Data on the deep American political divide

The Center for Politics at the university of Virginia has collected interesting data on the divide. The research was intended to look for common ground and a basis for compromise. The researchers looked for insight about political and social-psychological motivations that drive both sides of the divide. The study comments:

In the study, the idea that the “government should work for people” surfaces as a potential compromise corridor for starting a conversation and finding common ground. The opportunity is to leverage this consensus to realize the positive change and action many Trump and Biden voters want.

But these positives are offset by the fact that Biden and Trump voters do not see how working with the other side fits into a bigger picture or translates into benefits for them. If anything, they view compromise as contrary their own priorities. They are convinced that the other side is pursuing an agenda that is contrary to their interests, principles, and values. They are convinced they will suffer personally if the other side has their way, despite the fact that many Biden and Trump voters want many of the same things from government.  

Widespread disillusionment with the other side, and perceptions of a system that is rigged to favor the wealthy and powerful, has undermined faith in our representative democracy: 

• On one hand, roughly 80% of Trump and Biden voters view democracy as preferable to any non-democratic kind of government.
• On the other hand, more than 6 in 10 Trump and Biden voters see America as less a representative democracy and more a system that is run by and rigged for the benefit of the wealthy.

For the foreseeable future, major compromise will be limited or nearly non-existent in view of deep distrust that decades of radical right anti-government and anti-democracy propaganda has fomented in the minds of tens of millions of Americans. Fomenting distrust is the point of that propaganda. It has worked especially well in the last ~5 years. The result will be more power and money flowing to elites at the top, while rights and wealth will ebb away from the rest of us.

Are perceptions of a system that is rigged to favor the wealthy and powerful mostly real, mostly false or mostly ambiguous? 

The neo-fascist Republican plan to rewrite the US Constitution

A few weeks ago I posted as discussion about an ongoing effort to get two-thirds (34) of state legislatures to call for an article 5 Constitutional Convention. Amendments would need to be ratified by three-fourths (38) of states to take effect. That effort is mostly driven by liberals and moderates. The purpose is to amend the US Constitution to make corruption illegal in politics again. Special interest corruption had been significantly outlawed by laws that congress passed. But over the years radical conservative Republicans on the Supreme Courts have neutered those laws, often on grounds of free speech and a belief that corporations are people with constitutional rights. American politics has returned to a high level corruption by modern day neo-fascist Republicans. They are hell-bent on corrupting and subverting the federal government for their own neo-fascist ends, mainly power and wealth.

At present, Republican Christian nationalists on the Supreme Courts are busily and happily in the process of neutering laws that keep state and church separated, often on grounds of free speech and free exercise, but that is a different, complicated topic. This post is about the broad vision of what Republican laissez-faire capitalists and fundamentalist Christian nationalists want to do to America. This vision is not new to the last 5 years or so. At least parts of the modern radical right vision of America has been brewing at least since the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court decision that desegregated public schools. Conservative elites hated that decision and most of them seem to have been seething with rage ever since.

The Republican plan for America

There is another effort to force an Article 5 convention by states. This one is by conservatives with some non-conservatives also supporting it. The point of that convention would be to force a balanced budget amendment into the US Constitution. Although the radical right is not uniform in what it wants, the general contours of what they want to do to America is clear. Among other bad things, the neo-fascists want to neuter democracy, respect for inconvenient truth and a government that effectively defends the public interest. Those things have got to go. The radical right movement has already seriously damaged democracy and government defense of the public interest defense. It has almost completely obliterated respect for inconvenient truth. Just listen to some Fox News or go to major radical right propaganda and lies sites like Gateway Pundit to get a feel for how Republican neo-fascists mistreat truth.   

One vision of what the Republicans want is encapsulated in the something it calls the Liberty Amendments. The neo-fascist author and pundit Mark Levin articulated the Liberty Amendments in his widely read book, The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Republic. Levin is a real hard core and prominent in the modern neo-fascist Republican movement. His rhetoric makes his poisonous feelings about Democrats and liberalism clear, e.g., this recent blast at Biden on Fox News. Wikipedia summarized the Liberty Amendments that radical right Republicans want put in the US Constitution:

• Impose Congressional term limits
• Repeal the Seventeenth Amendment, returning the election of Senators to state legislatures
• Impose term limits for Supreme Court Justices and restrict judicial review
• Require a balanced budget and limit federal spending and taxation
• Define a deadline to file taxes (one day before the next federal election)
• Subject federal departments and bureaucratic regulations to periodic reauthorization and review
• Create a more specific definition of the Commerce Clause
• Limit eminent domain powers
• Allow states to more easily amend the Constitution by bypassing Congress
• Create a process where two-thirds of the states can nullify federal laws
• Require photo ID to vote and limit early voting

In  those amendments, on can clearly see the influence of laissez-faire capitalism and hostility to voters having power and easy access to voting. These amendments weaken the federal government’s ability to protect people and their civil liberties and they transfer enormous power from the federal government to businesses and the states. For example, by narrowing the definition of the Commerce Clause, the federal government would lose power to regulate much, maybe most, interstate commerce, freeing companies from all associated regulations. 

