are going to have a very loud anti-science drumbeat for the next 80 days. With some of the blame for the death toll shifting to the non-use of hydroxychloroquine, there will be an interesting consequence. Shifting blame to the Dems and the Deep State and the FDA has the intended side effect of lifting some of the death blame from those Americans who failed to wear masks or social distance. Civilians will be relieved of part of their responsibility, angst , and guilt. It wasn't the lack of masks or early re-opening that led to deaths; it was the lack of HCQ. Many Americans will be relieved, and also less motivated to wear masks or social distance in the future. That is how this see-saw psychological dynamic will work.

What American doesn't want to feel the weight of guilt lifted? What American doesn't want to believe in a cure right now?

The planning of all of this is truly worthy of the most maniacal Bond villain. Or maybe the balding dude in Russia.

Bob Dietz

August 18, 2020

Analyzing Louie Gohmert -- Part One

Texas Rep. Louie Gohmert gave an August 6 interview with East Texas Now that was so premeditated in what it said and what it didn't say that it exemplifies a GOP pandemic presentation template. Gohmert's entire spiel was quite precise and self-aware, strongly suggesting a presentation protocol and strategy agreed upon in advance by the culture that is the GOP.

What struck me is the degree to which Gohmert's ostensibly off the cuff interview adhered to a crystalline structure and purposeful prioritization of elements during all segments of the interview. Also striking was the obvious adherence to certain strategies regarding what to claim, how to limit actual specific details of those claims, and what information to quite obviously ignore during each step of the interview. In this sense, the interviewer was an active participant, tossing preordained questions Gohmert's way.

Doing forensic analyses of interviews and speeches is not a lot of fun and takes some time. After watching the complete interview, which was 20 minutes in length, I went back and broke down the interview into 20 and 30-second portions, analyzing each portion. Then I watched the complete interview once again. Breaking it down and watching it multiple times led to a more ominous interpretation of what had taken place than the first go-round perception of "Texas lawmaker winging it in a folksy way." The interview actually highlights the GOP strategy and excuses for its Covid-19 response. I'll tackle that in more depth in Part Two. For now, I'll discuss the mechanics of the interview itself. The interview was live, with Gohmert checking in from his home, where he was in quarantine after testing positive for Covid-19. Let's get to it.

When the East Texas Now host asked how he was doing, Gohmert replied "amazingly well," despite demonstrating a shaky, rasping voice that he found necessary to acknowledge on two occasions during the interview. After "amazingly well," he immediately continued with his answer at the 30-second mark, "I did get on the hydroxy very quickly with Z-Pak and zinc, Vitamin D3, and also a steroid nebulizer, a breathing machine."

Note the immediacy of the hydroxychloroquine mention, plus the sequence. "Hydroxy" is named first, followed by the Z-Pak and zinc. The steroid is listed last, after an "uh" and a pause, almost as an afterthought. Now consider if the sequence of items used in treatment had been listed in reverse order. What different conclusion might a listener reach regarding the importance of which items? I think it's worth noting that steroids (not inhaled steroids) have been found to have positive effects in Covid-19 treatments. This is not stated, however, by Gohmert. It would seem to be an obvious and reasonable thing to mention if one were seeking to provide all the facts.

Gohmert went on to report that he had been warned by the White House medical staff to not take commercial transportation, so he drove from D.C. to Tyler to quarantine. 

As the interview continued, Gohmert's speech sounded more shallow, as if he could not muster up his usual volume of air. Later in the interview, when he became aware of this, he opined that it might be due to dryness caused by his nebulizer.

When asked about his symptoms at the three-minute mark, Gohmert responded, "There's been a lot of research on the HCQ." He then said that he found it interesting that there was so much pushback. Next, he said that he "was sent a story by a doctor friend" that countries using hydroxychloroquine, Z-Pak, and zinc "had 79% fewer fatalities."

After he tested positive at the White House, Gohmert said he was "met by a couple of incredible doctors." He says one was an epidemiologist, and they gave him "a lot of helpful information." Note first that he does not name the doctors. Keep in mind, also, that he does not say that any of the doctors recommended hydroxychloroquine. He immediately, however, implies that by saying, "Okay, people hate the HCQ because Trump recommends it, but you can't help but wonder if there's not an awful lot of money involved in the, uh, pushback against HCQ." 

Some notes on Gohmert's comments thus far:  

(1) The "had 79% fewer fatalities" goes unexplained. Does that mean overall in terms of raw numbers? Per capita? Per infection? What or who is the source of the "79% fewer fatalities" comment? Such a striking stat should certainly have source references attached, but it does not.

