Coronavirus Update: Looking More Concerning

In an OP I posted last week, I cited statistics from a New York Times article indicating that the death rate from coronavirus infections was about 0.4%, making it about four times more lethal than the flu virus. The same article mentioned earlier estimates that put the death rate at about 2.3% for all of China and about 2.9% for Hubei Province in China. I cited the 0.4% rate because the higher rates were due to Chinese medical facilities being overwhelmed and many mild cases being left uncounted.

With additional data coming in from other countries, it is starting to look like the lethality of the coronavirus maybe be closer to the 2.9% rate for China's Hubei Province. An article today in the NYT indicates that about 87,000 people in 60 countries have been infected and almost 3,000 people have died. If that death rate holds up over time, the virus would have a lethality rate of about 3.4%, making it 34 times more lethal than the flu virus.

The caveat with that possibility is the same as it was for the early infection rates calculated for China: Maybe a lot of mild cases are going undetected and are therefore not counted. If 10 mild infections go undetected for every diagnosed infection, that would reduce the lethality rate to about 0.34%, which is fairly close to the 0.4% rate cited in my OP last week. The US has not had the ability to test many people, so most infections here maybe be going undetected.

Today's NYT article comments on the uncertainty: "The first death from the infection was reported on Saturday: a man who lived near Seattle. A model produced by infectious disease experts hints that the coronavirus may already have infected up to 1,500 people in the area. .... Much remains unknown about the virus, including how many people may have very mild or asymptomatic infections, and whether they can transmit the virus. The precise dimensions of the outbreak are hard to know. .... Scientists don’t know how long the new coronavirus can live on surfaces, and preliminary research suggests that hot and humid environments may not slow down the pathogen’s spread. Warm weather does tend to inhibit influenza and milder coronaviruses. Infected people may be able to pass on the new coronavirus even if they have few obvious symptoms, a study in Germany has found. .... Symptoms of this infection include fever, cough and difficulty breathing or shortness of breath. The illness causes lung lesions and pneumonia. But milder cases may resemble the flu or a bad cold, making detection difficult. .... The best thing you can do to avoid getting infected is to follow the same general guidelines that experts recommend during flu season, because the coronavirus spreads in much the same way. Wash your hands frequently throughout the day. Avoid touching your face, and maintain a distance from anyone who is coughing or sneezing. .... At the moment, the risk of infection with the new coronavirus in the United States “is way too low for the general public to start wearing a face mask,” said Dr. Peter Rabinowitz, co-director of the University of Washington MetaCenter for Pandemic Preparedness and Global Health Security."

Some genetic testing of the virus in Washington State indicates that the virus has been spreading for several weeks without being detected. The point of all that is to point out that there still is uncertainty about infections and the rate of lethality. Over time more data will come in and more testing will be done.

It is not time to panic. All regular people can do is watch this carefully and take advice from real experts, but not Trump or Pence. They are ignorant.

Tyranny of the Minority: Voting in the Primary, or Maybe Not

My candidate Mayor Pete dropped out yesterday, as we all know. I voted for him a week or so ago, but reluctantly predicted I would probably wind up voting for an old white guy. At least that prediction seems to still be on track. Looks like my Mayor Pete vote went down in flames.

A disgruntled primary voter who hasn't voted yet (actual photo of real person)

Once again, the fine people of the states of IA, NH, NV and SC got to eliminate everyone else's choice before their state officially votes. California votes tomorrow, on Dipstick Tuesday, so I almost got to vote for someone still in the race. In essence, those folks led me to vote for a ghost and thus exert zero influence. Guess that teaches me a lesson for voting early.

Anyway, I think I recall an analysis that said each primary vote in IA and NH is worth about 8-10 primary votes in other states. It's a form of tyranny of the minority. Other folks have made the same observation on the minority tyranny phenomenon in recent years. Between (1) various constitutional rots, e.g., in the form of the self-described Grim Reaper, Moscow Mitch McConnell,[1] (2) a recent sharp electoral college tilt in favor of the minority Trump Party, and (3) the IA, NH, NV and SC primaries, there are plenty of reasons to feel like one is being abused by a minority if one doesn't like the way things are going.

Of course, if one likes all of this, it is good times in MAGA!! land. LOCK HER UP!, LOCK HER UP!, LOCK HER UP!

