The Gift Of Solitude — And Three Others April 30, 2020April 30, 2020 Here’s an account of how The Gifts Of Solitude became entangled in Amazon’s algorithms. The book itself I don’t plan to read; I already consider solitude a gift and am incredibly grateful not to have had to row across the Atlantic to receive it. But Roz’s Amazon saga was well worth the time. And how about this gift? Take Me to the World: A Sondheim 90th Birthday Celebration. More than two hours of top-quality Broadway talent . . . and you saved $400 on the tickets, $600 on the flight to New York, $600 on two nights in a tiny little room — and got a front row seat! And this one? Tomorrow — the Annenberg Space for Photography will hold a virtual screening of the documentary Be Natural: The Untold Story of Alice Guy-Blaché. which has been shown in over 80 countries world-wide. Never heard of her? I hadn’t either. Because — duh — until now (unless you were alive a century ago, when she was a filmmaking force) her story was untold! And this one! Jane Rosenthal founded the Tribeca Film Festival with Robert DeNiro. Look what she’s gone and organized for us all now! A free ten-day global streaming film festival beginning May 29th.
Carding Old People — Your Feedback April 29, 2020April 29, 2020 Jeff C: “The Chart you linked to yesterday addresses deaths but not hospitalizations. Hospitalizations aren’t down because people in their 30s have developed immunity; they’re down because of social distancing! If you increase the number of younger people in the hospital, the system once again gets overwhelmed.” → Actually not. Scroll down to the chart (from this different source) that suggests just 3% of hospitalizations are of people under 50. Not overwhelming. The patients who need to be hospitalized, and for the longest, are almost entirely the ones you and I agree should take rigid precautions not to become infected: those in bad health and the elderly. If healthy people under 50 largely resumed normal life — while being ultra-careful not to infect vulnerable loved ones — I don’t see how that would overwhelm the health care system. Jeff C: “There is no conclusive evidence that COVID-19 antibodies confer any sustained immunity. If you get a cold you don’t develop immunity to the common cold. This is a cold.” → Good point. Unless/until immunity is proven, vulnerable people need to remain socially distanced and carefully protected even from those who test positive for the antibodies. Jeff C: “If old people have to stay isolated, who is supposed to care for them and keep them company? A world of people like myself are caring for aging parents while isolating with them. Are we supposed to leave them behind?” → No! These wonderful care givers, like you, should take every precaution not to become infected themselves. Masks, hand-washing, social distancing. Keep your aging parents safe by keeping yourself safe! John S.: “I’m not sure Sweden is doing as well as you think.” → I’m not sure Sweden is doing any worse than we are, either — they’ve had roughly the same number of deaths per capita as we have, but without taking their economy to the brink of a depression at a cost of trillions of dollars. If we had heeded the urgent warnings that began headlining the Presidential Daily Brief in January, we wouldn’t have had to face choices like this. But we didn’t. We had a grossly incompetent, impeachably negligent* response from the top. So now what do we do? At one extreme would be permanent lockdown until everyone is vaccinated or there’s a cure. At the other extreme, opening nursing homes to all visitors. Both obviously wrong. The question is: have we struck exactly the right balance with where we are now? Or could we be doing this smarter? Could we, for example, open schools and playgrounds and summer camps and beaches for most young healthy people, as suggested yesterday (sparing no expense to protect unhealthy and elderly people)? And let young healthy people largely resume their lives while continuing to keep vulnerable people safely distanced from them? Jeff Irving: “Yesterday’s column makes the proper case for a more balanced age/health-based approach. Nothing like solid data to help point the direction. I am a 77-year-old PhD with a fairly strong statistical background, who will continue to self-quarantine.” Andy L., Pandemic Central (Brooklyn NY): “I am sure that you have received lots of ‘grief’ (to put it politely) but that does not make you wrong. To paraphrase Clemenceau, pandemics are too important to be left to the doctors. Experts in every field tend to be alarmist (Homeland Security for example) because they tend to see everything solely through the prism of their own expertise. And that’s a good thing but they should not be the only voice to set policy. That is not to say that they should not be listened to but it is to say that their advice has to be tempered. Of course, the person who should be doing the tempering is simply ignoring . . . which is not correct either.” Reacting to my tongue-in-cheek suggestion that we card older people at the saloon door . . . Don Bauer: “I’m well over 