(2) No mention, zero, is made of double blind trials, the medical gold standard, that established that "HCQ" doesn't do any good. Not mentioning the most credible data is beyond disingenuous. Could Gohmert be unaware of the trial results? Fat chance, but we'll return to this later. I am reminded of the famous recent quote from Brazil's hydroxychloroquine backer, Jair Balsonaro, "We know there is no scientific evidence, but it has worked with me."

There's a jarring, tone deaf moment at the nine minute mark where Gohmert tries to explain how "the president is a really funny guy." Gohmert had been tested because he was scheduled to accompany President Trump on Air Force One to Texas. When his test came back positive, he was vetoed from the trip. So the president called Gohmert from Air Force One. Gohmert thanked the president because without the invitation and required test, he would not have known he was positive. Trump's "humorous" response was, "Oh, so you're saying that I saved your life," at which both Gohmert and the president shared a laugh. Given the lack of testing availability for many Americans the last six months, which may indeed have resulted in many deaths, the Trump comment seems an odd thing to put forth publicly as an example of the president being a "really funny man."

Trump then told Gohmert to follow Gohmert's doctor's orders, but Trump allegedly then said, "Mine recommended hydroxychloroquine." 

Gohmert then addressed his drug of choice again, saying, "I can't help but think it must have an effect since there is so much data out there." Once again, Gohmert doesn't quote papers or studies or actual sources regarding the alleged data of which he speaks. The only doctor that Gohmert mentions by name other than the task force's Dr. Fauci is a Dr. Bartlett, who recommended the steroid nebulizer. Bartlett is not quoted by Gohmert as recommending hydroxychloroquine. 

When asked about Dr. Fauci, Gohmert once again mentions the unnamed articles provided by a "doctor friend" discussing those "79% lower fatality rates" for countries using hydroxychloroquine. Gohmert then characterizes Fauci as a "zealot against a particular form of treatment. It's hard to deny at this point that it's done a lot of good."

Next, Gohmert mentions Rand Paul texting him and saying, "Congratulations. Now you're going to be immune." He then paraphrased Rand Paul, saying Paul declared the research made it "pretty clear" that people couldn't get Covid-19 a second time. Gohmert also mentions Herman Cain, and attributes his death, categorized as Covid-19, as due to his chemotherapy.

Finally, Gohmert spends time at the tail end of the interview downplaying the reported deaths from the virus, "I don't think we can rely very well on the numbers that we're getting." He mentions anecdotal talk and "stories constantly coming out" as indicators that deaths are exaggerated. He does not mention that demographers and epidemiologists will be able to determine after the fact how many people have died of Covid-19 by comparing death totals to averages of the previous years, which again is a basic, fundamental way of measuring pandemic effects that he chooses to ignore.

Summary of this Interview

The interview, in effect, was an advertisement for hydroxychloroquine. But that only scratches the surface, because such an interview carries within it implicit subtexts and dog whistles. Let's state the obvious first:

The only doctor actually named was the one who recommended the nebulizer for Gohmert. None of the doctors supposedly recommending hydroxychloroquine, if indeed any did, are named. 

None of the studies or papers demonstrating hydroxychloroquine's alleged successes are named. The doctors in charge of those alleged studies are not named. Papers' authors are not named.

The double blind studies that demonstrated hydroxychloroquine's lack of effectiveness are ignored. They are not mentioned once. There is not even a reference to them being flawed or problematic. The reason for that non-confrontational approach is that the double blind studies are unimpeachable.

In 20 minutes, Gohmert manages to put forth multiple conspiracy theories without providing any evidence whatsoever. First, he advocates for hydroxychloroquine, knowing the FDA does not approve its use. He then frames Dr. Fauci as a "zealot" against the drug. And he insinuates multiple times in the interview that money must be at the root of the lack of hydroxychloroquine support. That's conspiracy number one. Second, he claims that one cannot trust the death numbers being reported, with the clear implication that they are exaggerated. In fact, according to a recent Yale study, the deaths are strikingly underreported. Gohmert, however, would have us believe that doctors and coroners must be conspiring to pad the Covid-19 tally. This is conspiracy number two. Third, he explicitly mentions that people refuse to accept hydroxychloroquine's positive treatment results because they "hate Trump." This is a third conspiracy. 

The scientists, coroners, Democrats, front line doctors, and nurses are all conspiring. Presumably the rest of the world is also conspiring with them. 

This Gohmert interview was very carefully structured. No attributions for the "data" supporting hydroxychloroquine. No doctors named who recommended hydroxychloroquine for Gohmert. No mention of the "Demon Doctor" who championed hydroxychloroquine a couple of weeks ago. No mention of double blind trials establishing hydroxychloroquine as having no real value. No mention of drugs that have some measured but modest effect, such as remdesivir, which is certainly quite curious.

