Morning Fog

Ignoring Science?

Over the past weekend, in my county, there was an evident uptick in activity to deliver anti-covid vaccine to a broader section of the population. We're still not at the stage where everybody has access, but we've moved beyond the first tier of front-line health care workers (in Virginia, that's group 1A) and now moving into the much broader group called 1-B, which includes many other categories of individuals who have immediate need because of their profession (transportation workers, teachers, police, etc.) as well as anyone who is 75 or older. 

I'm 75, so by chance, I was able to get myself on a list for a vaccine tomorrow, January 13. The appointment you get can be very erratic, depending on which email you respond to, and when - I know friends who also have appointments on dates ranging from late January to mid-February. The residents of a retirement home near me began getting vaccine as of yesterday. So, it's bumpy but it's progress.

We are told that when we obtain our first vaccination, we'll get an ID card specifying which vaccine we were given, as well as an appointment for the second dose. Sounds good. Except....

Biden is talking up a plan to release all available vaccine immediately when he becomes President. The idea is that this step would make more vaccine available for more people right away, but some or most of the vaccine supply that would be released would include what's being held to provide a second dose to those who got dose 1. It seems risky to proceed on the notion that people may get one dose but would face considerable uncertainty about when, or if, they would see their second.  Less risky perhaps for us 75-year-olds who can still isolate ourselves in various degrees; but especially risky for those who are exposed daily to the virus through their work.

Biden needs to clarify the issue of the second dose before proceeding. Manufacturers say two doses are necessary to obtain protection at that "95+%" level; that's the "science" here. Would Biden choose to ignore "the science," as he told us he wouldn't, in order to produce better statistics on getting shots in arms?

 

Pandemics And Politics

Is the coronavirus pandemic really just a health issue? It's natural, I suppose, to think of it that way, because previous dangerous contagions -- the influenza of 1918 (I wasn't around for that one), polio, smallpox, AIDS, ebola, and the more recent bugs of different varieties for which we now routinely get a "flu shot" every autumn --  were always defined that way in our minds.

But the coronavirus, in the U.S. at least, has become politicized. I suppose that was natural too, given our deep divisions these days. President Trump, facing an election, immediately saw the danger the pandemic might represent for him, and unfortunately though characteristically, he chose to try to ignore the problem, downplay it as a hoax, deny health experts' advice, and ostentatiously avoid wearing a mask. Thus he sowed the seeds of his own destruction at the polls, while leaving still more deep rifts in the country's political comity. 

The Democrats, also facing an election, saw the coronavirus as the one [dare I say] trump card that might turn the election their way. They  succeeded in hanging the albatross of the epidemic around Trump's neck, even some aspects that he could not have prevented. Yet they weren't as successful as they had hoped; the virus did not create a blue wave. It's not even clear to me that it was the main factor leading to Trump's defeat. It's more likely that Biden's win had far more to do with a generic malaise among many voters about Trump's essential nature and his qualification for office.  Covid was only a part of that.

So now we have a great divide. It has distressed me somewhat to see how our parties took up one side of the problem to the exclusion of the other. In debate, Biden stated categorically that he would impose a national lockdown if experts recommended it. (It's surprising that remark didn't cost him the election.) Trump kept on bellignoring reality, suggesting that everyone should get back to work and school and let the virus take its toll.

Both positions are idiotic. For Morning Fog, it seems obvious that we must try to do both at once. For those like me who have heightened vulnerability to the virus, or who are no longer in the work force, it's simple enough to sequester ourselves, avoid group contact, be careful about getting outside our germ pods, and wear masks assiduously. But I fully understand that people who have businesses to run, and those who depend on getting a paycheck to keep their heads above water, also need to be able to do those things insofar as possible; and that government relief funds, even if our deadlocked Congress can agree on them, will be woefully insufficient to save many businesses or jobs in the long term.

We will not emerge from this pandemic period without experiencing loss of life AND economic downturn. My personal view is that the long-term effects of the latter are potentially far more dangerous and destabilizing. Even as we duck for cover from the virus, we need to do a far better job of addressing the economic problems associated with covid-19. But our experience to date suggests there is no one-size-fits-all approach to cover the diversity of this nation. Further, even in less polarized times, Americans aren't inclined to accept edicts. With those factors in mind, it appears the best approach is for the federal government to restrict itself to issuing and publicizing best protection practices that are applicable to individuals and businesses that interact directly with customers, leaving it to states and even smaller groupings to decide what's practical and effective for them.