44 so I’d be stuck at home, but it would be nice to be carded again! If we don’t get the economy started soon, I fear things could really fall apart.” Susan: “Fascist pig! What’s next concentration camps for ‘those of a certain age?'” → I hear you, Susan. I only suggested carding at-risk seniors (a) because I thought it was a little funny; and (b) to show that there are compromises possible, if agreement can’t be reached between those who believe seniors should be allowed to take crazy risks, if they are informed of the danger, and those who believe the government needs to exert, in effect, parental control. If a senior chooses to go to a bar or restaurant — just as former President George H.W. Bush chose to jump out of an airplane at 90 — well, should we perhaps leave these decisions up to each individual? Don’t Use Even My First Name: “I’ve been concerned about suggestions like ‘carding’ old people. Does this mean that certain age groups cannot continue to work let alone venture out to restaurants, theaters, opera etc.? Many people in many businesses including restaurants, hotels and airlines are working well past 55/ 65. If the economy tanks and impacts retirement investments, we may see more seniors looking for work to supplement social security and pension income. . . . I think individuals should be able to make choices for themselves at any age as long as they are mentally capable. If an ADULT who is a senior citizen wants to go out and accept responsibility for potential ‘risk,’ who is the State to interfere? Our generation who protested the Vietnam War and other issues may have to take to the streets again to protect our rights. This suggestion reflects a ‘brave new world!’ that should be rejected. Why would we want to give the government the license to control senior citizen’s movements, dictate their activities or discriminate against them for any reason including age?” And on my argument that it was dumb to give $1,200 to the 80% of us who have thus far not lost our jobs . . . John S.: “One reason to give $1,200 to people who don’t need the money is that, as with Social Security, it helps everyone buy into the program.” → Actually, we didn’t give $1,200 to “everyone” as with Social Security – only to those with household income under $75,000/$150,000. As suggested yesterday, I don’t see how it would have hurt to ask them to self-affirm they had lost their livelihoods in order to cash their physical checks or keep the direct deposits (giving them three months to see how things shook out before having to do so). Sande R.: “I had just been thinking of returning my $1200 check before I saw your column; planned to look into how to do that today. Wish there had been a rider for the auto-deposit. Being one of those old people, I am still mulling over your other suggestions.” Patricia Carlin: “A few thoughts about people who are working and received a check (I am not one of those people — no check): (1) Some people still working have dramatically different situations living as home. One young educator needed to buy a computer ( desktop/ printer, materials) because her iPad and phone were not conducive to teaching online. She had many debts and school resources now not available. Also several people had to install, increase the strength and speed of internet connection. (2) In many places public transportation slowed or stopped. Mandated workers had to struggle to continue working. Two people I know had to lease a car to get to work as no other option existed. (3) Hospital staff in many situations bought whatever PPE they could as early supplies were not sufficient and sometimes non existent. Welder’s masks, clothing that stayed in the garage, cleaning supplies, etc. (4) Child care — a challenge for mandated workers with school closings and fewer options. (5) People giving entire check to a friend or relative who is waiting for unemployment and cannot even get registered.” → Fair enough. The language I suggested yesterday could perhaps be tweaked to accommodate possibilities like these. Bernetta F.: “Are you drunk?” *Does ignoring more than a dozen urgent national security warnings that resulted in tens of thousands of needless deaths and wrecked the economy at a cost of trillions of dollars not rise to the level of a “high misdemeanor?” Just saying “the tests are all perfect” — or “the call was perfect” — doesn’t make it so.