Is Louie Gohmert, a former judge and attorney, really so ill trained in science that he simply doesn't understand the value of attribution? Is he prioritizing information incorrectly due to ignorance or naivete? Not likely.

His interview gives a clear picture of the GOP strategy in the days leading to the election. I'll examine it all in Part Two.

Bob Dietz

August 16, 2020 

 

Sports Betting During the Pandemic -- Some Thoughts

Earlier this week, I promised some pandemic betting insights, so I'll tell you what I tried and also what I think is possible during this pandemic.

This football season, assuming there is one, will be such an anomaly that following routines that have led me to winning overall in college football for 40 years is not going to fly. This year is an entirely different and aberrant animal, so I am hesitant to prepare in a normal manner. While my usual means of preparation and analysis may be useless, however, there is a reasonable chance that this college football season could still be profitable. The means for making money, however, would be different than usual. 

First, since any established favorite in a conference is just as likely as conference dregs to be hit with Covid-19 infections and quarantines, one cannot take futures chalk. Selecting some ridiculous long shots keeps investments low, with the possibility that the brand names get shot down by the virus. Second, since any given week, huge chunks of rosters can be sidelined, lines could swing massively. I'm one of those people who does numbers checks at 2 AM and 5 AM and works about a hundred hours a week, so my shop-'til-I-drop sensibilities may yield more significant middle shots than during a normal season.

Okay, that's it for the free tips. I never tell people how I actually do things, so that's as much as anyone gets. But allow me to share my misadventures this week as I dabbled in pandemic sports betting. To put things in context, I've been doing this professionally for 40 years, and I've made about half a dozen serious baseball wagers in that time. I have a tough time betting real money on a sport where different venues are different shapes and sizes. Seems nuts to me. So my deciding to shell out even a few dollars on a baseball theory was rare. And again, to add context, 85% or so of my wagering is college football. The baseball bets I'll describe were each about one-tenth the size of my usual college football wagers.

Anyway, I had a theory. I know almost nothing about baseball, but I thought that the Miami Marlins getting off to a 7-1 start had resulted in their getting way more attention and positive ink than they would have gotten from a 7-1 start during a normal, 162-game season. Thus my conclusion was that value lay in the other side. I decided that I would fire 10 consecutive wagers against them, regardless of opponent or site. 

By the time I pulled the trigger, the Marlins had dropped to 7-2. I bet against them, had chalk, and won. I then took Toronto, playing in "home" Buffalo, as a heavy chalk. I had a 4-1 lead in the bottom of the eighth, went to get a cup of coffee, and came back to a 4-4 game. Ouch. Toronto managed to win in extra winnings. I fired against Miami again last night, again taking Toronto at "home," and laying -160. Miami led 11-4. Toronto somehow tied it 11-11, then fell behind in the top of the tenth, 14-11. The Blue Jays got two men on in the bottom of the inning with one out, but failed to score. 

I pulled the plug on further wagering. Too much mental wear and tear. Pitching cannot be trusted. The pitching in MLB has been horrendous. More pitchers have been injured in teams' first 15 games than in any season I can remember. I suppose this was always a distinct possibility, but the reality of it is really jarring. It's ugly. So I am taking my four-tenths of a unit profit from the three wagers and calling it a day. I am proud of that four-tenths of a unit, as I did a lot of sweating and grumbling while acquiring it. 

Betting on anomalous events really isn't my thing. This football season may be the most anomalous in the history of the sport. Opportunities might exist. The best opportunity in a minefield, however, is to get out of it intact. Wouldn't it be easier to not walk into the mine field in the first place? 

Bob Dietz

August 13, 2020

Sports and Sports Betting: Pandemic Effects (Part Two)

On Tuesday, August 10, the Pac-12 and Big 10 officially called off their fall football seasons along with all other fall sports. The Mid American Conference (MAC) and Mountain West had canceled their seasons the previous week. The Big 10 has stated that they will plan for a spring football schedule if possible, which is what I've been recommending. This means that two of the so-called power conferences have vetoed fall football, leaving the ACC, Big 12, and SEC to make their decisions. There are many overt and covert angles that will factor into these decisions.

To put things in overall perspective, I'd first like to mention two interesting variables that inform the context in which the "Power Five" conferences operate right now. First, the two leagues that have opted out of fall football, the Pac-12 and Big 10, have the highest admissions standards for athletes in these "Power Five" conferences. This doesn't get mentioned very often during Saturday broadcasts, but the differences can be substantial.

Second, the historical college football mega-brands in the South, such as Alabama, Auburn, Georgia, Texas, Oklahoma, Florida State, and Clemson, are in GOP states helmed by red governors. Thus, the cultural and psychological context of these programs is significantly different from the Pac-12 and Big 10 schools. The states in which most SEC, ACC, and Big 12 teams operate have been GOP echo chambers since the pandemic began. 