Sound difficult? It is. Life is complicated. But I note that in effect, that leaves us the sort of crazy quilt we already have, with people in each town and locality deciding how to adapt most safely to the course they themselves choose. The business owner who wants to keep his establishment open calculates what anti-virus measures he needs to take, and what adjustments to make to his business model, while diners will make their own decisions as to whether they stay home, arrange a delivery or pickup, or even go in person to a place of business.  And maybe that's the best we can achieve. But it will get the federal government away from trying to dictate details to every corner of the land and may even help draw us all back together.

Biden's recent statements suggest he is now more cognizant of the limitations of the federal government's capability to sway opinions. He has said he plans a mask requirement in all federal facilities, but beyond that seems more likely to limit himself to a strong recommendation about masks, social distancing, and similar precautions. It's a start.

Trump's Coronavirus

President Trump has announced that he and the missus have tested positive for coronavirus.  

In our supercharged political atmosphere, we may expect a lot of "I-told-you-so's" - and those would be much deserved.  Beyond that lie dark speculations about whether it's a hoax and how Trump intends to turn it to his advantage.

We can also be sure that if the shoe were on the other foot, Trump would be mercilessly mocking Biden.  

The political moderate, however, will hope that Biden's and other Democrats' reactions will be limited to expressing regret, wishing a successful and symptom-free quarantine period, and reiterating the health cautions as dictated by "the science." 

Is Winter Great Or What?

Morning Fog has skewed heavily toward politics, but it's time to lighten up a little, and winter is the perfect time for that.

The proximate cause of this outburst is all the great events, full of excitement and spectacle, that come our way at this time of year. Starting with the various turn-of-year holidays, we get  the Superbowl, the winter Olympics (if only every four years), and Valentine's Day. It's all fun, but there is a deeper and more important circadian meaning.

You might say it took a college education for me initially to appreciate winter's charms. Sure, even when I was a kid there was Christmas, but at the time I thought of it only as a time of gift-giving (fairly joyous but not karmic), or in the eyes of some people I knew (not in my family), a religious observance.

But it was only in college that I arrived inductively at understanding the real joy of winter. In late December before Christmas break, I would sit at a desk at my west-facing window, studying or reading, and watch the sun gloomily disappear, earlier every day. Then I went home for Christmas. And came back about three weeks later.

Lo and behold, my first evening at study, I noticed it was 5:00 pm, maybe later, and the sun was still on the horizon! Wow, a revelation -- here, clearly, was the real joy of winter. No WONDER primitive humans beat the church by a country mile in realizing why this season was special. They never knew, until the "turnaround," if that ol' life-giving sun was really coming back from year to year.

Winter is not my favorite season (that's fall, for me) but winter is the season of hope and joy. Not spring - by spring the return of light and warmth is no longer hope, it's already reality.

 

Delusions of Grandeur - As Gambia Goes, So Goes Our Nation?

I confess. We watched the ABC David Muir interview with Trump. We felt we needed to be informed.

Disclaimer: rather than watch it in real time, and have to lose sleep with the predictably awful revelations dancing in our heads, we recorded it and watched it the next day. I suspect this is good advice for anyone who anticipates getting a dose of Trump. 

So as I said, yes, we watched. And were appalled. 

Let's concede that some of the man's ideas are viable (e.g., the security of our borders can and should be improved), even if his proposed solutions are either draconian, costly, impractical, or all three. 

But the issue is not so much policy, as the continuing strong impression he gives us: that he is so "puffectly" convinced of his own merit and infallibility that he continues to obsess about losing the popular vote. One week in is early, but not too early to conclude Trump continues to "believe" in "alternative facts."  It's worse because we assume his advisors have sought to talk him out of such idiocy, and he has refused. One columnist I read recently suggested Trump isn't "lying" when he makes these incredible pronouncements, because he actually believes them. If so, that would seem to be the textbook definition of delusion. Now that he's President, the best that can be said then is that the grandeur of his office is besmirched by his continuing delusions about himself.