Time To Start Carding Old People April 28, 2020April 28, 2020 Do you know something I think is crazy? We sent $1,200 or more to tens upon tens of millions of people who have not lost their jobs . . . as, thus far, 80% of us have not. What that tells me is that, in an emergency, under lots of pressure, and with best of intentions, we can take a blunderbuss to a problem that clearer thinking might have improved.* So let’s talk about clear thinking. What do you make of Table 2 of the CDC’s latest report? It’s incomplete because of the lag time in the issuance of death certificates. But among children ages 5-14, it shows a total of 1 death from COVID, nationwide, in the last three months, versus 39 deaths from the flu. For those of us who care about children — which is to say, all of us — this is great news! With the rarest of exceptions, when it comes to the pandemic, our kids are safe. They are 39 times more likely to die of the flu than of COVID. What’s more, only one in a thousand reported COVID deaths hit the 15-24 age group. (And at least some of those rare cases presumbaly had underlying health issues that made them especially vulnerable.) So does this mean we can open summer camps and playgrounds to kids 5-14, staffed primarily by healthy 15-to-24 year olds? And managed by healthy thirty-somethings — especially if they’ve already got the antibodies? And schools, giving a pass to any teacher or staff who, because of age or underlying condition, does not feel safe? The big danger in allowing kids to catch the virus and become immune is of course not danger to the kids — it’s to the grandparents they live with. Or to their vulnerable parents. It makes total sense to isolate seniors and at-risk juniors. Let’s give those folks every support we can. And protect them from young people who may be infectious! But does it make sense to lock everyone in place? I have a young friend who went to paddleboard this week — alone — in the middle of Biscayne Bay. A well-meaning cop, following orders, stopped him. Really? What Sweden is doing, basically, is saying, Look: if you’re old and/or suffer from the kind of condition that makes you vulnerable, you must take every precaution! Stay away from other people! Make sure you — and people you do come into contact with — wear masks! Don’t let your kids or grandkids out of the house if you don’t have a separate bedroom and bathroom. And so far they’ve had 2,000 COVID deaths, which is roughly the same number we’ve had — proportional to their population — but without sending their economy into a depression or adding massively to their national debt. The Swedish deaths are awful. The American deaths are awful. But it’s interesting that so far theirs have been no worse than ours even though their economy is open. I’m not saying we instantly flip the light switch, or that I have the expertise anyone should rely on in making these decisions. Clearly, I do not. But neither should it be taboo to discuss ways of re-opening the economy. That doesn’t make you heartless. Voices like these should be heard: I’ve Worked the Coronavirus Front Line — and I Say It’s Time to Start Opening Up. And this: The Bearer of Good Coronavirus News: Stanford scientist John Ioannidis finds himself under attack for questioning the prevailing wisdom about lockdowns. (It’s behind the Wall Street Journal paywall, but some friends have been able to open it on their phones.) And we should consider allowing young people to go to restaurants and bars — and card old people for a change. “I’m sorry, Sir. Until this pandemic is over, we’re not allowing you to assess your own risk if you’re over 44. Take a look at Table 2 and you’ll see that, although 90% of COVID deaths are among people 55 or older, and you’re just 46 — and although you appear to be fit and healthy — it’s our policy during this crisis not to serve anyone over 44.” How about a part-way measure like that? That would still leave a load of customers for bars and restaurants. And can we let young people go to the beach and trust old and vulnerable people to keep their distance from young people? We are quickly driving the world into a depression that could lead to so much death among young people – from wars, murder, suicide, despair – and so many years of suffering for the billions who manage to muddle through . . . ARE WE DOING ALL WE CAN TO COME UP WITH SMART MEASURES TO PROTECT THE VULNERABLE WHILE GOING BACK TO FAIRLY NORMAL LIFE? When 9/11 happened, we over-reacted. We spent trillions bombing the wrong country and losing more young Americans than had died in the attack itself. The over-reaction was understandable — shock and awe, for sure. But was it ultimately in our own best interest? We absolutely need to do all we can to protect those most vulnerable to COVID . . . and to avoid overwhelming the health care system. So older and vulnerable people need to remain isolated. But I think we have to be open to the possibility of largely resuming normal life for most people. Please don’t hate me for thinking we could be doing this smarter. *If this was really the only way to get help to the other 20%, why didn’t we attach this string: “This is a national emergency. In order to get cash to people who’ve lost their livelihoods, we’re sending checks to everyone. If you have not lost your livelihood, please do not deposit the check . . . hold it for three months before ripping it up, in case you do. Likewise, if it was direct deposited to your account, you will be getting a notice from your bank within 90 days asking you to either affirm you have lost your livelihood or else to return the money.” Obviously, a lot of people might have cheated and affirmed they had lost their livelihood when they had not; but mightn’t that small change have saved us at least half the cash, to be used to help people who needed help?