Any or all of the remaining conferences could cancel their seasons as I write this the afternoon of Wednesday, August 12. Examining how the decisions will be made leads one to a handful of observations. Let's spell them out.

The SEC makes more money from football than any other conference. The SEC football coaches and assistants get paid more than other staffs. Realistically, some of their better players get paid more, too (ask Cam and his dad). I would expect the SEC to be the last of the conferences to shut down. All eyes are on them. If they shut down, all other conferences will follow suit. They are the college football standard bearers, the biggest and best plantation, so to speak. Yeah, I know that last line is politically incorrect, but someone track down Sonny Vaccaro and ask him if it's pragmatically incorrect.

Why Play?

So what do the brand name powerhouses like Alabama and Clemson lose by taking the fall off? They lose an in-your-face high profile year of branding. Also, playing would likely give them a leg up recruiting-wise on the Big 10 and Pac-12 schools. The Pac-12, however, isn't really in the general recruiting ballpark as the SEC, so we're essentially talking about the SEC, ACC, and Big 12 getting a leg up on the Big 10 in terms of recruiting and branding. 

Playing the fall season may, however, come with some branding costs. Many of the best players will opt out of playing. Why risk professional careers by getting ill? Long-term Covid-19 consequences have not been medically established, so potential NFL players don't know the virus' eventual and perhaps permanent effects. 

Liability

Since long-term Covid-19 risks are unknown, then long-term liability is unknown. The NCAA clearly stated in its directive that conferences cannot make athletes waive their legal rights vis-a-vis Covid-19. The NFL Players Union established that two-thirds of NFL players have existing conditions that place them in the high risk Covid-19 category. The percentage of college players who similarly are at high risk is, at the least, fifty percent. That's a lot of people who presumably could be at risk and come back to sue athletic departments and universities next year or a decade down the road. 

It was the specific NCAA directive that schools could not force athletes to sign Covid-19 waivers that, to me, made playing a fall schedule foolish in the extreme. The universities open themselves up to overwhelming legal risks stretching well into the future. How or why would any university decide short term financial benefits or recruiting gains outweigh limitless liability for years?

Cognitive Dissonance (Again)

I've repeatedly used the concept of cognitive dissonance lately, but boy has it been useful during this pandemic. The entire push to re-open quickly and its aftermath have been fueled by state governments refusing to simply acknowledge reality. Georgia, Texas, Florida, Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Tennessee have all been guilty of ignoring evidence from experts and from directly in front of their noses. They've ignored information that disconfirms their beliefs and that frames their institutional decisions as incorrect. 

At each step of the way, as evidence they were wrong mounted, they doubled down on disingenuous excuses and outright rejections of reality. College football allows the people who have been wrong all along another opportunity to be, for once, correct. So if Georgia and Texas and Florida can pull off successful, normal college football seasons while the rest of the world warns them that the sky will fall on them, then somehow the leaders of those states will have been right and the rest of the planet wrong. It's an opportunity for red state redemption. They may have been wrong about when to close, they may have been wrong about when and how to re-open, they may be wrong about masks, but dammit -- they were right about college football! And somehow that should win the day.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, a veritable poster boy for cognitive dissonance during this pandemic, had the temerity to say that he thought college football was safe, players should play, and any players in conferences that had canceled were welcome to try to play in the state of Florida. He then mentioned that he wasn't sure how the NCAA would feel about his invitation. DeSantis had been quite popular in Florida before the pandemic, a mini-Trump clone of sorts. He evidently had serious presidential aspirations. He simply refuses to promote what would save lives as he clings to some projected future for himself that has almost no chance of coming to fruition. 

Red state redemption. Mark it down. These governors are promoting Hail Marys as their Hail Mary. They need to be right, they deserve to be right, and they will do anything to demonstrate that they are right.

What's Next?

We'll see where all of this leads. I suspect each university, from Clemson to Oklahoma, has multiple members of legal teams telling the universities to shut things down. Sources suggest that the delay in announcing some conference cancellations may be tied to extending fund raising as long as possible in lieu of no homecoming donations. Turning off football drags down donations, so every week that the wheels churn is another week of income from alumni. 

I've kind of kept this one to myself, but there is also the possibility that a league like the SEC may see the "no legal waiver regarding Covid-19" NCAA declaration as a tool to leave the NCAA. While not likely to happen, I guarantee that the idea of forcing players to sign a waiver and abandoning the NCAA is being discussed. The SEC could be trying to pick off teams from the ACC and Big 12 for a super-league sans NCAA overview. And sans legal protections for the players.