Synchronous with Trump's first week in office, another story was unfolding in tiny Gambia's capital city Banjul, where a president voted out of office was refusing to leave, prompting intervention by Senegalese forces. "Groundhog Day" is only a week away now - I had to wonder whether we'll relive the Gambian experience right here in Washington DC, in four years (or eight?), with Trump crying foul, refusing to accept the election results. Would we need to call on Canadian and Mexican (¡Mexican!) troops to help us out, or see him carried away screaming in a straightjacket? The mind boggles. But so does Trump's inordinate vanity. He must, as the saying, get over himself.  He seems constitutionally incapable of doing so. 

 

Presidential Candidates - Should We Leave "Well Enough" Alone?

To my knowledge there is no requirement that the public be honestly informed of a Presidential candidate's health.  Curiously, we seem to worry more about their tax records, which may be misleading; while history is full of examples of candidates who themselves have, or whose political "handlers" have, sought to obfuscate health-related issues. 

In many cases, the things that were kept as secrets were not really debilitating or disqualifying, except from the standpoint of public image - they could have made the candidate look "weak." Examples include FDR's crippling polio or JFK's back problems. Eisenhower's heart problem was a somewhat different matter - concealment was justified as a desire not to "alarm" the public. A heart attack at the time was a potentially serious problem which might be less so today because of medical advances. If a President should die of a heart attack, or the (sadly) statistically more likely bullet, there's an app for that - it's called "The Vice President." It's usually pretty clear when the Veep should step up.

Today, we are in a different, and potentially more dangerous phase in which we must consider disorders that are less black-and-white. They're more in a gray area - the brain. In my view, the dissembling that surrounded Ronald Reagan's Alzheimer's was of a different order of magnitude than other concealment efforts, because in such cases, serious errors can occur before we are aware there is a problem. When the border between competent and incompetent is fuzzy, concealment of the condition is more likely to delay the necessary decision that it's time for the Vice President to take the helm.

The effects of certain diseases often manifest themselves in subtle ways before they become outwardly and publicly evident. I think of the late Muhammad Ali, whose undiagnosed ailment of early Parkinson's is now being suggested as the cause of some of his surprising losses in fights he was fully expected to win. And I think of Reagan, who to my recollection didn't exhibit noticeable symptoms of anything serious during his candidacy or early Presidency, but whose later miscues or struggles to find a word might have alerted us to think it was not just "old age," but maybe something more serious.  

So it seems that without any hard-and-fast requirement that a Presidential candidate's physical and mental health be formally evaluated (legislation that, like sensible gun regulation, is unlikely to be achieved in our lifetime), voters will need to draw their own conclusions as they have always done about a candidate's fitness for office. Not just his/her political views, government experience or lack thereof, and how fun it would be to have a beer with him/her, nor even whether he looks like he's about to have a heart attack, but also clues as to his mental state and real capacity for decisions and logical thinking. 

What clues?  I'm old enough to have seen friends and colleagues pass from "normalcy" to dementia or Alzheimer's. In my inexpert observation, early signs often include grumpiness, belligerence, an insistence on having one's way, a seeming childishness. Or, the website alz.org offers this brief but presumably more scientific summary of symptoms (my highlights):

In early stages of the disease, people may experience personality changes such as irritability, anxiety or depression. In later stages, other symptoms may occur, including sleep disturbances; agitation (physical or verbal outbursts, general emotional distress, restlessness, pacing, shredding paper or tissues, yelling); delusions (firmly held belief in things that are not real); or hallucinations (seeing, hearing or feeling things that are not there). 

As voters, we have always had to make our own judgments of fitness based on insufficient information. Now there's a new dimension to the job. I'm just sayin'...

 

 

 

In Sleep Science, The Voice Of The Mallard

The field of medicine isn't immune to trends.  One of its trends since the late 20th century has been the tendency to turn every twitch of a toe, every ache or pain, every mental habit, into a "disease" or a "syndrome") with a name, and a slavering herd of doctors eager to treat it.  Some of those physicians and scientists, I feel sure, are well motivated, but there are always those who (shall we say) speak with the voice of a mallard.

