It was quite simple, actually. They got everyone to buy into the idea of wearing a mask.
If only our country could follow suit, even today, I'm sure we could get this virus under control.
But I guess we're too exceptional and too entitled to actually do anything that requires a little sacrifice?
You can read all about Japan's success here (as well as hundreds of other sites around the web).
Japan crushed COVID-19 by masking while Trump mocks masks | Trudy Rubin
https://www.inquirer.com/opinion/masks-coronavirus-japan-trump-pence-shinzo-abe-20200630.html
Short. Sweet. To the point. That's the beauty Dave's iPhone.
Sunday, July 19, 2020
Saturday, July 18, 2020
On mask wearing
Trump reminded us yet again that masks aren't really necessary because.... and here you can insert any talking point or hyperbole because it doesn't matter.
He goes on to remind us (as many opponents of masks do) that dr. Fauci had said early this year they weren't necessary and so "that is that," and anything he says now must be wrong or because of ... again insert whatever you like.
But here's the thing that he's missing. Scientists, engineers, doctors, and others can and do update their thoughts based on a little something called the scientific method...and while there is no exact, specific definition to this, it's been around for as long as we've been a nation.
The basic premise is that it follows these steps: systematic observation, followed by measurement, and then create a hypothesis and create an experiment to test that hypothesis. Repeat as needed, or as you learn new things.
What that means is that we take in new information, and test it against what we know.
You can have an opinion, like say masks have limited effect in society, but are necessary in some scenarios. And then you get new information, like masks do limit the spread of germs, and other countries have seen a positive effect from their use. So you form a hypothesis "masks would be helpful in society" and you test that.
Several studies were done, showing how mask wearing slows the spread of the virus.
We can accept the hypothesis that we laid out. And then you form a new conclusion. Oh look, masks on everyone would help. We should wear them.
So, in a way, he didn’t change his mind, rather, he updated his position based on new information. Which is what we do.
The challenge is always in presenting these conclusions, or findings. Because people often don’t want to be confronted with anything that sways their long-held beliefs, or contradicts what they know to this point (ie, the rebel flag is a symbol of “heritage” even though it was the battle flag of a losing cause)
So, the discussion about masks falls on many deaf ears because the guy at the top doesn’t care/can’t be bothered/doesn’t understand. If he just said “wear a mask” with some consistency, the conversation would change. And the science might be accepted.
He goes on to remind us (as many opponents of masks do) that dr. Fauci had said early this year they weren't necessary and so "that is that," and anything he says now must be wrong or because of ... again insert whatever you like.
But here's the thing that he's missing. Scientists, engineers, doctors, and others can and do update their thoughts based on a little something called the scientific method...and while there is no exact, specific definition to this, it's been around for as long as we've been a nation.
The basic premise is that it follows these steps: systematic observation, followed by measurement, and then create a hypothesis and create an experiment to test that hypothesis. Repeat as needed, or as you learn new things.
What that means is that we take in new information, and test it against what we know.
You can have an opinion, like say masks have limited effect in society, but are necessary in some scenarios. And then you get new information, like masks do limit the spread of germs, and other countries have seen a positive effect from their use. So you form a hypothesis "masks would be helpful in society" and you test that.
Several studies were done, showing how mask wearing slows the spread of the virus.
We can accept the hypothesis that we laid out. And then you form a new conclusion. Oh look, masks on everyone would help. We should wear them.
So, in a way, he didn’t change his mind, rather, he updated his position based on new information. Which is what we do.
The challenge is always in presenting these conclusions, or findings. Because people often don’t want to be confronted with anything that sways their long-held beliefs, or contradicts what they know to this point (ie, the rebel flag is a symbol of “heritage” even though it was the battle flag of a losing cause)
So, the discussion about masks falls on many deaf ears because the guy at the top doesn’t care/can’t be bothered/doesn’t understand. If he just said “wear a mask” with some consistency, the conversation would change. And the science might be accepted.
Friday, July 17, 2020
A reminder: voting matters
Back in 2000, W Bush beat Gore to lead the nation. It all came down to a recount in Florida and the vote difference was around 650 ballots. That's it.