The intelligent move for the SEC, ACC, and Big 12 is to delay college football until the spring. We'll see if intelligence or cognitive dissonance wins the day.

Bob Dietz

August 12, 2020

Tales from The Asylum -- August 10

I feel really foolish. Each week I think that the insanity will end (or at least calm down a little), but The Asylum that is the United States never really gets any saner. Cue the organ music and step into the cackling in the shadows.

First are reports that the White House has lobbied South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem regarding getting President Trump on Mt. Rushmore. Turns out that the president suggested it back during a 2018 interview with Noem and has never really given up on the idea. Personally, I love the thought of President Trump on Mt. Rushmore. America deserves it.

Speaking of South Dakota, next up we have the Sturgis Motorcycle Rally. Sturgis, a town of 6,000 and change, annually hosts the 10-day event. These kinds of middle-of-nowhere festivities are notoriously hazy in terms of actual patronage, but the absolute low end figure is 250,000 attendees. Some possibly exaggerated Sturgis rally estimates, in years past, have ranged from 500,000 to 700,000. 

It's a lot of people jammed into a town of 6,000. Obviously, with this kind of gathering of lemmings, social distancing goes out the window. Some attendees who have had Covid-19 reported little mask wearing in Sturgis. In fact, one tavern hosted a sneezing contest to see who could spray the farthest.

Bear in mind that Sturgis parallels the rest of the country in one regard. The majority of its citizens (60%) did not want the rally to take place this year. Economics and conservative politics, however, carried the day.

It's fortunate that Sturgis is in The Asylum, which eliminates the need to build asylums in Sturgis itself. Asylums in The Asylum, after all, is unnecessarily redundant. Best to maintain that mirage of freedom which comes from not recognizing that one is in The Asylum. Keeps everyone happy. While Sturgis therefore has no need for padded rooms, it may find itself needing hospital rooms a few weeks down the road. Many, many hospital rooms. I'm sure Sturgis is well prepared.

Next I want to revisit last week's Tales from The Asylum stalwart, Texas Rep. Louie Gohmert. Mr. Gohmert, one of the more recalcitrant maskers on Capital Hill, caught Covid-19 two weeks ago. In a video, he then said that wearing a mask was probably to blame for his catching the virus. Gohmert retreated to Texas and began a treatment of hydroxychloroquine, a Z-Pak, and steroids. His daughter chastised him publicly for ignoring science and medical experts. 

I'm going to devote a separate entry to discussing Gohmert because I caught a television interview he did with East Texas Now on Thursday, August 6. That interview featured Gohmert using a GOP public relations template. His arguments and overall presentation were so predictably and perfectly designed to state A while ignoring B that it may be the best single opportunity to investigate Republican talking points, both overt and subtle, regarding the pandemic. So please look for that analysis later this week.

Meanwhile, admitted manic depressive Kanye West has been lovingly guided by GOP agents into running for president. Oh, if only he could win. Perhaps I can help with a national write-in campaign. We sure could use a sixth face on Mt. Rushmore. May as well shoot for diversity.

Finally, red state governors in hot spots ushered children back to school this past week, which forced some schools to reverse pivot a few days later after hundreds of students and staff had to be quarantined due to positive tests. Gotta love those red state governors. They tend to call three-way all-ins with 6-2 off suit. Optimism is their strong suit. And lack of math. And science. And caring.

Empathy, if you haven't noticed, is in short supply in The Asylum. Residents in most asylums tend to lack math skills, or science training, or logic. The utter lack of empathy in The (ostensibly Christian) Asylum, however, has been a bit of a surprise. Good thing it's The Asylum. As long as nobody gets out, the rest of the world should be A-OK. I guess that's why we have a wall. 

Tune in next Monday for another (cue the organ music) descent into the madness that is The Asylum. Next week may be more sane, but if I were you, I wouldn't bet on it. As I like to say, what fun is sanity?

Bob Dietz

August 11, 2020

Reading My Emails: Perceptual Bias Humor

If I needed any reminders that being in the middle of a pandemic can affect the way I notice and remember things, and that context often determines one's perception of reality, I give you my Wednesday, August 5 emails. My email account received these three back-to-back-to-back messages. Before sharing them, let me first say that I have no plans to fly, based on Dr. Fauci's recommendations and my own sense of things. 

At 12:50 P.M., here is the first email, listing the sender followed by heading:

FRONTIER AIRLINES -- "Fly healthy with $19 fares + a special 'thank you' from CEO Barry Biffle"

Just in case I took Frontier up on their offer, flew, and things did not turn out "healthy," the following email came a minute later at 12:51 P.M.:

TRUST AND WILL -- "Estate Planning Made Easy"

And then, my next email at 1:05 P.M.:

AMERICAN AIRLINES ADVANTAGE PROGRAM -- "Book summer travel before it's over"

Given the previous emails, the "it's over" could easily be referring to my life. I guess American is suggesting I fly again before I die.