The Five-Part Path To Success April 27, 2020April 26, 2020 Wally, the Emotional Support Alligator . . . and yet somehow I don’t think this is a good idea. Trump, the very good brain . . . and yet somehow I don’t think THIS is a good idea. (You’re surely sick of these by now, but she’s really good.) This is a good idea: The five-part path to defeating COVID-19. Social distancing, contact tracing, testing, isolation, and treatment. “It’s Not Too Late to Go on Offense Against the Coronavirus.” And this is Peggy Noonan’s calm voice on how we need to get along with each other. (Behind the Wall Street Journal paywall, but a friend got it fine on his phone. No harm in trying.) Finally, a view from abroad: THE WORLD HAS LOVED, HATED AND ENVIED THE US. NOW, FOR THE FIRST TIME, WE PITY IT. Fintan O’Toole: Irish Times 25/04/2020 . . . Over more than two centuries, the United States has stirred a very wide range of feelings in the rest of the world: love and hatred, fear and hope, envy and contempt, awe and anger. But there is one emotion that has never been directed towards the US until now: pity. However bad things are for most other rich democracies, it is hard not to feel sorry for Americans. Most of them did not vote for Donald Trump in 2016. Yet they are locked down with a malignant narcissist who, instead of protecting his people from Covid-19, has amplified its lethality. . . . Will American prestige ever recover from this shameful episode? The US went into the coronavirus crisis with immense advantages: precious weeks of warning about what was coming, the world’s best concentration of medical and scientific expertise, effectively limitless financial resources, a military complex with stunning logistical capacity and most of the world’s leading technology corporations. Yet it managed to make itself the global epicentre of the pandemic. As the American writer George Packer puts it in the current edition of the Atlantic, “The United States reacted … like Pakistan or Belarus – like a country with shoddy infrastructure and a dysfunctional government whose leaders were too corrupt or stupid to head off mass suffering.” It is one thing to be powerless in the face of a natural disaster, quite another to watch vast power being squandered in real time – willfully, malevolently, vindictively. It is one thing for governments to fail (as, in one degree or another, most governments did), quite another to watch a ruler and his supporters actively spread a deadly virus. Trump, his party and Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News became vectors of the pestilence. The grotesque spectacle of the president openly inciting people (some of them armed) to take to the streets to oppose the restrictions that save lives is the manifestation of a political death wish. What are supposed to be daily briefings on the crisis, demonstrative of national unity in the face of a shared challenge, have been used by Trump merely to sow confusion and division. . . . . . . It is hard to remember now but, even in 2017, when Trump took office, the conventional wisdom in the US was that the Republican Party and the broader framework of US political institutions would prevent him from doing too much damage. This was always a delusion, but the pandemic has exposed it in the most savage ways. . . . on the one hand that he has “total authority”, and on the other “I don’t take responsibility at all”. Caught between authoritarian and anarchic impulses, he is incapable of coherence. . . . It will be a long time before the rest of the world can imagine America being great again. It will. But the climb back begins November 3rd.
Printing Trillions: Modern Monetary Theory April 24, 2020April 23, 2020 But start with this: The Russia hoax was never a hoax. An encouraging bipartisan report confirms it. The Senate Intelligence Committee has released a bipartisan report with a stark bottom line: What President Trump calls the “Russia hoax” isn’t a hoax at all. The fourth and latest installment in lawmakers’ review of Moscow’s meddling examines a January 2017 assessment by the nation’s spy agencies that Mr. Trump has repeatedly attempted to discredit — and confirms it, unanimously. Russia sought to subvert Americans’ belief in our democracy, bring down Hillary Clinton and bolster her rival. That these legislators from both sides of the aisle are willing to say as much after three years of thorough investigation is an encouraging sign of some independent thinking still left in government. It’s also a reminder of the peril this independence is in today. . . . . . . [L]awmakers wouldn’t have had a report to analyze at all if it weren’t for an intelligence community willing to dig up inconvenient truths. This is the community Mr. Trump is slowly destroying, most recently by firing his director of national intelligence and nominating an unqualified loyalist to fill the slot, as well as by dismissing Inspector General Michael Atkinson for lawfully alerting Congress about a whistleblower complaint. The most recent Russia report is a reminder of the need to protect our elections against a repeat performance, whether by disrupting online influence campaigns, securing critical infrastructure or requiring paper trails and risk-limiting audits at the ballot box. But it’s also a reminder of the need to protect the intelligence community from co-option by a leader hostile to any truths that threaten his power. CORRECTION? The Washington Post argues in detail that the 30-second spot featured in yesterday’s column — about Trump shipping PPE to China — is misleading. The team behind the ad disagrees. “We believe the Post got this one wrong. See Snopes and PolitiFact and the Post’s own reporting. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo himself said the shipment was ‘under the direction of President Trump.’ We’ve attached some more background that further supports the claims made in the ad.” Which they did. Still, as one of you wrote me: “There are enough real problems with the orange clown that we don’t need to reach.” Nor should we set the bar for political correctness at 110%. At 100%, maybe . . . at 80%, surely. But listen to Bill Maher on political correctness and over-reaction on the left. We’ve almost arrived at the substance of today’s column, but wait! Like the light of a blue moon — something investment-related! Dennis M.: “Any current thoughts on CNXM? You’d recommended in February and again in March. I bought some at $5.55 then and today it’s $12.50. Yes, it’s money I can afford to lose, per your earlier caveats. Unfortunately I bought it in a taxable account, so short term gains would be at top marginal %. Sell? Take some off the table? Maybe set a stop-loss order at ____?” → You’ll only remember this advice if it proves to be bad. But as the shares were purchased with money you can afford to lose, hold on; collect the huge, partially-tax-free distributions; reassess after it’s gone long-term. OK, now: An important debate between two different ideas. The first, as expressed here by Robert Samuelson (The Debt Reckoning Has Finally Arrived) is that we should balance our budget in good times, run deficits during wars and recessions. It’s okay to have a National Debt . . . it just shouldn’t be allowed to grow too large relative to the economy as a whole. And when it does — as it did when it grew from 30% of GDP at the start of the Depression to 121% at the end of World War II — the trick is to allow it to keep growing, but slower than the economy as a whole (at least in most years), so that over time it shrinks. By 1980, after 35 years of gradually shrinkage, it was back down to 30%. Then Reagan and Bush and sent it soaring again; Clinton got it to shrinking; Bush 43 got it soaring again; Obama got it shrinking; Trump blew off the roof. Samuelson isn’t saying all that, but it’s been my own mantra for a long time — along with the widely-shared idea we should be borrowing trillions to revitalize our country’s infrastructure — and I’m guessing he would agree with much of it. It’s pretty conventional wisdom. But now comes Stephanie Kelton (Just Use ‘the Computer’ at the Fed to Give People More Money), who argues the old way of worrying about deficits, debt, and inflation, has been wrong. So long as there’s untapped capacity, we don’t have to worry about sparking inflation, any more than we had to worry about it when she was chief economist on the Senate Budget Committee, working on Obama’s then-giant “stimulus” package to rescue the world from global depression. Author of the forthcoming The Deficit Myth, Professor Kelton is a leading proponent of Modern Monetary Theory. I’m too new to this to understand it well or to have formed much of an opinion. But I do know it’s a multi-trillion-dollar conversation we’re going to be having — and who better to be having it with than you? How many cat videos can you watch while quarantined? Have a great weekend!
Take Your Pulse And Do The Two-Step April 23, 2020April 23, 2020 My pulse oximeter arrives May 1. You need to read this, then buy one to share with your friends and family. (Just wash your hands after each use.) Every apartment building in America should have one in the mail room (beside a bottle of Purell) with an explanation of why/how to use it. “In the jungle, the mighty jungle, the lion sleeps tonight” — I remember us all singing it before swim team practice, enhanced by the echo of the indoor pool. On the off chance this new version has not yet hit your inbox, it is a must watch. Thirty seconds on Trump shipping our PPE to China that you might want to watch and share.* He trusted Xi, an autocrat, over his own intelligence agencies. Just as he trusts Putin. And now, with that in mind . . . Do The Two-Step Step 1: Watch Barack. Step 2: Click here. *UPDATE: In one key respect, that ad turns out to have been misleading and unfair. The Washington Post explains in detail. But when I challenged them with this, the team behind the ad replied, “We believe the WaPo fact-checker got this one wrong. The claim that the US sent medical supplies to China in early February has been verified by TWO independent fact checking orgs, Snopes and PolitiFact and the Post’s own reporting. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo himself said the shipment was “under the direction of President Trump”. We’ve attached some more background that further supports the claims made in the ad.” So, well, you be the judge.
Why Do Liberal Voters Feel This Way? April 21, 2020April 23, 2020 OIL: A friend texted to say he’d bought me a barrel for my birthday — and that I owed him $37. COMPOST: John Seiffer reacting to read Monday‘s post: “We’ve been composting — and by ‘we’ I mean my wife. Rather than get an expensive bin, we have a couple of large plastic garbage cans with lids. We drilled some holes in them for drainage and we use one at a time. That eliminates the need for all the hassles of turning etc. By the time one is filled, the other is pretty much compost and ready to empty. We use that one while the filled one sits and cooks and the process repeats. Something I know you’ll appreciate: there’s no expiration date to contend with.” COMMENTARY: From the Military Times: “I’ve reported on war for years. I’m more afraid now than I’ve ever been.” Which leads people to circulate items like this alleged 2009 Trump tweet you may have seen. Except Snopes tells us it’s fake. There’s so much fairly to bemoan — not least with regard to the pandemic — that it’s neither necessary nor helpful to fake anything. Here’s an example of something going around the Internet that’s not fake. I don’t buy its assessment of what Trump supporters think (or of what we liberals think they think). But — crucially — each of its links takes you to source material that’s quite real: An anguished question from a Trump supporter: ‘Why do liberals think Trump supporters are stupid?’ THE SERIOUS ANSWER: Here’s what the majority of anti-Trump voters honestly feel about Trump supporters en masse: That when you saw a man who had owned a fraudulent University, intent on scamming poor people, you thought “Fine.” That when you saw a man who had made it his business practice to stiff his creditors, you said, “Okay.” That when you heard him proudly brag about his own history of sexual abuse, you said, “No problem.” That when he made up stories about seeing Muslim-Americans in the thousands cheering the destruction of the World Trade Center, you said, “Not an issue.” That when you saw him brag that he could shoot a man on Fifth Avenue and you wouldn’t care, you exclaimed, “He sure knows me.” That when you heard him relating a story of an elderly guest of his country club, an 80-year old man, who fell off a stage and hit his head, to Trump replied: “‘Oh my God, that’s disgusting,’ and I turned away. I couldn’t—you know, he was right in front of me, and I turned away. I didn’t want to touch him. He was bleeding all over the place. And I felt terrible, because it was a beautiful white marble floor, and now it had changed color. Became very red.” You said, “That’s cool!” That when you saw him mock the disabled, you thought it was funny. That when you heard him brag that he doesn’t read books, you said, “Well, who has time?” That when the Central Park Five were compensated as innocent men convicted of a crime they didn’t commit, and he angrily said that they should still be in prison, you said, “That makes sense.” That when you heard him tell his supporters to beat up protesters and that he would hire attorneys, you thought, “Yes!” That when you heard him tell one rally to confiscate a man’s coat before throwing him out into the freezing cold, you said, “What a great guy!” That you have watched the parade of neo-Nazis and white supremacists with whom he curries favor, while refusing to condemn outright Nazis, and you have said, “Thumbs up!” That you hear him unable to talk to foreign dignitaries without insulting their countries and demanding that they praise his electoral win, you said, “That’s the way I want my President to be.” That you have watched him remove expertise from all layers of government in favor of people who make money off of eliminating protections in the industries they’re supposed to be regulating and you have said, “What a genius!” That you have heard him continue to profit from his businesses, in part by leveraging his position as President, to the point of overcharging the Secret Service for space in the properties he owns, and you have said, “That’s smart!” That you have heard him say that it was difficult to help Puerto Rico because it was in the middle of water and you have said, “That makes sense.” That you have seen him start fights with every ally from Canada to New Zealand while praising Russia and quote, “falling in love” with the dictator of North Korea, and you have said, “That’s statesmanship!” That Trump separated children from their families and put them in cages, managed to lose track of 1500 kids, has opened a tent city incarceration camp in the desert in Texas – he explains that they’re just “animals” – and you say, “Well, OK then.” That you have witnessed all the thousand-and-one other manifestations of corruption and low moral character and outright animalistic rudeness and contempt for you, the working American voter, and you still show up grinning and wearing your MAGA hats and threatening to beat up anybody who says otherwise. What you don’t get, Trump supporters, is that our succumbing to frustration and shaking our heads, thinking of you as stupid, may very well be wrong and unhelpful, but it’s also…hear me…charitable. Because if you’re NOT stupid, we must turn to other explanations, and most of them are less flattering. – Adam-Troy Castro What we need, of course, is not a way to force Trump supporters to agree they’re stupid or something “less flattering.” That reaffirms our own moral compass, which we’re entitled to do. Lying is bad. Bullying is bad. Stiffing creditors is bad. Murdering journalists, invading neighboring countries, and rigging elections are bad. It’s fine to remind ourselves it’s not crazy to take the unanimous word of the nation’s 17 intelligence agencies over the word of Vladimir Putin — and to be horrified when our president does not. But what we need, also — and even more — are ways to say, “look: deeply good — smart! — people can be misled. (See, e.g.: You Don’t Think Smart People Can Be Scammed?) You were not stupid to vote for Trump the first time. And you would not be human if, having voted for him, you did not tend to filter out information that made you feel bad about your choice. And, yes, Democratic pundits can be elitists and snarky and all sorts of other things that have prevented them from winning your hearts and minds. But c’mon, guys: Unless you’re in the top tenth of one-percent, are you sure this guy has your back? and can advance your interests honorably and effectively?”
Tidbits To Compost April 20, 2020April 19, 2020 Friday’s piece was so long (How To Think About Re-Opening) here are just a few short takes: > A great piece about composting. The writer takes obvious pleasure in saving money and saving the earth, and you might, too. > A Trump/Cuomo duet that won’t be even a little bit helpful in persuading Trumpers — but don’t the other 60% of us deserve a little fun as we watch our country slide toward fascism? (“The Plot Against America” finale airs tonight.) > This even better, but X-rated clip you’ve almost surely already seen: Hello I’m From The Government. > This 34-year-old’s corona experience. Wash your hands.