If a few more people had voted, things may have worked out differently.
And now, here we are in 2020, looking at our idiot florida governor and wondering if things could be different, and looking at the nitwit named trump and wondering what went wrong...
And here's the thing: in 2018 Bill Nelson was running for re-election against Rick Scott for the senate seat. If Nelson had won, it's possible that he might have been the vote to remove trump from office. And we wouldn't be in this predicament.
And the governor was on that ballot running against Gillum, who seemed to actually, I dunno, actually care about florida... rather than just sucking up.
If deathsantis weren't the governor maybe things would be different, because, you know, maybe there would have been an actual lockdown and a mask order.
....the reality is that both of those races trigged recounts. They were really, really close. I believe the senate seat was within 1,000 votes and the governor was 8,000 or so.
Voter turnout was higher than typical mid-terms, with about 53% coming out. But imagine if it was just 2-3% higher; there would have been 175,000 more ballots in play.
That could have made a difference.
So remember that when the time comes in November! Vote. Vote to remove this asshole from power. Vote to restore common decency. Vote to have your voice heard.
Don't sit home. Your vote can and does matter.
If a few more people had voted, things may have worked out differently.
And now, here we are in 2020, looking at our idiot florida governor and wondering if things could be different, and looking at the nitwit named trump and wondering what went wrong...
And here's the thing: in 2018 Bill Nelson was running for re-election against Rick Scott for the senate seat. If Nelson had won, it's possible that he might have been the vote to remove trump from office. And we wouldn't be in this predicament.
And the governor was on that ballot running against Gillum, who seemed to actually, I dunno, actually care about florida... rather than just sucking up.
If deathsantis weren't the governor maybe things would be different, because, you know, maybe there would have been an actual lockdown and a mask order.
....the reality is that both of those races trigged recounts. They were really, really close. I believe the senate seat was within 1,000 votes and the governor was 8,000 or so.
Voter turnout was higher than typical mid-terms, with about 53% coming out. But imagine if it was just 2-3% higher; there would have been 175,000 more ballots in play.
That could have made a difference.
So remember that when the time comes in November! Vote. Vote to remove this asshole from power. Vote to restore common decency. Vote to have your voice heard.
Don't sit home. Your vote can and does matter.
Wednesday, July 15, 2020
Sometimes I wonder about what will happen next
You turn on the news, or pop over to social media and you hear that Trump is staging a coup, or setting himself up to fail. Or any one of a number of things.
Lets take a look at some of them, and I'll add a few of my own:
Lets take a look at some of them, and I'll add a few of my own:
- Trump is going to contest the result if he loses, essentially promoting himself to dictator - so much for a accepting the results. But he certainly has laid the groundwork for this one by claiming there WILL be fraud. Not sure what would happen here. Turn to the Supreme Court?
- Trump won't leave the whitehouse if he loses, setting up a showdown with the next administration - hey about that peaceful transition of power (which hopefully will spark some of those around him to act, maybe?)
- Trump has "secret" support and will win anyway. Like last time, its possible there could be some interference, but from whom and it what form remains anyone's guess. Most world leaders hold him at arms length, and I'm not even sure he has Russia's support anymore. He was a useful idiot, but the damage he's doing right now is probably better than what he could do over 4 more years time.
- The GOP could simply cut him loose and see if they can make progress with retaining the Senate. Which could spell an early demise for him - and perhaps they even encourage him to accept the outcome or to step aside before the election
- He simply quits. This is probably the most complicated outcome.
- Option A is he quits just to muck things up. He just decides not to seek re-election because people don't like and respect him, and so he pouts and leaves. And that leaves the GOP scrambling to support Pence. Or they look for a way to add a candidate (which seems unlikely). Trump would create more damage from this than anyone can guess.
- Option B is he quits, but he plans it so that Pence can pardon him. It doesn't muck things up in quite the same way, but does cause some damage because of abuse of power issues.
So no matter what we are screwed for many years to come.
I guess we'll see where this goes.
A followup up on our response to the coronavirus
I was reading an article last night in Science Magazine (an actual science journal, with peer-reviewed information presented in a fact-based manner, without sensationalism, and no bobble head trying to tell you what to think) about the way the coronavirus has mutated and what that means going forward.