I suppose it is out of bounds to ask for a different order of voting in the primaries, maybe a regional one that lets one of 5 or 6 regions or clusters of states go first on a rotating basis. Or, maybe there could a rotating batch of 3-4 states that go first, e.g., one large population state a middle pop state and 1-2 pipsqueaks. Yeah, I know. The pipsqueaks would howl in protest. Well what the heck. People in all other states are ignored now, so why not a few pipsqueak states after all the decades of IA, NH, NV and SC telling all of us what they want. I do not care what IA, NH, NV and SC want. I care what I want.

One thing for sure, I'll be writing a position paper for my little wannabe third party recommending that the party break completely free from official democratic and republican voting dates and set its primary vote date a few days or maybe a week before the nutty Iowa caucuses.


Footnote:
1. As of a couple of weeks ago, Moscow Mitch had 365 bills the House passed sitting in his in-box waiting to be shredded. Grim Reaper Mitch blithely comments, "We're not going to pass those." Ah, the wonder of politics. Trump and the Trump Party like to refer to the democrats as do nothings. I guess that shredding bills from the House constitutes doing something in the eyes of Trumplandia. We live in strange, constitutionally rotted, hypocrisy- and corruption-tinged times. If things keep going like this, these fine times are likely to morph into a constitutionally crisis-riddled time of the liar-kleptocrat-tyrant. That will make these tyranny of the minority times look like a golden age of freedom and semi-honest governance.

A disgruntled dog, upset at the tyranny of the minority

The Jobs Impact of a $25/Metric Ton Carbon Tax

Researchers at the Georgia Institute of Technology analyzed effects of the Green New Deal’s the US Green Party proposed about 3 years ago. Details of the plan were fed into the U.S. Energy Information Administration’s National Energy Modeling System. They analyzed effects of a $25 and a $60 tax on each metric ton (2204 lbs) of CO2 released into the environment. Among other things, the model projected that CO2 emissions would decrease, and the $25 tax would create more jobs than the $60 tax. This is reported in the March 2020 issue of Scientific American.

Most climate science deniers, the carbon energy sector and anti-government ideologues will probably reject the data as flawed, biased, fabricated or whatever else serves to either make it go away completely or to trivialize it into insignificance.

What Is an Internet Troll?

 and How to Handle Trolls

Internet trolls are people who want to provoke and upset others online for their own amusement. Here’s how to spot the signs that someone is a troll, and how to handle them.

What Are Internet Trolls?

If you’ve been on the internet for any period of time, you’ve likely run into a troll at some point. An internet troll is someone who makes intentionally inflammatory, rude, or upsetting statements online to elicit strong emotional responses in people or to steer the conversation off-topic. They can come in many forms. Most trolls do this for their own amusement, but other forms of trolling are done to push a specific agenda.

Trolls have existed in folklore and fantasy literature for centuries, but online trolling has been around for as long as the internet has existed. The earliest known usage of the term can be traced back to the 1990s on early online message boards. Back then, it was a way for users to confuse new members by repeatedly posting an inside joke. It’s since turned into a much more malicious activity.

Trolling is distinct from other forms of cyberbullying or harassment. It is normally not targeted towards any one person and relies on other people paying attention and becoming provoked. Trolling exists on many online platforms, from small private group chats to the biggest social media websites. Here’s a list of places online where you’re likely to see online trolls:

• Anonymous online forums: Places like Reddit, 4chan, and other anonymous message boards are prime real-estate for online trolls. Because there’s no way of tracing who someone is, trolls can post very inflammatory content without repercussion. This is especially true if the forum has lax or inactive moderation.
• Twitter: Twitter also has the option to be anonymous, and has become a hotbed for internet trolls. Frequent Twitter trolling methods involve hijacking popular hashtags and mentioning popular Twitter personalities to gain attention from their followers.
• Comment sections: The comment sections of places such as YouTube and news websites are also popular areas for trolls to feed. You’ll find a lot of obvious trolling here, and they frequently generate a lot of responses from angry readers or viewers.

You’ll find trolls anywhere online, including on Facebook and on online dating sites. They’re unfortunately pretty common.

Signs Someone Is Trolling

It can sometimes become difficult to tell the difference between a troll and someone who just genuinely wants to argue about a topic. However, here are a few tell-tale signs that someone is actively trolling.

• Off-topic remarks: Completely going off-topic from the subject at hand. This is done to annoy and disrupt other posters.
• Refusal to acknowledge evidence: Even when presented with hard, cold facts, they ignore this and pretend like they never saw it.
• Dismissive, condescending tone: An early indicator of a troll was that they would ask an angry responder, “Why you mad, bro?” This is a method done to provoke someone even more, as a way of dismissing their argument altogether.
• Use of unrelated images or memes: They reply to others with memes, images, and gifs. This is especially true if done in response to a very long text post.
• Seeming obliviousness: They seem oblivious that most people are in disagreement with them. Also, trolls rarely get mad or provoked.