It's good to know that airlines and estate planners are looking out for me. So is my non-conscious mind. How often does anyone notice a relationship between three consecutive garbage emails and fill in the possible blanks. Such is the fabric of conspiracy, I'm afraid, and me noting these otherwise nondescript emails is telling. The pandemic is obviously playing tricks with my attention, but that may not be the worst of it. 

I'm wondering what satanic algorithm sent these three emails to me back-to-back-to-back. Somewhere there's a conspiratorial AI with a sense of humor.

Bob Dietz

August 9, 2020

Sports and Sports Betting: Pandemic Effects (Part One)

Since I'm a professional handicapper and sports bettor, I suppose it's time I rendered opinions on the alleged upcoming football season and the state of sports during this pandemic. 

I've been handicapping football since I was 13, so that's 50 years in round numbers, and I have never dealt with anything remotely resembling 2020. I'm going to give my general impressions first, then I'll get into some sports wagering specifics in Part Two. 

Why Gamble?

Okay, the first question is why would anyone in his or her correct mind wager on sports right now? Boredom? Addiction? Outright stupidity? My professional opinion, at first glance, is that wagering on this stuff is insane, unless you're somebody's team doctor. Then, frankly, it makes a lot of sense. However, having said that, I believe there may be some specific opportunities that I'll address in Part Two.

Will They Play? Should They Play?

Let's go through various American major sports. First is baseball. Looks to be the safest of all major sports, featuring the least likelihood of contracting Covid-19 even though there is no isolation bubble as in the NBA. However, that theory goes out the window if certain veteran players on certain teams hire girls and throw parties, ahem. Ride sharing is often a dangerous endeavor, if you get my drift. So without naming names, let's just say that millionaire athletes are sometimes their own worst enemies, and then it becomes the duty of MLB to try to keep a PR lid on the virus-spreading festivities. The season is already staggering. I'd say it's somewhat less than 50/50 that they make it to the planned conclusion.

Next is the NBA. The bubble environment and mini-season followed by playoffs gives them a chance. Plus there's a social change culture that binds players a bit more to follow the league's rules. Plus the rosters are small. I think that the NBA can pull this off to the conclusion they desire. I'll be surprised if they don't.

Now for the NFL. The owners are hell bent on having an actual season. Players can choose to opt out and get paid a flat 150K if low risk or 350K if high risk. No bubble. Contact on every play. It's absolutely nuts to try this for the television money. It will be a disaster, with huge chunks of rosters suspended and quarantined every week. Here's the literal killer: about two-thirds of NFL players have one of the high risk conditions that make Covid-19 really dangerous. Think about that for a moment. The owners, however, will undoubtedly try to give it a go. Then, when the United States is finally overwhelmed everywhere in October due to in-person schooling and flu/virus hospital loading, the NFL will pause the season. That's my long shot prediction. If they have any brains, the owners will call it off before a game is played. I don't expect that they will.

Finally, college football. I'm a college football specialist. More than 80% of what I wager each year involves college football. Last week, the NCAA gave the divisions until August 21 to decide whether they will hold fall sports. Built into that deadline is the requirement that schools maintain scholarships for those players who opt out of playing. More important, in my opinion, are the additional requirements that schools must maintain insurance that covers Covid-19 costs and that schools can't force athletes to waive any Covid-19 legal rights. That latter requirement, I think, will weigh heavily on most schools and result in canceled seasons. The long-term consequences of Covid-19 have not been medically established because there is no long-term data. Schools could be opening themselves up to massive future lawsuits if they hold sports seasons. I'm not sure even the wealthiest athletic departments are ready to take on this kind of risk. 

Already, the entire Michigan State and Rutgers football teams have been quarantined. Starting the season in September seems completely irresponsible. I think that the sane, responsible compromise for college football is to postpone the season until January. That gives schools time to evaluate October/November virus surges and plan for their spring semesters. 

Many college football players, faced with an August 14 deadline to decide, have opted out. The better the player, the more likely he is to opt out. The bottom line: college football would be wise to postpone its season.