Enter "sleep science," which seems to be becoming more popular these days.  Now, we all know a lot of things can happen while we sleep:  snoring, sleepwalking, restless legs, involuntary movement, dreaming, not sleeping, sleeping fitfully ... the list goes on.   These have always seemed to me to be natural manifestations of human uniqueness.  Some of us sleep better or differently from others, just as in our waking hours, we perform tasks and routines differently.  But increasingly, there are those who would like to interpret these common manifestations as disorders requiring treatment. 

Why am I skeptical?  First, because we are hearing that many of these "sleepenings" (new coinage) are "linked to" everything from shorter life to high blood pressure and cancer.  We must eradicate them.  But where is the evidence that (e.g.) sleep apnea causes (e.g.) strokes?  Absent that evidence, why shouldn't we suppose that apnea is just a symptom that may help predict stroke, but doesn't necessarily cause it?

Second, the methodology of sleep "science" is scientifically suspect to me.  Most of the studies seem to require the individual to repair to a bed in some facility at a university or medical facility, and spend the night there while being harnessed into all sorts of electronic sensors and filmed on camera.  (Read a recent typical story here.) 

Take someone away from the familiar, put them in a strange, isolated, place, strap them into a mess of uncomfortable harness, and make them anxious about sleeping.  Perfect!  How likely is it that their sleep will represent "normal" for them?  The methodology seems to predetermine that "disorders" will be found, and to increase the likelihood they will be. 

Further, by taking the individual out of his/her home environment, things that might really be causing poor sleep -- factors like room temperature, noises in the home or outside, exhaustion, worry, tension, allergies, or acid reflux -- are conveniently removed from the equation. This isn't scientific controlling for variables.  On the contrary, it removes from consideration the many factors that I think most of us recognize intuitively as the underlying causes of our problems sleeping.  

Granted, there are the extreme cases.  People who haven't slept in several days and can't figure out why.  Those who are desperate for better sleep.  Reports indicate that at least some of them have been helped by the results and recommendations coming from sleep studies.  If I were in such a state I would seek out one of the studies that are conducted in the patient's own home; these would appear to offer a better chance for reliable and helpful results.

But for most of us, a little tossing and turning at night isn't a disease and for my money, it shouldn't be treated like one.

  

A Brownian Ramble Through The News/Views Of The Day

So, we're going to ban transfats, they say.  People will have different opinions about this.  However, a Washington Post editorial today applauds the decision, insists that "it's not food fascism," and points to additional future non-fascist steps to regulate what people eat, by taxing bad food choices: 

We believe that taxing things the government wants to discourage is a way to achieve legitimate national goals with minimal economic disruption and individual coercion.

I can't agree. I've never smoked cigarettes, don't eat a whole lot of junk food (unless potato chips are in that category - are they?), and recognize that some things may be certifiably bad for us. Yet I think the government's role should be to inform, not to legislate good behavior where individual choices redound mainly to the individual.

Besides, I see little evidence that higher taxes on consumer items really dissuade people. Cigarettes? Alcohol? Gasoline? Now potato chips maybe?  People still buy.  Might we even suppose that they see such items as more desirable because of their high price?

But sorry, Paul Ryan, this doesn't constitute my free pass to squash increases in the gas tax.  Higher tax here is justified because even if it doesn't discourage consumers from consuming, it does raise revenue, which in turn can be (but is not always) used for badly needed infrastructure maintenance.

Meanwhile, back on the food beat, George Will has fun quoting McDonald's's new public relations chief:

McDonald’s will be “more progressive around our social purpose in order to deepen our relationships with communities on the issues that matter to them,

but Will points out that companies like McDonald's and Budweiser probably will not accomplishing much by making appeals to a demographic who are not among their customers and are unlikely ever to be - these are people who have never drunk a Bud and wouldn't think of stopping in at "Mickey D's." 

As Will cautions, "history is a story of vanished supremacies."  To me, the lesson is that these companies are trying to put lipstick on what (to some) is a pig, while losing sight of the fact their core business is selling ham and bacon.  Will they be the next decade's General Motors, or can they "Ford" the troubled waters ahead?  Maybe as they design a business strategy, they will want to take to heart the advice of home designer Nate Berkus, also quoted today in the same Post: 

Design is really about finding a style that represents who you are, and not following the trends in magazines.