Depending on how it is worded, an amendment(s) that restricts the scope of judicial review could neuter the ability of federal courts to decide what is constitutional and what isn’t and what kind of lawsuits the court could even hear. There are disputes that federal courts dislike even accepting, e.g., political disputes, and the scope of what courts could take could be narrowed enormously. In essence, federal courts could be rendered almost powerless, leaving the newly unleashed power free to flow to congress, the president, the states and/or businesses. The laissez-faire capitalists in the Republican crowd want that power to flow to themselves, where they will be free to quietly kill it to empower businesses, while pretending to do so in service to the public interest. 

Limiting government eminent domain power transfers power from federal, state and local governments to property owners. That has been a libertarian and hard core capitalist dream for years. Subjecting federal departments and bureaucratic regulations to periodic reauthorization is a great way to slowly get rid of federal departments and bureaucratic regulations, one at a time. First cut off regulations, then when not much is left to do, eliminate the federal agency. Neo-fascist Republicans are dead serious about shrinking most pro-consumer and pro-environment aspect of government into insignificance. What would be left mostly untouched would be our gigantic military and its budget and federal courts and law enforcement. The latter would be used to vigorously persecute political opposition and dissent. 

What may not appear to be a major presence in the Liberty Amendments is gifts to Christian nationalism. Nonetheless, Christian nationalism can be well served by amendments like these. For example, if the scope of what federal courts can even consider is neutered, church-state disputes could disappear or be left for religion to decide what is legal and what isn’t. We all know what that would lead to, i.e., massive flows of tax dollars from the US Treasury to churches and religious elites. Religion would be mostly free to rape and plunder the American people at will, while openly and legally discriminating against groups that fundamentalist Christianity hates, e.g., non-heterosexuals, atheists and other non-Christians, and racial and ethnic minorities. Christian elites would get their tons of flesh.

In earlier comments at the post about the liberal Article 5 convention, PD made these comments about the Liberty Amendments:

As far as an Article 5 Convention goes, there is much to fear as a long-term plan supported by as many as 28 Republican state legislatures awaits the right moment to trigger just that in the name of a Balanced Budget Amendment. That, in turn, would open the floor to tinkering with the Constitution in any number of possible ways. Republicans know this and many of them would be coming well-prepared with 11 “Liberty Amendments” that would lock anti-democratic governance in place with ominous finality. 

Charles Koch and ALEC (among others) have been nurturing this plan for decades, and it is highly organized unlike the much more inchoate progressive versions of A5 attempts aimed at overturning Citizens United, and other ideas. These don’t have the support of nearly enough states to kick off an A5 convention, and even if they did such amendments would almost certainly fail to gain the approval of 3/4th of the states. In a much more possible future, though, the GOP just might pull such a thing off, as the BBA has gotten as close as 29 states recently (it’s now down to 28 of the needed 34). Among other reasons, they have support from some 

“Blue Dog Democrats” (see NCPSSM link below).

So what are some of the troubling Liberty Amendments that are lined up and ready for discussion should a convention be called? First articulated in the 2013 book, The Liberty Amendments, by the now-Trump-supporting lawyer, far right radio host and Fox pundit, Mike Levin, they include (among others):

- The Balanced Budget Amendment, which is much more than a 

“fiscally conservative” matter. It might sound good to center-right budget hawks until it becomes clear that to balance the budget they would be kissing social security and medicare, along with various other social programs goodbye. 

- Repeal the 17th Amendment of 1913, which gives us the right to elect senators rather than having them appointed by state legislatures as was the case (though few know this) until the 1918 election. That is, Republicans would now appoint their own Senators eliminating that irritating thing called democratic elections, reverting to the elitism of the 1787 Constitution in a 21st C context. Of course, the long-term Republican stealth plan of people such as Charles Koch has been to make sure that at the state level, the GOP has racked up victory after victory, so that right now 30 state legislatures are Republican to 17 which are Democratic. The same care has been given for decades to using these legislatures to appoint far right judges in these states.

-Amend the constitution to make it easier for States to amend the constitution in the future in a way that circumvents Congress. (Is this what State-Rights has come to mean?)

-Limit mail-in and early voting and require photo IDs, thus suppressing the vote while this effort is complemented by gerrymandering well under way.

- Require Fed Depts. and their regulations to be periodically reviewed and reauthorizied: That is, amend the constitution in such a way that Federal Departments like the EPA, Health and Human Services, Dept. of Ed., Housing and Urban Develop., and others, would require periodic “reauthorization and review,” along with the regulations they establish.

- Amend Constitution so that 2/3 of states can nullify federal laws (states rights to nullify desegregation laws after Brown v Board, and more recently to nullify Affordable Care Act have been rejected by the Supreme Ct., so this would help to get around that).

While right now the GOP is short of 2/3rd (34) of the states signing on to the Balanced Budget Amendment (which would kick off the convention opening it to discuss these widely supported Liberty Amendments), it is a long term stealth-plan that has paid dividends in shifting the balance of state legislatures decisively to the Right. Who can say it won’t succeed given what we’ve seen in recent years? And it would lock in much of the anti-democratic policy already being put in place as I write and in recent years. Meanwhile, Dems are much less united (heck, some of them even support this BBA triggering an A5 Convention). Progressive proposals to call a constitution, like the one calling for an Am. to overturn Citizens United.

