The CDC advises us to avoid countries that followed CDC advice

by philg

The CDC advised that countries force citizens to wear masks and receive injections of experimental-use-authorized vaccines. Let’s have a look at some of the countries that followed the advice most assiduously. NYT vaccination rate leaderboard:

These same countries are typically also notable for harsh mask orders.

The UAE, with 99% vaccinated (Are they sticking infants?), is at “Level 4: COVID-19 Very High; Avoid travel to the United Arab Emirates.” (CDC) This is the maximum level of coronapanic authorized by Science (map and legend, showing levels 1-4).

How about Portugal (see “In Portugal, There Is Virtually No One Left to Vaccinate” (NYT))? Also Level 4.

Cuba, the paradise of universal health care? Level 4. (My comment after visiting: “Immigration killed all the natives; Socialism killed all of the buildings.”)

Chile? Level 4. Malta? Level 4. Argentina? Level 4. Spain? Level 4.

Austria, where it is illegal to sit at home unvaccinated? Level 4. Canada, where even a truck driver who stays in his/her/zir/their cab all day must be vaccinated? Level 4. Australia, which kept itself safe by deporting Novak Djokovic (the first athlete to be disqualified for not taking a drug?)? Level 4. Singapore (vaccines required in order to work and, unlike in the U.S., labor force participation in Singapore is growing)? Level 4.

How can people have confidence in the ability of Science, as embodied by the CDC, to “manage the virus” if Science says that the places that Followed the Science are unsafe for humans to visit?

The current CDC map shows that the world’s safer places, leaving aside the special case of China, are mostly in Africa. Since we #BelieveScience, should we infer from this that Africans are better at following CDC advice than non-Africans?

Full post, including comments

What is the scientific reason that Canadian truck drivers need to be vaccinated against COVID-19?

by philg

The news is packed with stories about the Canadian truck drivers protesting against a vaccine order (Wikipedia). Premier Blackface (Justin Trudeau) says that, while Canadians have some right to free speech, to assemble, and to protest against the government, the truck drivers are engaging in “hate speech” and therefore these rights do not apply.

Since the Canadian government has all of the guns, I’m assuming that #Science will prevail and the drivers will eventually be forced to accept vaccination or to leave the workforce (not as attractive a proposition as in the U.S. because the Canadian welfare system is far less generous and lifetime “means-tested” everything is tougher to obtain; Canadian family courts are a great option, however, for those who want spending power without engaging in wage labor (but the typical truck driver might not be a successful plaintiff)).

My question for today is why #Science requires that truck drivers be vaccinated. If they’re sitting or sleeping in their trucks 95 percent of the time, do they have enough contact with other humans to make their vaccination status of interest to anyone else? (let’s assume for the sake of this argument that COVID-19 vaccines substantially reduce infection risk from Omicron and whatever additional variants develop)

How many close contacts can a truck driver have if he/she/ze/they is working? (and, given the shortage of trucking that we’ve heard about, aren’t most truck drivers working at least full time?) Walking into a truck stop to use the restroom isn’t comparable to working all day in an office, store, or school with fellow employees and customers.

Why does Science require that the handful of heretics be dragged out of their cabs and stuck with a needle?

Related:

Full post, including comments

The Maskachusetts Righteous debate public housing policy

by philg

Recent discussion involving two residents of of a rich Massachusetts suburb….

From a woman who gets paid to help migrants from South Sudan settle in Massachusetts:

Good morning! I can tell you that the cost of housing is completely out of control. I work with many low income folks and housing is a huge issue.
A woman who works at Amazon making $17.75 an hour and has four kids does not qualify for Emergency Housing?. She makes too much money.
A man who had tb of the spine and is on disability and his wife works as a home health aid making $15 an hour four kids- can not find housing. Anywhere! The man in this family goes to Divinity School at Bu. They will likely have to move out of state. Great family.
I could go on and on?.
As a small nonprofit we have had to hire someone to help navigate the housing maze for clients.
I got an email yesterday for an affordable house in waylaid [Wayland, Maskachusetts] for over $300,000!! Affordable for whom????
We all need to raise our voices!!!
Lynn two bedrooms is going for $2200
Woburn two bedroom $2300
Salem three bedroom $2100 and is considered a steal!!
SSEF has many families that need housing and good schools.
Likely they will live in horrible housing in towns with terrible schools and the cycle goes on and on. Let’s blame them?..
We are increasing our funding for summer educational programs which is better than nothing but better that people lived in towns where the kids educational needs where being addressed.
On a happier note- several lincoln people helped a woman and her kids find housing- a wonderful volunteer from lincoln worked endlessly to find housing and financial resources; three incredible lincoln folks helped completely furnish an apartment. A lincoln man and others helped co-sign her lease. Gives me hope. Please help in any way