To summarize one key point, there is no belief among scientists that there is - or will be - any sort of permanent immunity. That eliminates any thoughts of herd immunity or that this can simply run its course. Nope, this will not go away. Unless, as they say, we get really lucky and it mutates in a way that would mostly neuter it. Or until we come up with a vaccine (which, again, likely will be a temporary thing, more like a flu shot that will need an annual booster).
So if we listen to science, then we understand things. There is a very real danger in this virus. And people who continue to spout nonsense saying stupid things like "its not that bad" or "its a hoax" or "there's no real risk, we should just get back to life as we knew it" are missing the point.
They are putting us all at risk. And the person who sits in the Oval Office isn't doing us any favors either.
Look, we can still find a way to fight this virus, AND return to a semblance of normal. Want to know what we can do? Two things. First, and foremost, there should be a national policy of mask wearing. That's a no brainer that's really easy, and if it was presented as a way to prevent the spread, maybe people would listen.
The second is a government action. And its to provide enough testing to actual understand the spread and do more in areas where outbreaks occur, but allow life to go on a little in areas that don't have an uptick in cases.
If I look at Florida, we have 67 counties. Lets say you put 100 testing centers in each county, that's 6,700 testing centers. If we assume that all states are the same, you're talking about 335,000 nationwide. Sure, some places won't need as many, and you could fill in with other types of testing (hospitals and clinics, etc) to fill in. But make them all just available 7 days a week for anyone that wants to get tested. And for free.
You'd need a central repository for information of course, but why not work with a big player in the tech space to develop something relatively quickly to use. There would be a cost, and additional sites to review the results - and that will be whatever it is, but think about the money "wasted' in the PPP and other things - surely this would be less costly and give you a bigger benefit.
You could create a team whose job it is to do followups and contact tracing - someone tests positive, lets take the time to figure out who they came into contact with and get as many of them tested as we can. (hey, look, in some cases you're putting people to work).
What would happen? People might go and get tested anytime they feel sick. They'd be likely to go back and tested again later. We could be testing for the virus and antibodies. We could be looking at the long-term effects of exposure. And of course, we'd get better, faster, and more efficient with the testing over time.
If you tag it to drivers license or phone number or something, you would be able to easily keep track of everyone and their progress.
I mean, its going to be hard to setup, but you might actually start coming up with better means of testing, of getting good information that tells you something about the virus.
Its really fairly "simple" on the surface. Its logical. Makes sense.
And that's exactly why we'll never do it.
To summarize one key point, there is no belief among scientists that there is - or will be - any sort of permanent immunity. That eliminates any thoughts of herd immunity or that this can simply run its course. Nope, this will not go away. Unless, as they say, we get really lucky and it mutates in a way that would mostly neuter it. Or until we come up with a vaccine (which, again, likely will be a temporary thing, more like a flu shot that will need an annual booster).
So if we listen to science, then we understand things. There is a very real danger in this virus. And people who continue to spout nonsense saying stupid things like "its not that bad" or "its a hoax" or "there's no real risk, we should just get back to life as we knew it" are missing the point.
They are putting us all at risk. And the person who sits in the Oval Office isn't doing us any favors either.
Look, we can still find a way to fight this virus, AND return to a semblance of normal. Want to know what we can do? Two things. First, and foremost, there should be a national policy of mask wearing. That's a no brainer that's really easy, and if it was presented as a way to prevent the spread, maybe people would listen.
The second is a government action. And its to provide enough testing to actual understand the spread and do more in areas where outbreaks occur, but allow life to go on a little in areas that don't have an uptick in cases.
If I look at Florida, we have 67 counties. Lets say you put 100 testing centers in each county, that's 6,700 testing centers. If we assume that all states are the same, you're talking about 335,000 nationwide. Sure, some places won't need as many, and you could fill in with other types of testing (hospitals and clinics, etc) to fill in. But make them all just available 7 days a week for anyone that wants to get tested. And for free.
You'd need a central repository for information of course, but why not work with a big player in the tech space to develop something relatively quickly to use. There would be a cost, and additional sites to review the results - and that will be whatever it is, but think about the money "wasted' in the PPP and other things - surely this would be less costly and give you a bigger benefit.