Here is a link to the Watchdog group Common Cause on this topic, revised 4/21. And a NYT article from 2016. Finally, a short clip of an interview with Nancy MacClean (author of Democracy in Chains) on this topic taken from Bill Maher Show. It’s short but to the point.

What stands between the neo-fascist Republican vision for America and those constitutional amendments is the requirement that 38 (three-fourths) states ratify the amendments. At present, there aren’t 38 states that would go that far. But what that means is that the Republican Party, its major capitalist donors, and its Christian nationalist cadres will all keep working to get more states on board with as much of the radical right agenda as they can. This Republican Party political movement is well-funded, professional, disciplined, patient, and persistent. 

If the elites behind this awful threat cannot get what they want this year, they will try for next year. If not this decade, then next decade. This war will not end. The elite capitalists, authoritarians, bigots and Christian zealots will not give up and they will not settle for compromise. They want it all. Specifically, they want essentially as  much power and wealth as they can get without people rising up and rebelling. 

What most average people will get from the neo-fascist Republican Party vision for America is a kick in the pants and oppression. Few will be rewarded and most those few will be hard core neo-fascist Republicans.

It's Time to Play "How Screwed Are Democrats?"

 By Best in Moderation

So I've been going over some numbers recently, talking to folk about how the US system is entirely off kilter in terms of representation, and this seems to be more and more relevant as Democrats push for more voter access and rights.

It's nice that they are doing that of course, but I'm about to rain on their parade by showing that it probably will not matter. Here's why.

TLDR:

- Democrats are at a disadvantage when there are less Democrats in the state, but Republicans are not. 

- Democrats have a far more severe disadvantage in being not represented in the US House (28%) than Republicans do not being represented in the US Senate (10%). 

- Democrats have a 9 seat deficit and Republicans have a 7 seat surplus, for a total of 16 seat Democratic disadvantage in the US Senate based on population and voter registration.

- Democrats have a 7 seat deficit and Republicans have a 16 seat surplus, for a total of 23 seat Democratic disadvantage in the US House based on population and voter registration.

- Democratic Senators need on average 900K more votes than their Republican counterparts, and draw from a much larger population (35% more), with Californian Senators needing 69 votes for every 1 in Wyoming.

- Democrats have significantly fewer strongholds (16 to 22) and in those strongholds they hold 58% of their House Seats. It also takes them 5% more votes per seat in these strongholds than for Republican strongholds. Republicans also have double the ratio of their seats in Democratic strongholds (14% to 7% Democratic seats in Republican Strongholds).  

- Once strongholds and leaning states are accounted for, Democrats are far less likely to pull off a win in battleground states, having only 5 ways to win while Republicans have 11, and having used 76% of their base versus 50% of Republicans.

Analysis

Out of the 25 States with the least number of Republicans:
- 7 are Deep Red States
- 4 are Red States
- 3 are Purple States
- 4 are Blue States
- 7 are Deep Blue States

Out of the 25 States with the least number of Democrats:
- 8 are Deep Red States
- 4 are Red States
- 3 are Purple States
- 3 are Blue States
- 6 are Deep Blue States

So we already see Point 1:
- Democrats are at a disadvantage when there are less Democrats in the state, but Republicans are not. 

4,120,823 Republicans live in States where they have no Representatives
5,278,138 Democrats live in States where they have no Representatives

28% more Democrats are entirely unrepresented in the US House than Republicans

39,032,785 Democrats live in states where they have no representation in the US Senate.
43,154,966 Republicans live in states where they have no representation in the US Senate.

While this seems like a better stat for Democrats, the US Senate is not a representative body in the least, and the fact that 10% more Republicans are entirely unrepresented in the US Senate isn't nearly as impactful as the US House disadvantage. 

So we have Point 2:
- Democrats have a far more severe disadvantage in being not represented in the US House (28%) than Republicans do not being represented in the US Senate (10%). 

Underrepresentation is even more of a hit. 

12 States should, based on voter registration and population, have more Democratic senators, including 2 States that should have 2 but have none. 5 States have a Democratic Senator where it was not expected to have one.
5 States should, based on voter registration and population, have more Republicans senators.
11 States have a Republican Senator where it was not expected to have one, including 1 State that should not have had even 1.

That means that in the US Senate, Democrats have 9 less seats than expected, while Republicans have 7 more than they are expected to have. 

What should be a 33% advantage becomes 0% in reality. 

There should be 80 Independent US Reps based on party affiliation and population. There are 0.
There should be 193 Democratic US Reps based on party affiliation and population. There are 221. 
There should be 162 Republican US Reps based on party affiliation and population. There are 214.   

There are 19 States with less Democratic Representatives than expected, for a total of 24 Seats.
There are 12 States with less Republican Representatives than expected, for a total of 17 Seats.

There are 18 States with more Democratic Representative than expected, for a total of 53 Seats.
There are 29 States with more Republican Representative than expected, for a total of 69 Seats.

What should be an 18% seat advantage in the House becomes only a 3% advantage in reality.