From a neighbor who is not paid to work with migrants:

let’s work on balancing protecting our beautiful little town with our moral obligation to help provide more affordable housing.

We can all agree that housing is a human right and that we are morally obligated to house anyone who shows up in the U.S., but achieving “balance” might require the next crop of 59 million migrants to live somewhere other than in our own neighborhood….

Full post, including comments

What’s a good introduction to Joe Rogan?

by philg

Who watched the Dave Chappelle special on Netflix? was about how I invested one hour to learn about someone identified as an Enemy of the Truth.

The latest Enemy of the Truth, a dangerous spreader of misinformation and hate, is Joe Rogan. I haven’t watched or listened to this guy, however, and I’ve heard dark tales of three-hour-long episodes. I don’t want to wade through 100 hours of content to figure out what is intolerable about this person.

I’m therefore appealing to readers. Which Joe Rogan episodes and, preferably, at which in/out points, should be listened to be someone who has no experience with this form of hatred? (URLs pointing directly to these episodes would be most welcome)

Separately, I’m a little confused about Spotify’s new quota-based system for distributing $100 million:

In the latest installment of the Spotify-Rogan saga, CEO Daniel Ek sent out a company memo on Sunday addressing Joe Rogan’s use of harmful racial slurs in past episodes of his podcast. Over 70 of these past episodes have now been removed from Spotify. In the memo, which was published by The Hollywood Reporter, Ek declared that Spotify will invest $100 million in the licensing, development and marketing of music and audio content from historically marginalized groups. This is the same amount of money that Spotify paid to Joe Rogan for his exclusive content deal.

Tensions escalated recently when 270 medical professionals signed an open letter to Spotify urging the company to implement rules around misinformation after Rogan, who is one of the most-listened to podcasters in the industry, hosted Dr. Robert Malone, a virologist banned from Twitter for spreading misinformation about COVID-19. High-profile figures like Neil Young, Joni Mitchell and author Roxane Gay pulled their content from Spotify in protest of the company’s inaction against Rogan’s platforming of false public health information.

“One of the things I am thinking about is what additional steps we can take to further balance creator expression with user safety,” Ek wrote. “I’ve asked our teams to expand the number of outside experts we consult with on these efforts and look forward to sharing more details.”

Note that, according to the journalists, it is a fact that what Dr. Malone was saying (“give COVID-19 vaccines to old people, not to young people”) was wrong (“misinformation”). The Science is settled and there is no possibility that Malone will turn out to have been correct, e.g., if universal vaccination pressures SARS-CoV-2 to evolve in unwanted ways (see Marek’s disease). Also, users cannot feel or be safe without those 70 episodes having been removed (is there a samizdat server somewhere in a free speech country where the 70 banned episodes can be evaluated by users who don’t mind feeling/being unsafe?).

From a purely practical point of view, what is a “marginalized group”? Vietnam is not well-represented in hip hop currently, as far as I know. Will Spotify fund Vietnamese rappers rapping in Vietnamese?

Full post, including comments

Are Californians on track to implement universal health care?

by philg

Covid-fighting hero Gavin Newsom promised California voters a single-payer universal health care system in 2018. A majority of Californians agree that health care is a human right. California has a larger population than most European countries that we consider our models of proper government. California has tons of income and wealth. There are no Republicans capable of preventing California state government from following Science and acting morally. So, as with housing the unhoused, there shouldn’t be any obstacle to California living its principles.