Bob Dietz

August 8, 2020

Those August 4 Pandemic Projections

"Right now we are heading to 50,000 and according to the projections we will end up with 60,000 by the end of the pandemic." President Donald Trump (April 20, 2020)

"I have read and reread that quote a dozen times. I have tried to determine if maybe the president meant 'the end of April.' instead of 'the end of the pandemic.'" Bob Dietz (April 21, 2020)

"For the last 10 days or so, the front-and-center model has been the University of Washington's version. Evidently the White House has adopted this particular model as its de rigeuer projection. The model is convenient in two respects. It artificially truncates the 'end of the pandemic' to August 4th, and it projects the lowest number of deaths up until August 4th." Bob Dietz (April 21, 2020)

"Our forecast is now 74,000 deaths. That is our best estimate." Dr. Chris Murray, director of IHME, whose model was promulgated by the White House (April 28, 2020).

"The model estimate is pure hokum." "That number is laughable. How stupid do they think we are?"  Bob Dietz (April 28, 2020)

"This is a great success story." Jared Kushner (April 29, 2020)

"The prophecies from the Trump administration have failed. In fact, they have failed miserably. Make no mistake, however, there will be additional far fetched prophecies to come. And no shortage of believers." Bob Dietz (May 2, 2020)

"A toll that sprinted past 9/11, climbed above Vietnam deaths, and is now projected by that IHME model to reach 134,000 by August 4th, which is an arbitrary date that serves no real purpose other than to create an illusory end point." Bob Dietz (May 7, 2020)

"We'll be at 100,000, 110,000 -- the lower level of what was projected if we did the shutdown."  President Donald Trump (May 8, 2020)

"137,000 deaths by August 4th," IHME model (May 9, 2020).

"In recent days, the media has taken to sounding the alarm bells over a 'second wave' of coronavirus infections. Such panic is overblown." Vice-President Pence (June 16, 2020)

Since the subject matter here involves avoidable American deaths, I'll keep the snarkiness to a minimum. The IHME was undoubtedly a convenient front man for the White House because the IHME team of experts had the lowest death projections. The IHME originally predicted 60,000 deaths by August 4. We are a day or two short of 160,000. That's quite a discrepancy. It's hard to be as wrong about something as the IHME and the White House with these projections. The IHME, I suspect, got themselves into a quid pro quo quicksand with the White House. Not unlike what happened to Deborah Birx. Dr. Birx appears, at least, to have somewhat rediscovered her professional voice recently after a couple of months serving as a ventriloquist's dummy.

So how the hell did a professional sports gambler, namely me, out-predict the IHME every step of a six month pandemic? Well, it was not rocket science.

I followed some international scientists, especially the head of South Korea's infectious disease institute, who gave some great interviews. I leaned heavily on reading what people didn't want to know. Dr. Michael Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota, has been a painful voice of reason since the beginning of the pandemic. When the IHME was saying 60,000, Dr. Osterholm was more or less rolling his eyes. It took way too long for the American media to plug into Dr. Osterholm, probably because nobody wanted to hear what he had to say. Osterholm has been too restrained and professional to directly suggest that the IHME has had its head up President Trump's ass the entire time, so I'll say it for him.

Those August 4 "end dates" for the pandemic were always patent nonsense. Why insert an arbitrary figure as a projection point? It misleads the public unless, with every mention of the August 4 projection, you always explicitly say that the pandemic will not have ended on that date and many more deaths will occur afterwards. If IHME didn't, as a matter of protocol, include these kinds of warnings, then it was guilty as hell of misleading American civilians. 

I noted in an earlier blog entry that Dr. Chris Murray, who made multiple CNN appearances as the face of IHME, looked and sounded like a used car salesman who just figured out that he'd been trying to sell a car to another used car salesman. Murray knew the IHME projections were going to be wrong, and he knew that everyone would eventually know it, too. 

Both the IHME and Dr. Birx found themselves in the same bind. They plugged in their data and assumed way too much about American behavior. Basically, for all of their data, they surrendered their responsibilities to models not anchored in the real world that is the United States.

Both the IHME and Dr. Birx:

1) Assumed American civilians would, when confronted with mitigation recommendations, behave as scientists would behave.

2) Failed miserably to take into account that both their boss and the most watched American news network would routinely downplay the need to follow their recommendations. It's fine to have data, but if you don't take the two things I just mentioned (boss and network) and weight them heavily in your analyses, you are very naive as a public health professional. You are missing huge, key influences on American behavior. You are naive to the point of being a danger to the American public.

3) They refused to loudly, publicly push back on the president and the news network. This was nothing less than a dereliction of public duty as health professionals.

Don't believe what you prefer to believe. It's a gambling truism that I've found very useful vis-a-vis life in general. The IHME and the Coronavirus Task Force have both fallen hard for believing what they prefer to believe. Did President Trump and Jared Kushner buy into these projections? I'm not sure it matters much. President Trump and his circle used these horrendously incorrect predictions as tools, as fog machines, as opium for the people. 