You could create a team whose job it is to do followups and contact tracing - someone tests positive, lets take the time to figure out who they came into contact with and get as many of them tested as we can. (hey, look, in some cases you're putting people to work).
What would happen? People might go and get tested anytime they feel sick. They'd be likely to go back and tested again later. We could be testing for the virus and antibodies. We could be looking at the long-term effects of exposure. And of course, we'd get better, faster, and more efficient with the testing over time.
If you tag it to drivers license or phone number or something, you would be able to easily keep track of everyone and their progress.
I mean, its going to be hard to setup, but you might actually start coming up with better means of testing, of getting good information that tells you something about the virus.
Its really fairly "simple" on the surface. Its logical. Makes sense.
And that's exactly why we'll never do it.
Broadway and job losses
After I saw Hamilton, I started watching more youtube videos about the performance. And I stumbled onto this mini-series were Adam Savage goes behind the scenes to see how the show comes together.
Its a fascinating look at what it takes to put on a production, and just how talented some people are - people that you never see, and who get little credit.
I've linked several episodes below, and they are worth watching. But consider for a moment that while we think about the performers being essentially unemployed while Broadway is dark - there are the unseen folks who drive the production and have other skills (likely most of them can't sing or dance and may never have a desire to!) are also out of work for now.
Its a fascinating look at what it takes to put on a production, and just how talented some people are - people that you never see, and who get little credit.
I've linked several episodes below, and they are worth watching. But consider for a moment that while we think about the performers being essentially unemployed while Broadway is dark - there are the unseen folks who drive the production and have other skills (likely most of them can't sing or dance and may never have a desire to!) are also out of work for now.
Tuesday, July 14, 2020
Anybody want to do something about coronavirus?
There's this weird thing happening in the US right now. No one seems to have any plans for how to deal with the coronavirus, and there's a lot of misinformation, and mistrust for scientists and public health officials for various reasons.
Short. Sweet. To the point. That's the beauty Dave's iPhone.
And then there are wild, and ridiculous conspiracy theories, and that all of this is a hoax because a friend-of-a-friend has this or that happen or they don't know anyone who got it, or everyone is lying.
But my bigger issue has to do with the inaction on the part of our government. They have decided that the economy is the only important thing, and that public health doesn't matter. They want to let the virus "run it's course" or let herd immunity take over.
There are two inherent flaws in the logic: (1) there is absolutely no consensus or scientific evidence in support of the virus infecting you just once, nor do we know if you remain a carrier (or for how long) after you've tested positive or recovered.
And (2) there is no plan to actually do anything other than throw our hands up. No research into finding ways to prevent the spread. No mask mandate to slow the spread. No real contact tracing. No increase in the amount or availability of testing to be able to see if the plan is working. Ideally you should be regularly testing large numbers of people to validate the virus isn't recurring.
So about the "let it runs its course" - without adequate testing this is likely to continue to propagate and hospitals will be filled for quite some time. And we don't know what that means. 6 months? (It’s already been 4 1/2) A year? Forever? And holding out hope for a vaccine that will immunize you forever is just silly. That ain’t reality.
As for expecting "herd immunity" first let's look at what that means:
Herd immunity (also called herd effect, community immunity, population immunity, or social immunity) is a form of indirect protection from infectious disease that occurs when a large percentage of a population has become immune to an infection, whether through vaccination or previous infections, thereby providing a measure of protection for individuals who are not immune.
So in essence it's people who have an immunity protecting those that don't. It works for many things. And in theory it sounds like it would work with this. Only we don't know if you can develop an immunity based on having had it.
If we were actively looking at people who had it, following its course, and understanding the virus on a large scale then maybe this would work.
But going into it blindly and hoping for the best is stupid. Hope is never a strategy. You can't wish this away.
And if it propagates to a larger number of people then the economy is doomed anyway.
So the idea that the only focus should be the economy is nonsense.
We're screwed. And the only way out appears to be new leadership. Just saying.
Short. Sweet. To the point. That's the beauty Dave's iPhone.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)