The list above is by no means definitive. There are a lot of other ways to identify that someone is trolling. Generally, if someone seems disingenuous, uninterested in a real discussion, and provocative on purpose, they’re likely an internet troll.

How Should I Handle Them?

The most classic adage regarding trolling is, “Don’t feed the trolls.” Trolls seek out emotional responses and find provocation amusing, so replying to them or attempting to debate them will only make them troll more. By ignoring a troll completely, they will likely become frustrated and go somewhere else on the internet.

You should try your best not to take anything trolls say seriously. No matter how poorly they behave, remember these people spend countless unproductive hours trying to make people mad. They’re not worth your time of day.

If a troll becomes spammy or begins to clog up a thread, you can also opt to report them to the site’s moderation team. Depending on the website, there’s a chance nothing happens, but you should do your part to actively dissuade them from trolling on that platform. If your report is successful, the troll may be temporarily suspended or their account might be banned entirely.

https://www.howtogeek.com/465416/what-is-an-internet-troll-and-how-to-han

Ecological Existential Dread: We Need to Talk about our Feelings

We’re feeling a tipping point emerge, and it’s not just ecological. It’s cultural, political, and institutional. We’d best do the emotional work and be ready.

Just as the smoke disperses from fire-ravaged parts of the world, the spectre of ecological breakdown is creeping into humanity’s collective psyche. Whether that manifests as a bit of anxiety or full-on dread of mass extinction, we need to start talking about our feelings. If we don’t, we may avoid rather than confront the reforms needed for the planet to continue supporting life.

As a university instructor in Canada, I increasingly hear from students how the notion of financial “retirement security” seems decadent to them. A recent Washington Post article highlighted the sentiment among today’s youth: “We won’t die from old age,” read a placard at an environmental protest. “We’ll die from climate change.”  Indeed, youth around the world are concerned about what to do when the weather starts ravaging food, water, and energy systems on a more widespread and permanent basis. Or how to reclaim the relevant survival skills and live peacefully with one another should the floods and fires hit home. With such uncertainty in the background — and sometimes in the foreground — it becomes difficult to make committed life choices, or undertake (even very critical) administrative tasks. And for me, the kinds of discussions I hope to facilitate about public policy become mired in frustration.

For many, and Gen Z in particular, participating in consumer society feels unavoidable yet deeply questionable. Life decisions that once seemed obvious, like getting a house or well-paying job, don’t just seem out of reach; they seem futile. And since the personal is political, our collective dread is beginning to shape our political and institutional conversations. How do we make long-term decisions under these circumstances?

Eco-anxiety and paralysis

A great deal of attention has been given to the obstructive nature of climate denial and associated political polarization, but less attention has been focused on the phenomenon of cultural paralysis due to eco-anxiety. In a survey of the literature, psychologists Kevin Coyle and Lise Van Susteren describe how fears of extreme weather have become phobic on a widespread level and are experienced similar to the “unrelenting day-by-day despair” that can be experienced during a drought. The delayed and slow impacts of climate change, they write, can be just as damaging as the acute climate impacts themselves. That’s a psychological double-whammy, paradoxically cloaked in relative personal comfort and material satisfaction. Watching the slow and irreversible impacts unfold and “worrying about the future for oneself, children, and later generations,” is a source of stress, loss, guilt, helplessness, and frustration that inflames existing day-to-day concerns.

Of course, anxiety can either be harmful or helpful. It can be harnessed for pragmatic use under conditions of near-term threat (ie. “fight” or “flight”), and it can also lead to paralysis (“freeze”).

Processing grief and fear in public forums

Recently, a number of news articles have been published about eco-anxiety as if the phenomenon is something to be witnessed from a distance; as if it isn’t yet a pervasive experience shared by all.

Ecological economist and self-defined “realist” William Rees recently opined that Greta Thunberg needs to inspire “more than emotional release about climate change” because the world is “headed toward catastrophe.” He writes that “If you accept my facts, you will see the massive challenge we face in transforming human assumptions and ways of living on Earth,” adding, “I welcome being told what crucial facts I might be missing.” Unfortunately, as he is likely well aware, even accurate facts do not often change hearts and minds, especially for those who are experiencing the “unrelenting day-to-day despair” articulated above.