So we have Point 3 and 4:
- Democrats have a 9 seat deficit and Republicans have a 7 seat surplus, for a total of 16 seat Democratic disadvantage in the US Senate based on population and voter registration.
- Democrats have a 7 seat deficit and Republicans have a 16 seat surplus, for a total of 23 seat Democratic disadvantage in the US House based on population and voter registration.

 In the 22 states where Republicans hold a monopoly on the Senate:
- The average vote per seat is 2,195,423
- The range is from 222,157 to 10,783,568
- The total maximum voter population is 96,598,605

 In the 21 states where Democrats hold a monopoly on the Senate:
- The average vote per seat is 3,096,433
- The range is from 384,734 to 15,291,230
- The total maximum voter population is 130,050,166

Taking the other 7 states into account, we get:
- Average vote per seat of 1,979,123
- Range of 254,931 to 5,083,030
- Max Voter Population of 27,707,720

So for 2 fewer seats, Democrats need 901,010 more votes per seat on average, with a higher minimum and maximum votes per seat, with a population 35% bigger.

Point 5:
- Democratic Senators need on average 900K more votes than their Republican counterparts, and draw from a much larger population (35%), with Californian Senators needing 69 votes for every 1 in Wyoming.

In the 8 states where Democrats hold a monopoly in the House
- There are 24 seats. 
- Average vote per seat is 567,726
- Range is from 427,028 to 769,468
- The total maximum voter population is 13,814,174

In the 8 states where Democrats hold a significant majority (over 100% advantage) in the House:
- There are 137 seats, 105 of which are Democratic ones (77%). 
- Average vote per seat is 590,253
- Range is from 547,141 to 670,114
- The total maximum voter population is 79,172,117

This means that there are 16 states with strong Democratic representation, containing 129 Democratic seats out of 161 total, and representing 92,986,291 people, for a Total vote per seat of 577,554 and a Democratic vote per seat of 720,824. 

In the 11 states where Republicans hold a monopoly in the House:
- There are 26 seats.
- Average vote per seat is 586,977
- Range is from 444,313 to 839,418
- The total maximum voter population is 14,894,286

In the 11 states where Republicans hold a significant majority (over 100% advantage) in the House:
- There are 80 seats, 63 of which are Republican ones (79%). 
- Average vote per seat is 576,919
- Range is from 544,534 to 606,957
- The total maximum voter population is 46,118,621

This means that there are 22 states with strong Republican representation, containing 89 Republican seats out of 106 total, and representing 61,012,907 people, for a Total vote per seat of 575,594 and a Republican vote per seat of 685,538. 

The remaining 12 States have:

- 168 seats, 75 of which are Democratic and 93 of which are Republican. 
- An average vote per seat of 590,985
- A total maximum possible voter population of 100,357,293

Point 6: 

- Democrats have significantly fewer strongholds (16 to 22) and in those strongholds they hold 58% of their House Seats. It also takes them 5% more votes per seat in these strongholds than for Republican strongholds. Republicans also have double the ratio of their seats in Democratic strongholds (14% to 7% Democratic seats in Republican Strongholds).  

Lastly, each of the above points has impact on the Electoral College. Since the number of votes per state is equal to the number of Representative and Senators, we can look per state at how that impacts the Presidential race (and how it significantly disadvantages Democrats while completely killing any third party chances). Since almost every state is winner take all, this makes estimations easier (but is a terrible way to do it which disenfranchises everyone who voted for the other party). 

Supposing that trends in voting for US House and Senate also carry over to trends in Presidential voting (far from a certainty!) we can roughly estimate that there are 22 states that are likely to go to the Republican candidate and 16 that are likely to go to the Democratic one.

For Republicans, that's 44 EC votes (from the Senate) and 106 EC votes (from the House) for a total secure EC base of 146 votes.
For Democrats, that's a 32 EC vote total from the Senate and 161 from the House, for a total secure EC base of 193 votes.

While that looks great for Democrats, the number of voters need for those votes shows the problem.

For Democrats to get those votes, it took a maximum population of 92,986,291 people giving them a per EC vote of 481,794 (and perhaps more reliably, 46,506,563 Democratic votes, 41% of their entire voter base and 2/3rds of the average turnout. This also means a per EC vote of 240,967 Democrats).

For Republicans to get their votes, it took a maximum population of 61,012,907 people giving them a per EC vote of 417,897 (and perhaps more reliably, 27,326,312 Republican votes, 29% of their entire voter base and 1/3rd of the average turnout  This also means a per EC vote of 187,167 Republicans).

So by the time the secure States are in, Democrats have already had to have 50K more voters per EC and they've used 41% of their voter base for 71% of the needed EC votes. Meanwhile, Republicans have already managed get 55% of their goal with only 29% of their voter base. And these are the most secure states; there are still 12 battleground states to go through, with only 3 leaning Democratic. 

Of the 3 leaning Democratic, 27 Electoral Votes are available.
They make up 12,758,740 potential voters and 5,256,296 Democratic voters.
That means 472,546 & 194,678 votes per EC respectively, and is another 5% of the Democratic base.  

Of the 4 leaning Republican, 92 Electoral Votes are available.
They make up 51,522,367 potential voters and 20,049,033 Republican voters.
That means 560,026 & 217,924 votes per EC respectively, and is another 21% of the Republican base. 