A year ago, AB-1400 Guaranteed Health Care for All, was published. Apparently, when a fundamental human right is being denied there is no reason for California politicians to act quickly. Nonetheless, there was some action a month ago… “Tax hikes for universal health care in California?” (CalMatters):

To implement single-payer health care, or not to implement single-payer health care?

That’s the question facing state lawmakers after a group of Democratic legislators on Thursday unveiled a package of bills to create a universal health care program called CalCare. The proposal has already earned better reception than it did last year, when it was tabled without a hearing after lawmakers raised concerns about its lack of a funding source.

But the funding source — taxes — proposed in a separate bill will likely face an uphill battle. Tax hikes must be approved by two-thirds of lawmakers in both the state Assembly and Senate — a tall order, especially in an election year — and a majority of voters to go into effect. And the doctors’ lobby, insurance industry and business groups are already mobilizing against the bill.

The bills present a conundrum for Gov. Gavin Newsom, who vowed to implement single-payer health care when campaigning for the governorship in 2018. That earned him the backing of powerful groups like the California Nurses Association and progressive activists — and now they want him to make good on his promise, especially after they mobilized to help him defeat the recall last September. An estimated 3.2 million Californians remain uninsured.

Assemblymember Ash Kalra, a San Jose Democrat and the proposal’s main author: “Doing nothing is not action. It is, in fact, the cruelest of actions while millions suffer under our watch.”

What’s happened since then? The state government has “a record-breaking $286.4 billion, including a $45.7 billion surplus” (ABC, 1/10/2022). Yet, despite the government having more money than ever, including a ton of cash that it didn’t expect (thanks to the miracle of asset inflation and capital gains taxation at 13.3 percent?), Mx. Kalra withdrew his/her/zir/their bill (see “Why single payer died in the California Legislature, again”).

Californians don’t agree with MLK, Jr. that “The time is always right to do what is right”? If not during this period of historic budget surplus, when would be the best time for working and tax-paying Californians to deliver to their brothers, sisters, and binary-resisters the universal health care that they say is a human right?

Related:

Full post, including comments

COVID-19 boosters cut death risk by 97X?

by philg

“Boosted Americans 97 times less likely to die of virus than unvaccinated” (USA Today, 2/2/2022):

As the U.S. inches up to a 64% vaccination rate for the entire population, only 42% of those eligible for a booster have gotten the extra shot, and experts aren’t sure what will move the needle, so to speak.

Fully vaccinated Americans are 14 times less likely to die of COVID-19 than those who haven’t gotten the shots. Boosted Americans are 97 times less likely.

Those were the figures presented Wednesday by Dr. Rochelle Walensky, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, based on reports from 25 jurisdictions in the week ending Dec. 4. For every 100,000 people, 9.7 of those who were unvaccinated were killed by the coronavirus, compared to 0.7 of those fully vaccinated and 0.1 of the boosted.

Science (the CDC) tells us that the COVID-19 vaccination, in a full three-dose series, is the most effective pharmaceutical intervention ever developed. Although of course we believe Science and trust in the CDC, some questions are raised by this astonishing 97X risk reduction. At least over in Sweden, pre-vaccine SARS-CoV-2 wasn’t dangerous enough to justify terminating citizens’ right to gather, children’s right to attend school, etc. Nor was it dangerous enough to justify ordering people wear masks. We’re told that we a 97X reduction in risk is available and yet American schoolchildren, down to age 2, are ordered to wear masks and subject to various other restrictions. Vaccine papers are checked at restaurants (e.g., for those 5+ in Boston) to make sure that the unclean don’t mingle with the sacred. A range of restrictions are applied to discourage travel. But if the sacred have cut their risk by 97X, why are they worried about the 5% filthy untouchables (unvaccinated)? Is our tolerance for risk 97X lower than what prevails among Swedes? That is contradicted by the fact that Americans refuse to accept my proposed 35 mph speed limit, which would save more life-years than curing COVID-19.