On the other side of the debate, Guy Dauncey’s “OK Doomer” response to Rees features this declaration: “spiritually and emotionally it’s not in my makeup to accept defeat, so I have a problem with [Rees’ argument].” Here, too, at least there is an acknowledgement that one might have an emotional response to the ecological crisis, and yet Dauncey’s article featured precisely the kind of administrative to-do list that some of us are having a hard time tackling (it’s easier to distract ourselves with affordable luxuries, like $4 coffee and new tech, thank you very much).

It sounds like if we aren’t “getting the facts,” or resisting defeat, we’re just not trying hard enough. But what if we start by acknowledging and accepting the reality of distress, instead? Author Clementine Morrigan has suggested that accepting how ecological distress affects human nervous systems is “important political work.”

It reads:

We feel ecological distress in our bodies

The panic, grief, helplessness and despair

We feel about ecological catastrophe

Are embodied nervous system experiences

…

Learning to co-regulate our nervous systems and

Be together with ecological distress is important political work.

Channelling collective dread

By doing both the emotional and administrative work at the same time, we might be able to direct a unifying sense of dread into productive channels. Without doing that work, dread may instead fragment into existing political and economic divisions. Fears and frustrations will be directed towards power-holders (eg. “politicians” and “corporations”); “other” nationalities (eg. “China”); and newcomers or other social groups (eg. “immigrants”) who are perceived to be competing for land and resources.

And therein lies the silver lining about our predicament: it’s difficult to foster meaningful and lasting change in a scenario where things feel fine. Perhaps this moment of fire and fury will foster an opportunity to work through existential dread productively.

We’re collectively feeling a tipping point emerge, and it’s not just ecological. It’s cultural, political, and institutional. We’d best do the work and be ready.

https://www.resilience.org/stories/2020-02-26/ecological-existential-dread-we-need-to-talk-about-our-feelings/

Court Ruling Protects Absolute Presidential Immunity from Congressional Investigation

The New York Times reports that an appeals court ruling holds that congress cannot sue to force executive branch officials to testify about anything. This ruling appears to provide absolute presidential immunity from any congressional investigation or inquiry. If that is the correct interpretation, and I hope it isn't, congress has no power to force any executive branch employee to answer any questions about anything. If that is the correct interpretation of this case, it constitutes a massive shift in power from congress to the executive branch.

None of the three judges on the case were appointed by the president. The full ruling is here.

The NYT writes:

“WASHINGTON — A federal appeals court ruled on Friday that Congress could not sue to enforce its subpoenas of executive branch officials, handing a major victory to President Trump and dealing a severe blow to the power of Congress to conduct oversight. 

In a ruling that could have far-reaching consequences for executive branch secrecy powers long after Mr. Trump leaves office, a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit dismissed a lawsuit brought by the House Judiciary Committee against Mr. Trump’s former White House counsel, Donald F. McGahn II.  

But two of the three appeals court judges ruled on Friday that the Constitution gave the House no standing to file any such lawsuit in what they characterized as a political dispute with the executive branch. If their decision stands, its reasoning would shut the door to judicial recourse whenever a president directs a subordinate not to cooperate with congressional oversight investigations.   

Judge Griffith said that Congress had political tools to induce presidents to negotiate and compromise in disputes over oversight demands for information about the government — like withholding appropriations or derailing the president’s legislative agenda — and that courts should not be involved. 

‘The absence of a judicial remedy doesn’t render Congress powerless,’ he wrote, adding, ‘Congress can wield these political weapons without dragging judges into the fray.’” 

The dissenting judge, Judith W. Rogers, wrote this in her dissent:

“Today the court reaches the extraordinary conclusion that the House of Representatives, in the exercise of its “sole Power of Impeachment,” U.S. CONST. art. I, § 2, cl. 5, lacks standing under Article III of the Constitution to seek judicial enforcement of a subpoena in connection with an investigation into whether to impeach the President. The House comes to the court in light of the President’s blanket and unprecedented order that no member of the Executive Branch shall comply with the subpoena duly issued by an authorized House Committee. Exercising jurisdiction over the Committee’s case is not an instance of judicial encroachment on the prerogatives of another Branch, because subpoena enforcement is a traditional and commonplace function of the federal courts. The court removes any incentive for the Executive Branch to engage in the negotiation process seeking accommodation, all but assures future Presidential stonewalling of Congress, and further impairs the House’s ability to perform its constitutional duties. I respectfully dissent.” (emphasis added)

This country is in very deep trouble. The imperial presidency, above the law and unaccountable to congress, is rising before our very eyes. Our government is badly broken. It has ceased to function in anything other than broken ways.