So that means we now have 220 EC votes for Democrats, with 76% of their base accounted for, and we have 238 EC votes for Republicans, with 50% of their base accounted for. 

Which means the Democrats have only 24% of their base left to capture 50 EC votes from the remaining 5 states, whereas Republicans have 50% of their base to capture 32 EC votes.

Georgia has 16 EC votes, and is split evenly on party affiliation, has Democratic Senators and majority Republican Representatives.

Arizona has 11 EC votes, has slightly more Republicans than Democrats, and has Democratic Senators and majority Republican Representatives.

Minnesota has 10 EC votes, more Democrats, and has Democratic Senators with an evenly split House.

Michigan has 16 EC votes, significantly more Democrats, and has Democratic Senators with an evenly split House.

Pennsylvania has 20 EC votes, more Democrats, and has a completely even Senate and House.

Democrats need to win at least 3 of these states to win, and they must be Georgia, Arizona and Pennsylvania. Otherwise they have to win 4 states, any combination.

Republicans only need two states, Pennsylvania and Georgia, or a combination any 3. 

Point 7:

- Once strongholds and leaning states are accounted for, Democrats are far less likely to pull off a win in battleground states, having only 5 ways to win while Republicans have 11, and having used 76% of their base versus 50% of Republicans.

MORAL OF THE STORY

If you want to fix what's wrong with our system, stop the gerrymandering, rebalance the Senate, and push for a national vote, not an EC one, for POTUS. Otherwise we will forever be ruled by a minority of the population using an old, stagnating system to their permanent advantage. 

Omicron update

Many people (including epidemiologists and other scientists) are frustrated with the lack of centralized, reliable science communication around the issue of Covid. Here I have pulled together recent reports from the US and other countries to answer some common questions about Omicron, the extent of protection offered by vaccination and boosters, whether or not Omicron is mild for those who are vaccinated and whether or not it will lead to such high levels of immunity that Covid will soon become downgraded from "pandemic' to "endemic" (i.e. present in society but well under control like influenza and other managed illnesses). I will provide citations for all answers. Of course, this does not mean everything quoted will stand the test of time. Even the best empirical science on this disease is evolving at a rate considerably slower than the virus itself and its spread.

1) If you are fully vaxxed can you still get Omicron?

 In December, the NY Times reported that only mRNA vaccines ( Pfizer and Moderna) protect against Omicron infection.

"The Pfizer and Moderna shots use the new mRNA technology, which has consistently offered the best protection against infection with every variant. All of the other vaccines are based on older methods of triggering an immune response.

"The Chinese vaccines Sinopharm and Sinovac — which make up almost half of all shots delivered globally — offer almost zero protection from Omicron infection. The great majority of people in China have received these shots, which are also widely used in low-and middle-income countries such as Mexico and Brazil.

A preliminary effectiveness study in Britain found that the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine showed no ability to stop Omicron infection six months after vaccination. Ninety percent of vaccinated people in India received this shot, under the brand name Covishield; it has also been widely used across much of sub-Saharan Africa, where Covax, the global Covid vaccine program, has distributed 67 million doses of it to 44 countries." https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/19/health/omicron-vaccines-efficacy.html

Since then, it has become clear that no vaccines in existence can block Omicron infections, even if some appear to do a better job than others based on initial data. The topic has switched to preventing serious illness, hospitalization, and death. Here the data has been less than perfectly clear and unequivocal.

 

2)Does full vaccination (2 shots of Pfizer or Moderna or 1 shot of J&J) prevent moderate to severe illness, hospitalization and death? 

Vaccines do not prevent mild illness which is now widespread among both those vaccinated and unvaccinated. The NIH recognizes a continuum from mild to severe illness along the following lines (these definitions are taken from the NIH website; see link below):

MILD:   

"Patients with mild illness may exhibit a variety of signs and symptoms (e.g., fever, cough, sore throat, malaise, headache, muscle pain, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, loss of taste and smell). They do not have shortness of breath, dyspnea on exertion, or abnormal imaging. Most mildly ill patients can be managed in an ambulatory setting or at home through telemedicine or telephone visits. No imaging or specific laboratory evaluations are routinely indicated in otherwise healthy patients with mild COVID-19. Older patients and those with underlying comorbidities are at higher risk of disease progression; therefore, health care providers should monitor these patients closely until clinical recovery is achieved."

MODERATE:

"Moderate illness is defined as evidence of lower respiratory disease during clinical assessment or imaging, with SpO₂ ≥94% on room air at sea level [at or below 94% oxygen saturation. where normal parameters are 96-100%] Given that pulmonary disease can progress rapidly in patients with COVID-19, patients with moderate disease should be closely monitored. If bacterial pneumonia or sepsis is suspected, administer empiric antibiotic treatment, re-evaluate the patient daily, and de-escalate or stop antibiotics if there is no evidence of bacterial infection." 

SEVERE:

Patients with COVID-19 are considered to have severe illness if they have SpO₂ <94% on room air at sea level... [again this means oxygen saturation levels below 94%, where 94-100% are considered within normal range]. These patients may experience rapid clinical deterioration. Oxygen therapy should be administered immediately using a nasal cannula or a high-flow oxygen device.  If secondary bacterial pneumonia or sepsis is suspected, administer empiric antibiotics, re-evaluate the patient daily, and de-escalate or stop antibiotics if there is no evidence of bacterial infection.  