How To Think About Re-Opening April 17, 2020April 17, 2020 If each infected person is contagious for a month and infects just one other on average, the health care system can cope. People will keep dying of COVID at the rate they now are — which is awful — but if you need to access the health care system, whether for COVID or some other reason, it will be there for you. If, on average, each infected person person infects two others — as early models imagined might be the case — then it quickly becomes a nightmare. Think of it like money. A dollar growing at 0% interest a month remains $1. It never goes away, but it doesn’t grow, either. That same dollar growing at 20% a month — 1.2 people infected instead of just one — grows to $8.91 in a year. A dollar doubling every month — two people infected by each infectious carrier — grows to $4,096. So that’s quite a difference — $1 versus $8.91 versus $4,096. Staying away from people if you’re infectious — or because they might be — is how we keep the virus from spreading. (Also: wash your hands after you touch anything an infected person might have touched.) If the whole world could do this perfectly for a month, only bats would be left with the virus. (More or less.) Look how well Israel is faring. The same population as New York City, but 116 deaths versus 12,000. Responses matter. Those who mock cautious doctors and governors for raising alarms about “the health care collapse that never happened” — New York may never need anywhere near 40,000 ventilators — should imagine 4,096 times as many hospitalizations. Or even 8.91 times as many. So it’s easy to say, “we should all pack the churches for a big Easter celebration,” but that is leadership akin to leading lemmings off a cliff. “Follow me!” It’s equally dumb to say, “we must all shelter in place until we have a cure or a vaccine.” For one thing, we’re not doing that now — ask any nurse, grocery clerk, or UPS driver. For another, it doesn’t take into account the costs of doing that. An economic collapse can cause death and misery as well. (The good news: at least one treatment, Remdesivir, already does look promising.) Angela Merkel (here) and Andrew Cuomo (every day around noon) are right to stress the need to keep the rate at which the virus is spreading at or below one infection, on average, for each infectious person. (A dollar shrinking at 20% a month for a year, it should be noted, becomes just 7 cents.) You and I, I think, should be stressing this, too. The question is . . . what sensible steps can we take while we await the cure and the vaccine to strike an optimal balance? Can we take sensible steps even while we await the criminally-overdue availability of testing? (Trump was right to say “the tests are all perfect, like the letter was perfect” because yes, the tests were all perfect in exactly the same way as the letter. Which is to say grossly, wildly, impeachably, obviously-on-their-face not perfect.) One step is to do everything we can to isolate and support our most vulnerable populations — in nursing homes and senior communities, to take the most obvious example, where nearly half the deaths are occurring. Why are we sending $1,200 each to tens of millions of people who haven’t lost their jobs? This must be the largest-dumbest single expenditure the government has ever made. (Maybe not the largest or the dumbest, but surely the largest-dumbest?) Why not use that money to help those who need help? (Not to mention Trump’s taking credit for ameliorating a situation his own negligence caused, as we move slowly from democracy to strong-man rule.) Another step might be to send as many vulnerable essential workers home — older grocery clerks, those with diabetes, etc. — and while keeping them on payroll but temporarily replacing them with folks at very low risk of anything more than a mild to moderate illness if they become infected. (And/or replacing them with — of course — people who’ve recovered from COVID and are thus likely immune.) A third step urgently to be considered is to open the schools and summer camps to children not living with grandparents or high-risk adults . . . to be taught by teachers who are young, healthy, and willing. School employees who feel they’re at risk should be kept on the payroll while they teach from home children who also need to stay home. These discussions need to be thoughtful and expert-led. (I am not an expert!) Joe Scarborough — with whom I mostly agree and for whom I mostly cheer, but who like all of us is not perfect (and who must suffer permanent sleep deprivation, so it’s a miracle he does as well as he does) — led off yesterday’s show berating a TV doctor who cited a study that suggested opening schools would increase deaths by “only” 2%-4%. Joe misheard that to mean deaths among children would be 2%-4%. How — he marveled and ranted and ranted — could anyone even contemplate allowing 2% of our school children to die? But that’s not what the study said. Experience has shown that, happily, it is the rarest of exceptions for an infected child to die of COVID. Opening the schools would lead to no children dying, let alone 2%. (A difference worth noting, no?) And experience has also shown that if the teachers and cafeteria workers who chose to come back to work were only those who are young and healthy — as many are — almost none of them would risk anything worse than the equivalent of the flu. That said, people of good will can still argue that schools and summer camps must stay closed in all cases, everywhere. I think they’re wrong but they should be listened to . . . just as I hope people who argue the opposite should be listened to. Shouting at each other as if we were fools to pause the economy — which we were not! — or as if we are fools to inch our way, carefully, toward restarting it — which we are not! — helps no one but Vladimir Putin. I have a brilliant young friend so bought into the argument that we have over-reacted to the