We don’t order all road travel to cease because some people insist on riding statistically dangerous motorcycles. Why do we have COVID-19 orders in place when a 97X reduction in risk is as close as the nearest CVS? The people making the orders are Democrats and we are constantly informed that it is only Republicans who refuse to accept all three Sacraments of Fauci. Why do Democrats care if SARS-CoV-2 winnows out some of the Deplorables who could potentially vote a fossilized Donald Trump into a renewed dictatorship?

Another possibility is that the 97X risk reduction, while proven by Science, isn’t real. Here’s some data from Israel, famous for early adoption of vaccines and boosters:

Deaths tagged to COVID-19 are at an all-time high. This, despite the fact that those who aren’t boosted are excluded from public life. “Israel’s bet on early COVID booster shots pays off” (DW, 11/11/2021):

To enter the club, people must present their green pass, which includes an ID number and a QR code. “When somebody wants to go either to the pool or the gym, we check the green pass. Everybody has it on the phone these days. Sometimes it’s a little bit of an inconvenience, but people understand and cooperate,” said Levi.

In October, Israeli authorities canceled the green passes of those eligible for the third shot but who hadn’t received it yet. Those who don’t have a green pass can get a 24-hour pass by taking an antigen or “fast” test to enter facilities.

I’m wondering if the spectacular cited effectiveness of booster shots among Americans is partly due to the demographics of those who choose to get boosters. In Why rich white Americans believe in masks (October 22, 2020), an MIT professor:

It’s the usual causality problem with epidemiology. Upper middle class Northeasterners (like me) are adamant about mask wearing, and they rarely get sick. So it must be working.

(He added that a mistaken belief in mask efficacy would still be a positive because it would help assure a Biden/Harris victory. He bought his house, his cars, and his common stocks pre-2020, so the first year of the Biden Administration has been fine for him, financially.)

What would the “usual causality problem with epidemiology” look like in the booster world? What if the people who have the time, patience, and inclination to get boosters are rich white people who have the luxury of staying in their suburban bunkers 98 percent of the time? They weren’t likely to get COVID-19 in the first place and they’re not getting COVID-19 during their twice/week N95-masked excursions to the supermarket.

Note that this is not to suggest that the booster shot has no effect (see Maybe it is time for that booster shot? for why you might want to get one even if you think it has no effect!). But a post-boost 1/97th risk level seems tough to achieve by pharmaceutical means alone and without some help from Dr. Differential Demographics.

Related:

Full post, including comments

CNN educates us regarding the glass ceiling

by philg

An immigrant friend’s comment on news from the CNN executive suite:

These are defenders of liberal morality and destroyers of glass ceilings

A Google search for

“glass ceiling” site:cnn.com

yields 2,520 results. “10 reasons single women should be mad” (2017) is typical:

Many voters are upset with the status quo this year, but single women have an especially long list of reasons to be mad. Simply being born female in the United States means you’ll probably earn less than your male peers and pay more for life’s basic necessities.

American women get less money than men. Females earn 84 cents for every dollar a male does, according to Pew Research. PayScale says the gender gap is even worse: women make only 77 cents for every dollar that men do.

(Companies aren’t smart enough to cut their payroll costs by hiring only women, who do the same quality of work for 20 percent less.)

Whether you call it a glass ceiling or a pink ghetto, the reality is there aren’t many American women who make it to the top. PayScale found that the wage gap gets worse the higher up the career ladder women go. No wonder there are fewer female millionaires and billionaires.

Only 24 CEOs at America’s 500 biggest publicly traded companies are female. And the pipeline behind them isn’t encouraging. At large corporations, only 16.5% of the top five positions are held by women, according to a CNNMoney analysis last year.

More recently we learn from these experts on gender equality about a path to an executive VP job at CNN for a person who identified as female. From “CNN’s worst-kept secret that even NYC doormen knew about: Staff at swanky apartment building where Zucker AND his staffer lover had apartments would try to stop his wife from ending up in same elevator as her” (Daily Mail):

Ousted CNN President Jeff Zucker’s relationship with his subordinate Allison Gollust was such an ‘open secret’ that even doormen at the building where they both had apartments tried to ensure that Zucker’s wife and Gollust were never in the elevator together.

Zucker resigned from his $6 million-a-year job at the network on Wednesday, following an internal investigation into his relationship with Gollust, who works as CNN’s executive vice president and chief marketing officer.