SOURCE: https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/overview/clinical-spectrum/

DISCUSSION: 

Mild, moderate and severe are not discrete or neatly contained categories but continuous with the ever-present danger of progression. Depending on who gets a "mild" or "moderate" case, the threat level of progression will vary. Of course, all severe cases are very dangerous. So, on average, a young and healthy person with mild symptoms can probably recover at home in much the same way as the flu. However, a middle aged person who is obese, diabetic or who has cardio-vascular problems, or a host of other relatively common conditions must be very vigilant about avoiding "mild" infection, and monitoring it closely with a doctor if one occurs. This is even more important with "moderate" infections among people with such underlying conditions who develop respiratory symptoms or even slight decrease in Oxygen levels (which most of us at home cannot ascertain). 

Thus, since real cases are fluid and can change rapidly in real-time, and since our data base is very limited in the US, categorical statements about the benefits of vaccination on preventing moderate to serious illness are often lacking in statistical evidence that might support them. The best way to ask the question is to ask:

3)HOW MANY CURRENTLY HOSPITALIZED COVID PATIENTS ARE FULLY VACCINATED?

I've noticed that the CDC, the New York Times Covid Dashboard and other widely used cites DO NOT collect and share data on the percentage of people in hospitals who were vaccinated, and which vaccines they used. However, the state of Massachusetts does share some such data, and The Boston Globe keeps track of the ratio of vaccinated to unvaccinated Covid patients in the hospital.

About half of the Mass. patients hospitalized for Covid ARE FULLY VACCINATED. 

The most recent data on is from January 13, 2022. At that time there were 3,180 Covid hospital patients. Of those, 1,547 were vaccinated.   460 of all hospitalized patients were in ICU units (these numbers are all much lower than many other states, including my own, i.e. NY). https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/03/10/nation/latest-coronavirus-numbers-massachusetts/

Though the NY Times does not report these things, an article in that paper yesterday (1/17) written about the toll Omicron is taking on Nurses in a Brooklyn Hospital contained information consistent with that which the Boston Globe has been reporting since Omicron broke (indicating about 1/2 of those hospitalized on avg. are vaccinated fully).  I quote from the relevant sections of the Times piece: In the article, we read that the vaccinated in ICU in  Brooklyn Hospital Center comprise a little under 1/2 of ICU patients there. That ICU is filled to capacity. 

"Dr. de Souza said that the emergency room had more Covid-19 patients last week than at any point since the first wave. On Tuesday, four Covid patients, including a retired doctor, died, Dr. de Souza said.

On Wednesday, a tear streamed down her cheek as she looked out on patients. More kept arriving, with many staying for days. There was little room for them upstairs. The 18 intensive care beds on the hospital’s sixth floor were full, mainly with Covid-19 patients.

The Covid patients were older, generally over 60. Some had come from nursing homes. Just over half were unvaccinated.... [i.e. nearly half WERE vaccinated]

Laverne Cook, 68, began to stir. She had oxygen tubes in her nostrils and she said she was beginning to feel better. She had arrived about five hours earlier. Dizzy, weak and struggling to breathe, she had called an ambulance. Although fully vaccinated, she had not gotten a booster shot, ignoring her granddaughter’s pleas....

there was no time to check a patient’s vital signs. “They’re not being done, because there is no staff,” she said.  https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/15/nyregion/brooklyn-omicron-cases.html

It is suggested in the last paragraph, that she and others like her might have fared better with a booster, though evidence for that is less than crystal clear, and we are told that fully vaccinated patients will seldom get seriously ill. The facts appear to be more complex. 

 

Recently Rochelle Wolensky at the CDC stated, in an early January televised press briefing, that only a very tiny fraction of vaccinated patients will get ill from Omicron, and that those patients who do are usually "older" and "have as many as four co-morbidities."  https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/press-briefings/2022/01/05/press-briefing-by-white-house-covid-19-response-team-and-public-health-officials-77/This could mean, for example, an over 60 year old with obesity (BMI over 30), Hypertension, Depression and high cholesterol would be more likely to become ill with complications. This was framed as "good news." The problem is that she was citing a study conducted BEFORE Omicron spread in the US. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/pdfs/mm7101a4-H.pdf Is the fraction now as tiny? She had no data to address that question which is what the disscussion was about. We do know that if states want to release data on how many in ICUs are vaccinated, how many who are intubated were vaccinated etc., it could be done as the records are kept by these hospitals. Thus, in Mass. some of this data is available, and the article as evident from the Boston Globe daily reports.  The article on NY hospital patients in Brooklyn shows that journalists could cover hospitals and ICUs with an eye to vaccinated vs. non-vaccinated patient ratios, but we don't see such data routinely. What info is available appears to  paint a picture of greater illness among the vaccinated (esp. over 60 and with other conditions) than previously was the case. Such underlying conditions as the ones I mentioned or Diabetes, Kidney problems, Asthma and others are liabilities whether one is  or is not vaxxed. 