And that, finally, leads me to think of the latest candidate to toss his hat into the Presidential race, Donald Trump. Granted, he makes no effort to soften his image, but it does seem likely that his core business relates more directly to building skyscrapers and such.

Sequestering Time

Ah, the joys of Daylight Saving Time are once again upon us.  I hope everyone out there remembered to "spring forward" last night.  But if not, I guess the worst that can happen is that you'd be late to church or brunch this morning.   Or maybe you'll be lucky enough to experience a heart attack, which is one of the few clearly demonstrable effects of DST.

Regarding the effects usually cited by DST proponents - "more daylight" and energy saving, any honest analysis will demonstrate that they are pure hoax.  Common sense tells us we do NOT get "more daylight" (we do, at this time of year, but it has nothing to do with changing clocks).  And even the Department of Energy, in its best attempts to craft a study justifying Congress's imposition of this twice-per-year ritual, was unable to prove that there is any energy saving from DST. Specifically, after stacking all its assumptions in favor of DST, the DoE was able to come up with an inconclusive claim that DST saves one half of one percent in energy usage. 

Factually, daylight saving time is an early version of the same political process that is currently affecting the U.S. government budget.  Years ago, our lawmakers found it just too hard to reach agreement on the kinds of steps that would really help cut down our energy usage (e.g. alternate fuels, or more efficient heating and cooling) so instead they ginned up the charade of DST; and whenever a tough vote seemed called for to impose politically difficult changes (e.g. a pitiful 2 or 3 extra miles per gallon in vehicle mileage standards), they took the easy way out and extended DST a few more weeks.

Tired of the foolishness?  Fed up with being lied to?  Feeling your ticker throbbing a little too strongly right now?  Contact those who are primarily responsible for continuing this hoax upon us:

The Honorable Edward Markey
U.S. House of Representatives
2108 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
202-225-2836
(or e-mail here)

The Honorable Fred Upton
U.S. House of Representatives
2183 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
T: (202) 225-3761
(or e-mail here)

 

 

Related articles

Down With Harmful Daylight Saving Time

Dies'l Kill Ya!

It's rather amazing to hear that a pending study on the health effects of diesel fuel exhaust in certain enviroments, conducted by two respected government agencies, has been pending for 20 years because private industry hates even the idea of such a study, and even now its publication has been further delayed by mining companies and others who fear its conclusions, and would like to control them.

Amazing, because it is so clearly a false story, made up of whole cloth.  Against the assertions made in the article, we have only to juxtapose what we know from experience and common sense, to wit:

Any fool knows that companies, especially mining companies, set safety as their number one priority and never, ever let the making of a profit stand in the way of their workers' well-being.

It's a longstanding tradition in our country that business interests actively welcome government regulations and standards.

As the Republican Chairman of the House Committee on Education and Workforce has suggested in this article, the Republican party is only interested in assuring that the report meets the "highest standards" of science.  We can take his word for that, because we are all aware that Congressmen generally, and especially Republican ones, are highly trained in science and competent to correct "errors" that less competent scientists might make.  They've already told us, for example, that climate change is a hoax; they've warned us away from the dangers of stem-cell research; and kept us from being led down the garden path by those who claim human history goes back more than 4,000 years.    

If all that weren't convincing enough proof that Mr. Morris's article is irresponsible misinformation (maybe the poor fellow was duped), we can just turn to the evidence of our own senses.  We've been breathing diesel fumes for years, and not just in mines.  We're still alive, so it's obvious that diesel exhaust could not possibly have a deleterious effect on anything or anyone.  Diesel exhaust is not harmful; quite the contrary, it's refreshing and makes us feel happy.  Why else do people go out of their way to get trapped behind a bus in traffic?   Or, take my own experience:  One of the things I recall with greatest joy from my younger years is my experience at Fort Knox being trained as a "tank platoon leader," sitting atop a tank belching diesel fumes for hours on end, making my eyes stream tears, irritating my nasal passages....

Well, that certainly brings me to my senses!  Let's get serious for a minute.  We really can turn to our common sense on this, and we probably don't need no stinkin' report to tell us that diesel cannot conceivably be all that different from other fossil fuels, like wood, refined gasoline, and coal, all of which are known to have deleterious effects on various aspects of human health.  So we know ahead of time what the report will say, and so do the mining companies and Republican politicians who seek to suppress it.