crisis (is it even really a crisis, he asks, or just a moral panic?) that he focuses only on examples of empty ER rooms and hospitals going broke from a lack of patients . . . the drop-off in elective surgeries . . . somehow not crediting the endless stories of stress and heroism (and in some cases deaths) of the nurses and doctors on the front lines. He’s not an uncaring person; but what he sees as the illogic of our over-reaction has actually driven him to complain about “all that noise” every night at 7pm when people cheer out their windows for health care workers. And you’re saying to yourself: “This is the worst person I have ever heard of. How can you even call him a friend?” And I am telling you: “No, he is actually a wonderful person, who’s been made crazy by the 100% focus on the benefits of shutting everything down with no explicit examination of the costs.” Like the cost in child abuse, the cost in alcoholism, the cost in suicide. “Here’s a shocking stat,” he writes me: “Since March 17, eight children have been admitted to Cook Children’s Medical Center for injuries related to child abuse. Three of those children died. To put that number in perspective, Cook Children’s typically sees six child abuse deaths a year. In other words, we have now lost more children to child abuse at one children’s hospital than we’ve lost to COVID nationally. At-risk children are literally being ordered to sacrifice their lives in the battle against a virus they aren’t vulnerable to.” Is it heartless to weigh costs and benefits? I’d rather characterize it as heartbreaking. Not trying to make the least-bad trade-offs, that cause the least human misery and death — hard as it is to weigh these things — I would characterize as deeply irresponsible. Immoral, even. Should we be spending precious resources to bail out the shareholders of cruise lines or airlines or perhaps any other industry! No! Airlines used to go bankrupt all the time. They kept flying. The only change? The bondholders became the new owners. And some, like Trump Airlines, changed names. The planes didn’t disappear. You can make a good case for liberal bridge loans to corporations, to avoid bankrupting them all — but that’s lending, not spending, and almost all those loans would be paid back, with interest. At the end of the day, I think my wonderful young friend (hereinafter MWYF) is right that we need to have really logical, thoughtful, on-going discussions of the trade-offs . . . and to do so virtually every day, as more data becomes available, and as circumstances change. (Imagine the difference an effective treatment will make! Imagine the difference “certified immunity” will make once we can all be tested for antibodies!) But because $1 becomes $4,096 at the end of twelve months if each infected person infects, on average, two others rather than one, I think MWYF is wrong to be mocking leaders like Andrew Cuomo and Angel Merkel and so many others around the nation and the world who are rising to the challenge in the way one “leader,” in particular, has grotesquely not. Have you seen this chart that was also shown on yesterday’s Morning Joe? Anybody who reminds you how many people die of car crashes each year — or cancer — should take a look, to help inform his or her view. (She or he should also note that car crashes and cancer are not contagious.) Have a great weekend. And remember: this too shall pass. What a wonderful world. (Thanks, Alan.) https://andrewtobias.com/wp-content/uploads/what-a-wonderful-world.mp4
Duping U.S. April 16, 2020April 15, 2020 There’s no harm in vaulting a non-existent restaurant to #1 in all of London on Trip Adviser. But it shows just how easily people can be duped. With that in mind . . . whom are you going to believe — the New York Times or Vladimir Putin? . . . Analysts say that President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia has played a principal role in the spread of false information as part of his wider effort to discredit the West and destroy his enemies from within. . . . As a young man, Mr. Putin served in the K.G.B., the Soviet Union’s main intelligence agency, from 1975 to 1991. He worked in foreign intelligence, which required its officers to spend a quarter of their time conceiving and implementing plans for sowing disinformation. What Mr. Putin accomplished is unclear. But public accounts show that he rose to the rank of lieutenant colonel, and that his 16-year tenure coincided with a major K.G.B. operation to deflect attention from Moscow’s secret arsenal of biological weapons, which it built in contravention of a treaty signed with the United States in 1972. The K.G.B. campaign — which cast the deadly virus that causes AIDS as a racial weapon developed by the American military to kill black citizens — was wildly successful. By 1987, fake news stories had run in 25 languages and 80 countries, undermining American diplomacy, especially in Africa. After the Cold War, in 1992, the Russians admitted that the alarms were fraudulent. As Russia’s president and prime minister, Mr. Putin has embraced and expanded the playbook, linking any natural outbreak to American duplicity. Attacking the American health system, and faith in it, became a hallmark of his rule. . . . It’s an”infodemic.” We know who Trump believes. (Or pretends to. Is that worse?) Either way, Putin’s winning. And you really need to read the whole story, because it just builds and builds. For example: . . . Within Russia, Mr. Putin has been a staunch proponent of vaccines. . . . At a televised meeting with doctors in St. Petersburg, in 2018, he scolded Russian parents who refuse to vaccinate their kids: “They endanger the lives of their own children.” . . . At the same time, Mr. Putin has worked hard to encourage Americans to see vaccinations as dangerous and federal health officials as malevolent. . . . We’re under attack. We’ve been under attack. We have a commander-in-chief who is either oblivious or complicit.