In sum, at present there is no truly solid data to address the issues of illness among the vaccinated in the age of Omicron, but there is enough evidence of vaccinated patients in hospitals becoming ill and dying to militate against rosy pronouncements that Omicron is "mild" if you have been vaccinated. That depends on various factors mentioned (age, underlying health) which millions and millions of Americans in all our families must deal with. 

 

If Wolensky erred on the side of optimism, the current head of the  FDA, Janet Woodcock, without citing any evidence, recently stated in a Senate Hearing,  that "we are all going to get Omicron." Calling it a "Natural Disaster," and warning of immanent collapse of essential health and transportation services in the country if we do not act immediately to prevent it. She said:

"I think it's hard to process what's actually happening right now, which is [that] most people are gonna get COVID...What we need to do is make sure that the hospitals can still function [and that] transportation [and] other essential services are not disrupted while this happens." https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/01/fda-head-omicron-is-a-natural-disaster-most-people-are-gonna-get-covid/

This was widely criticized by epidemiologists as being unjustified by any evidence, and also being counterproductive since on such an assumption protective measures would appear futile to many. If we're all "gonna get it" why socially distance, wear masks etc.? Dr. Fauci was more nuanced saying most people will be exposed (though they won't necessarily all "get Covid"). He refused to predict whether this will lead to greater immunity against future Covid variants or not, as many have speculated. That depends on the nature of subsequent variants, he said flatly. 

 

4) What about boosters and second boosters to mitigate contagion and illness?

Here I will cite 2 recent, but preliminary findings that could be force us to reevaluate the current model based largely on 3nd and 4th jabs for added protection against Omicron.

 

A) Israel: From Bloomberg Reports today:

 

Fourth Pfizer Dose Is Insufficient to Ward Off Omicron, Israeli Trial Suggests

• Preliminary data found inoculation did increase antibodies
• Those with 4th shot only slightly less likely to get variant

 

Updated onJanuary 18, 2022, 1:21 AM EST

A fourth dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine was insufficient to prevent infection with the omicron variant of Covid-19, according to preliminary data from a trial in Israel released Monday.

Two weeks after the start of the trial of 154 medical personnel at the Sheba Medical Center in Tel Aviv, researchers found the vaccine raised antibody levels

But that only offered a partial defense against omicron, according to Gili Regev-Yochay, the trial’s lead researcher. Vaccines which were more effective against previous variants offer less protection with omicron, she said. [It still seems to mitigate severe illness, but not as much as with earlier variants].

 

 

Meanwhile, the EU announced that based on preliminary findings, use of boosters can affect the immune system adversely. They recommended great caution in 3rd, 4th and further boosters, recommending a shift to a different model such as seasonal vaccinations as with Influenza. If their findings are true, they present a policy challenge for those first world countries (including the US) who are now emphasizing boosters as the answer. First of all, they don't do as much as was supposed according to the Israeli scientists cited above. Secondly, they may actually do harm to our immune systems, according to a new EU study from which I quote here:

Frequent Boosters Spur Warning on Immune Response

Bloomberg:

January 11, 2022, 12:10 PM EST

European Union regulators warned that frequent Covid-19 booster shots could adversely affect the immune response and may not be feasible.  

Repeat booster doses every four months could eventually weaken the immune response and tire out people, according to the European Medicines Agency. Instead, countries should leave more time between booster programs and tie them to the onset of the cold season in each hemisphere, following the blueprint set out by influenza vaccination strategies, the agency said. 

The advice comes as some countries consider the possibility of offering people second booster shots in a bid to provide further protection against surging omicron infections. Earlier this month Israel became the first nation to start administering a second booster, or fourth shot, to those over 60. The U.K. has said that boosters are providing good levels of protection and there is no need for a second booster shot at the moment, but will review data as it evolves.

Boosters “can be done once, or maybe twice, but it’s not something that we can think should be repeated constantly,” Marco Cavaleri, the EMA head of biological health threats and vaccines strategy, said at a press briefing on Tuesday. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-01-11/repeat-booster-shots-risk-overloading-immune-system-ema-says

 I hope this round-up of info on the Omicron variant of  Covid helps round out the picture for those who, like me, have been confused by seemingly conflicting and empirically unjustified statements from journalists, pundits and health experts in the news.

 

 

Voting rights update

After yesterday's positivity, not sure if this will sit well. Probably not.

The New York Times reports that the Dems have given up on a voter protection bill. Kyrsten Sinema said she opposes it. Apparently her opposition is non-negotiable. So that's the end of that. The NYT writes:

Democratic officials and activists now say they are resigned to having to spend and organize their way around the new voting restrictions — a prospect many view with hard-earned skepticism, citing the difficulty of educating masses of voters on how to comply with the new rules.

They say it would require them to compensate by spending tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars more on voter-registration and turnout programs — funds that might otherwise have gone to promoting Democratic candidates.  

Republicans, whose decades-long push to curtail voting access was put into overdrive by Mr. Trump’s false claims of election fraud after his defeat, are planning a renewed push to enact new restrictions during this year’s state legislative sessions.