‘Jeff and I have been close friends and professional partners for over 20 years,’ she wrote. ‘Recently, our relationship changed during COVID. I regret that we didn’t disclose it at the right time.’

But media sources have said the affair was an ‘open secret’ for more than 10 years – and even the doormen at their Manhattan apartment building tried to keep Allison and Zucker’s wife, Caryn, from interacting.

Their affair reportedly stretches back to when they both worked at NBC in the late 1990s. Zucker worked at the network from 1986 to 2010, becoming executive producer of the Today show, then head of NBC Entertainment before becoming president and CEO of NBC Universal.

America’s #2 expert on COVID-19 was also tied into this story…

In 2012, Gollust was picked by former Gov. Andrew Cuomo to serve as his communications director, before Zucker brought her into work at CNN, where he became president in 2013.

Related:

Full post, including comments

Voter participation increases as government expands?

by philg

Friends from Maskachusetts (a.k.a. “Democrats”) were attributing all of the nations’ current woes to Donald Trump. One example that they highlighted was Trump’s reference to the 2020 election as “stolen” and/or “rigged.” I am not the best audience for outrage regarding the election due to my belief that we should return to the standards of the early 1800s, i.e., voting should be limited to those have worked for approximately 8 years (it was “21-year-old males” back then and men began working at 13; of course, to update this system for the 21st century we would have to allow a full rainbow of gender IDs because people in a full rainbow of gender IDs can and do work).

One of my examples was that college students could be reliably expected to vote for free college tuition, student loan forgiveness, etc., without regard to the burden that this would place on working Americans. These folks might not start working until age 28, so the idea that they might be burdened with higher tax rates was an abstract and uncertain one.

This discussion resulted in a a review of some voting statistics. Did the constant drumbeat of Facebook and Google telling young people to register and then vote result in a significant change in college student voting? “College Students Voted at Record-High Rate in 2020” (Inside Higher Ed):

Voter turnout among college students jumped to a record high of 66 percent in the 2020 presidential election, according to a new report from the Institute for Democracy and Higher Education.

That was 14 percent higher than college student turnout in the 2016 election, the report found, and just a shade lower than the national rate of 67 percent for all voters in 2020, as calculated by the U.S. Census Bureau. The student “yield” rate — the rate at which students who registered to vote actually cast their ballots — hit 80 percent, which the report called “an important milestone and signal that they are vested in their own futures and the health of democracy.” In 2016, the yield rate was 60 percent. Other data found that younger students outvoted older ones, with those aged 18 to 21 voting at higher rates than the 30-and-over crowd.

But maybe more college students voted simply because more Americans voted? From Wikipedia:

This made me wonder if the growth in tendency to vote could be correlated with growth in the role of government. From Trading Economics:

From usgovernmentspending.com:

But maybe the sharp rise in 2020 isn’t about the dollars and isn’t about the unsolicited mail-in ballots? In 2020, Republicans realized that technocratic government had the power to lock them into their apartments, prevent them from working, deny an education to their children, prevent them from breathing outdoors without a mask, etc. Democrats realized that bad government, ignoring Science, had the power to kill millions of people by not ordering life-saving lockdowns, not ordering virus-preventing masks, and not closing virus-spreading schools.

(Separately, from these same Democrats’ point of view, Trump continues to be responsible for most of the hate crimes in the U.S. The U.S. was mostly hate-free under Obama’s leadership. Trump made hate acceptable. The election of Joe Biden, however, did not reverse the trend and restore us to a hate-free situation because Trump remains stubbornly alive and his existence on Planet Earth makes the expression of hate acceptable.)

Related:

Full post, including comments

Even with COVID-19 anxiety, there is always room for climate anxiety

by philg

For readers who demand to know why I continue to pay for a NYT subscription… “Climate Change Enters the Therapy Room” (NYT, today):

Ten years ago, psychologists proposed that a wide range of people would suffer anxiety and grief over climate. Skepticism about that idea is gone.

It would hit Alina Black in the snack aisle at Trader Joe’s, a wave of guilt and shame that made her skin crawl.