I leave you on this August 4 with two quotes from an earlier blog entry (Bob Dietz. April 21):

"First of all, kiss the 60K fatality projections of this model goodbye, as they were based on stay-at-home and social distancing through the (artificial) August 4th end date. The super-capitalists have jumped the gun and will re-open businesses in some of the worst possible states in a few days. Second, that 60K number did not account for Easter transmission surges, protest transmission bursts, and the overall inanity of a good chunk of the American public."

"That 60K figure was a mirage. And our reality is a long, arduous trek." 

Bob Dietz

August 4, 2020

Last Week in The Asylum

Last Wednesday, the Association of American Medical Colleges publicly recommended a formal national response to the coronavirus. Their plan included a reset to opening virus response protocols and stay-at-home orders for hot spots. On Thursday, Johns Hopkins publicly released their own version of the same. The Johns Hopkins guidelines were very similar to those of the AAMC.

Never let it be said, however, that the inmates aren't running The Asylum (better known, in some circles, as the United States). President Trump tweeted about Dr. Stella Immanuel, a pediatrician and front person for something called "America's Frontline Doctors." He then publicly defended her to the press, saying she was "very impressive." Dr. Immanuel declared that no vaccine was necessary and masks weren't needed because the cure for COVID-19 was hydroxychloroquine. For the moment, I don't want to get into the Dr. Immanuel's previous lectures on demon assaults and incubi-induced pregnancies. I have, in fact, read the Malleus Maleficarum (a copy sits on my book shelf here), but we can venture into demonology sans the GOP another day.

Then we had Texas' Representative Louie Gohmert testing positive and opining on video that wearing a mask and mishandling it may have caused him to get the virus. Mr. Gohmert, of course, was notorious for not wearing a mask in the halls of Congress. Cognitive dissonance theory applauds Mr. Gohmert's reaction to his positive test and wishes him well.

Arkansas' governor, the inestimable Asa Hutchinson, he of the "let's not lock down at all," then declared (without mentioning any evidence or studies) that "we have not seen any correlation between an increase in cases and lifting of restrictions." This was a very interesting statement for two reasons. First, Governor Hutchinson managed to sneak the word "correlation" in there so as to hint at some scientific heft to his proclamation, but then skipped any actual details. Second, I'm really curious as to who the "we" in Hutchinson's statement references. One would think he'd be a bit specific if he were floating this kind of proclamation. You know, so the good folks in journalism could track down his "we." But no such luck. On the bright side, Governor Hutchinson's "we" has more credibility than President Trump's favorite attribution, "Many, many people."

In the recreational part of The Asylum, meanwhile, baseball's startup has been a semi-disaster, with multiple teams suspended from playing due to widespread positive tests. Players are opting out of the season on a day to day basis, and Red Sox pitcher Eduardo Rodriguez has been ruled out for the year due to heart issues caused by COVID-19.

The Week Got Worse

After Dr. Fauci explained publicly that Europe has controlled the virus better than the United States because Europe's economies shut down 95% while the U.S. retracted its economy by 50% for a shorter duration, President Trump tweeted on August 1 that Fauci was "Wrong." No meaningful or demon-recommended evidence followed. I wonder how often in his life the president has won the day by simply saying "Wrong" without providing credible arguments. What that must do to a person's critical faculties, I can only imagine.

Fox News, assuredly making their weekly The Asylum contribution, managed to defend the Demonolatry Doctor. Fox is to be applauded for its commitment to "fair and balanced." The Devil needs equal time, certainly, in a predominantly Christian country. The Fox and Friends schedule this week features a Thursday guest appearance by Pazuzu.

Former presidential candidate Herman Cain died on July 30 at age 74. He had attended the president's indoor Tulsa rally. Obviously, no cause-and-effect can ever be firmly established, but the implications are terrible for the GOP. What I found most intriguing about Cain's illness was the utter lack of publicity. While people such as Tom Hanks, Chris Cuomo, Prime Minister Boris Johnson, Indris Elba, and Rand Paul all publicly announced their diagnoses, Herman Cain's diagnosis and progress were not disseminated to the public. 

Once again, what was not said famously told you more than anything that could have been said. Herman Cain's death was another proverbial albatross around the GOP's neck. Rather than news cycles mentioning his illness every day, Mr. Cain's condition was withheld from the American public for GOP optics sake. Until he died.

And finally, the coup de grace of the week. While pushing to open schools and universities, the GOP banned the press from the Republican National Convention in Charlotte, ostensibly because adding press members would create additional virus crowding hazards. Open the schools, close the convention. Just brilliant.

With any luck, next week will be more sane. I've been saying that, however, for five months now.

Things can't get any stranger (cue organ music), or can they? How much horror can we handle? Please check back next week for more Tales from The Asylum.

Bob Dietz

August 3, 2020