What's next? The NYT wrote about that last December:

After passing 33 laws of voting limits in 19 states this year, Republicans in at least five states — Florida, Tennessee, South Carolina, Oklahoma and New Hampshire — have filed bills before the next legislative sessions have even started that seek to restrict voting in some way, including by limiting mail voting. In over 20 states, more than 245 similar bills put forward this year could be carried into 2022, according to Voting Rights Lab, a group that works to expand access to the ballot.

In many places, Democrats will be largely powerless to push back at the state level, where they remain overmatched in Republican-controlled legislatures. G.O.P. state lawmakers across the country have enacted wide-ranging cutbacks to voting access this year and have used aggressive gerrymandering to lock in the party’s statehouse power for the next decade.

At present, it looks like in the 2022 and 2024 elections, the nation will get to see how effective Republican election subversion efforts will be. If they are effective enough, the Dems will not be able to control the House, Senate or White House for the foreseeable future. If so, the GOP will proudly tells us that elections have integrity. And since there is election integrity, people can relax about all that massive Democratic Party voter fraud, socialism-communism and deep state pedophilia.  

Alleged Democratic Party socialism and its deep state pedophilia will be replaced by actual Republican Party neo-fascism and its kleptocratic deep state pedophilia and fornication brigades.

But if the results of the 2022 elections do not demonstrate election integrity to Republican Party satisfaction, there will another round of election integrity laws passed. The same could happen again in 2024 if those elections are not secure enough to satisfy the Republican Party. And again in 2026 and 2028 and so on until GOP satisfaction is achieved.

Once elections are secure, then America will get to see how far and fast the Republican Party will go to establish its dream of a neo-fascist, neoliberal, White Christian nationalist state.

Decades of focused propaganda, planning and discipline have paid off for the GOP, Christian nationalism and hard core conservative neoliberalism. It will be interesting to see how Democrats respond at the state level, which seems to be the only place they can respond now. 

A rather long soliloquy by your fellow Snowflake

 PD and larrymotuz have suggested I post a positive OP, or an optimistic one, compared to a gloom and doom one.

In contemplating how to word it, I found the task more challenging than I thought, because let's face it, we have:

Political division, Trumpism, Covid, increasing climate disasters, and disinformation tearing us all apart.

I did, in a comment on a previous thread, also point out, that despite the gloom and doom that we are all focused on, good things are happening:

An almost all white jury found the McMichaels guilty, in Georgia no less. When did that ever happen before? Even Kim Potter was found guilty of manslaughter, a verdict I didn't expect.

While we as a species are moving at a snail's pace addressing climate, individual cities and states have taken climate action. Now some countries are taking action, such as proposed bans on plastics.

The biggest fear here in the U.S. surrounds the advancement of Fascism. I can't play along with that. My parents lived under Fascism (Nazi Germany), so until I see Jews wearing stars, people being ripped out of their homes, or brownshirts on the streets, I will refrain from using that word.

HOWEVER, there is no doubt that one faction of the U.S. wants to move towards minority or even one party rule. Rightwing Extremism? Totalitarianism? Call it what you will, but the move to suppress the vote, to roll back progress on women's rights, are real.

So how do I put lipstick on a this pig? How do I post an OP with a positive outlook? How do I word it? Without seeming to be a liberal hippie Snowflake wearing rose-colored glasses?

The only way I can think of, is observation. Personal observation. Maybe if I lived in Texas or Mississippi, my personal observations would be different. But I grew up and currently live in Minnesota and spent 30 years of my life in that socialist paradise north of the border, Canada.

I also, not by design, it just happened, surrounded myself with positive people, open-minded people, progressive thinking people, AND this time, with design, kept my distance from bigots and haters. 

I also, for the most part, have avoided CNN and FOX, avoided WAPO and NYPost, and tend to gravitate towards NPR, PBS, BBC, Reuters, and other media outlets that are less hyperbolic and more analytical.

I also observe. I have posted the following so many times, I fear becoming redundant. BUT because DP and larrymotuz asked me to go ahead and post a positive OP, here is what I have observed:

Black and white kids walking to school together. I work part-time as a school crossing guard, and notice boys with effeminate features walking side by side with the jocks. I see opening gay couples walking hand in hand in my home town. 

On a larger scale, when a disaster occurs, I see videos and news clips of white men in motor boats rescuing black people from their roofs. I see white youth marching with BLM protestors. I have read stories of a white community helping their Muslim neighbors rebuilt their mosques after they were burned down. THESE STORIES SELDOM MAKE THE HEADLINES. Why is that?

The storming of the Capitol was something I never expected to see, but I also NEVER expected to see a black President. Nor do I expect to ever see a gay President, but with the rise in popularity of Pete Buttigieg, could it happen? I never expected to see homeowners putting up solar panels. The list goes on.

The old adage of a person sees what they want to see might apply here. I don't mean that in a disparaging way. Maybe I am at fault here for NOT seeing the worst in our fellow man, not worrying enough about the "fall of democracy", of being TOO positive, so I will conclude this long soliloquy by stating the following:

At the end of the day, regardless of what surrounds you, how do YOU want to live your life? I prefer to live it in the service of my fellow man, in promoting positivity, of living a contented and happy life.

I guess that makes me a SNOWFLAKE.