Something as simple as nuts. They came wrapped in plastic, often in layers of it, that she imagined leaving her house and traveling to a landfill, where it would remain through her lifetime and the lifetime of her children.

She longed, really longed, to make less of a mark on the earth. But she had also had a baby in diapers, and a full-time job, and a 5-year-old who wanted snacks. At the age of 37, these conflicting forces were slowly closing on her, like a set of jaws.

In the early-morning hours, after nursing the baby, she would slip down a rabbit hole, scrolling through news reports of droughts, fires, mass extinction. Then she would stare into the dark.

It was for this reason that, around six months ago, she searched “climate anxiety” and pulled up the name of Thomas J. Doherty, a Portland psychologist who specializes in climate.

Eco-anxiety, a concept introduced by young activists, has entered a mainstream vocabulary. And professional organizations are hurrying to catch up, exploring approaches to treating anxiety that is both existential and, many would argue, rational.

Though there is little empirical data on effective treatments, the field is expanding swiftly.

Caroline Wiese, 18, described her previous therapist as “a typical New Yorker who likes to follow politics and would read The New York Times, but also really didn’t know what a Keeling Curve was,” referring to the daily record of carbon dioxide concentration.

Ms. Wiese had little interest in “Freudian B.S.” She sought out Dr. Doherty for help with a concrete problem: The data she was reading was sending her into “multiday panic episodes” that interfered with her schoolwork.

Note that both patient and therapist are described as living in Portland, Oregon, but they met via videoconference.

I’m still confused how people who are convinced that 50 percent of humanity will die due to climate change can simultaneously be concerned that COVID-19 will kill up to 1 percent of humanity. (Also, the folks convinced that climate change is an existential threat tend to also be passionate supporters of unlimited migration from low-carbon-output societies to high-carbon-output societies. It is tough to think of a better way to accelerate climate doom than bringing millions of people from low-income countries to the carbon-profligate U.S.)

If you’re anxious about climate change and need a decent place to relax for the next few years, consider William Jennings Bryan’s old house in Miami. It will soon be inundated by the rising sea and can be yours for $150 million. From the preceding link, “sitting directly on the water” is a selling point.

Full post, including comments

MIT spirit in Washington, D.C.

by philg

“‘I am deeply sorry for my conduct’: Biden’s top science adviser apologizes to staff” (Politico):

[MIT prof] Eric Lander, the president’s top science adviser and a member of his Cabinet, sent a Friday night email to his roughly 150-person staff apologizing for speaking to colleagues in a “disrespectful and demeaning way.”

“It’s my responsibility to set a respectful tone for our community. It’s clear that I have not lived up to this responsibility,” Lander wrote in an email provided to POLITICO. “This is not only wrong, but also inconsistent with our Safe and Respectful Workplace Policy. It is never acceptable for me to speak that way. I am deeply sorry for my conduct. I especially want to apologize to those of you who I treated poorly or were present at the time.”

Lander heads the White House’s Office of Science and Technology Policy and is leading President Joe Biden’s “Cancer Moonshot,” an initiative aimed at reducing cancer deaths that had its splashy launch event earlier this week.

The email appears to reference an investigation POLITICO has been conducting into Lander’s treatment of staff, which Lander acknowledges in his email. “I understand that some of you have been asked about this, and I thought it was important to write directly to you,” he wrote. “I also realize that my conduct reflects poorly on this Administration, and interferes with our work. I deeply regret that.”

Biden himself declared a zero-tolerance policy for improper conduct on the first day of his administration. He pledged that “if you are ever working with me and I hear you treat another colleague with disrespect, talk down to someone, I promise you I will fire you on the spot. On the spot. No ifs, ands or buts.”

Lander pledges in his email that “[w]e will take concrete steps to promote a better workplace. We will schedule regular forums to check in with staff on how we are doing in creating and upholding a safe and respectful workplace. We will also ensure that every employee knows how to report conduct that concerns them.”

Lander is probably one of the nicer people at MIT (like being a dwarf among midgets, admittedly), so perhaps this shows that Science is something to follow every day while scientists are best restricted to their labs.

Related:

Full post, including comments