Dissident Veteran For Peace

If Black lives really mattered to BLM, the media, and academia then they would tell the truth about the Black homicide rate instead of promoting specious, unfounded narratives about racism and police brutality. I was reminded of this once more while listening to an almost hour-long program on National Prevarication Radio (NPR) yesterday.

The show was Freakonomics Radio and the episode was "What Are the Police for, Anyway?" I actually agree that the US has a murder and incarceration problem. I also support an end to the War on Drugs and evidence-based police reforms that are effective at increasing the safety of both officers and the communities they serve. 

Unfortunately, BLM, most of the media, and most academics don't care about facts. They are driven by false narratives that sow division and enhance their careers and the power of politicians and business elites.

Here's an illustrative excerpt from the radio show transcript:

Black Americans are five times more likely to be arrested than white Americans. On a per-capita basis, Blacks are also much more likely to be fatally shot by the police. There has of course been a racial reckoning around policing lately

    PROTESTORS: Hey, hey! Ho, ho!  These racist cops have got to go!

Highlighted by the police murder [sic] of George Floyd. According to a recent Gallup poll, just 51 percent of U.S. adults have either 'a great deal' or 'quite a lot' of confidence in the police.

Anyone with even a modicum of common sense, let alone statistical education, realizes that on "a per-capita basis" is a wholly inadequate way to analyze police shootings by demographic group.

According to the Washington Post 2015-2021 police shootings database, 95.5% of the people shot and killed by police in the US are males and yet they make up slightly less than half of the US population. Thus, on a per capita basis, men are far more likely to be shot and killed by police but no one screams about systemic police misandry. An honest, sensible person looks at that discrepancy and say, yes, but males commit proportionality far more violent crimes than females.

In fact, year after year, Blacks commit around 50% of the murders in the US and most of their victims are Black. Anyone who thinks this fact bears no relation to outcomes of police encounters with Black people is profoundly stupid, profoundly dishonest, or both. Cops of all colors may not be able to cite the precise statistics but they know by experience that, ceteris paribus, Black people they encounter are far more likely to be a threat to police and others than people of any other race. (That doesn't mean police should not regard everyone as putatively law-abiding individuals, most Black people are not violent criminals and they deserve to be treated respectfully unless objective circumstances dictate otherwise.)

Moreover, FBI data (Zip file) reveals that Black criminals upped their game in 2020.^* In 56.6% of cases where the race of the "murder offender" is known that offender is Black; the comparable figure for Whites is 40.6%.^† Academics have long known that Black Americans have a criminal violence problem that dwarfs that in all other communities but, by and large, they haven't had the courage or integrity to vocalize that and hold the media and activists accountable in discussions of police conduct.

For instance, in 2013, Siegel et al. published an article on the predictors of firearm homicide rates in arguably, the premier US public health journal, but they buried the lede. They claimed "ours is the most up-to-date and comprehensive analysis of the relationship between firearm ownership and gun-related homicide rates among the 50 states."

In their final statistical analysis they found that the strongest predictor of "gun-related homicide" rate was a racial factor. In their tables 2 and 3 they reported: "For each 1 percentage point increase in proportion of Black population, firearm homicide rate increased by 5.2%" and "For each 1-SD [standard deviation] increase in proportion of black population, firearm homicide rate increased by 82.8". The comparable firearm homicide rate increases associated with an "increase in proportion of household gun ownership" were 0.9% and 12.9%.

There is no discussion whatsoever of the relationship between proportion of Black and firearm homicide rate in the body of their paper, which was titled "The Relationship Between Gun Ownership and Firearm Homicide Rates in the United States, 1981–2010". Now, if you really cared about reducing homicides wouldn't you foreground the strongest predictor found in your analysis? Needless to say this finding, as far as I can tell, has never been reported in any mainstream media outlet. In the only coverage I could find of the study anywhere was in Science Daily and they didn't report on any predictor but household gun ownership.

Notes

^* See "Expanded Homicide Data Table 3, Murder Offenders by Age, Sex, Race, and Ethnicity, 2020".

^† 8,142 ÷ (20,982  - 6,592) = 0.5658 = 56.6%; 5,844 ÷ (20,982  - 6,592) = 0.4061 = 40.6%

Labels: Black America, crime, George Floyd, guns, media, National Public Radio, police, race, science

In late March of 2020 I wrote:

A 2016 report published by the National Academies repeatedly raised concerns about the SNS inventory and the logistics of distributing it in an emergency. The chair of the committee that prepared that report, Dr. Tara O'Toole, presciently told NPR in 2016:

"We have drastically decreased the level of state public health resources in the last decade. We've lost 50,000 state and local health officials. That's a huge hit," says O'Toole, who wishes local officials would get more money for things like emergency drills. "The notion that this is all going to be top down, that the feds are in charge and the feds will deliver, is wrong."

My point is that the inability and failure in the US to implement the successful model of South Korea to tamp down COVID-19 via widespread testing, contact tracing, and isolation of the exposed or infected was born of a longstanding failure of the values and priorities of the bipartisan political establishment and by the servile dependency and doltish complacency of the American people who keep electing them.

Almost a year to the day after I published that Health Affairs has published "US Public Health Neglected: Flat Or Declining Spending Left States Ill Equipped To Respond To COVID-19". The article is behind a pay wall so I haven't read it. The abstract says:

The COVID-19 pandemic has prompted concern about the integrity of the US public health infrastructure. Federal, state, and local governments spend $93 billion annually on public health in the US, but most of this spending is at the state level ... Although overall national health expenditures grew by 4.3 percent in this period, state governmental public health spending saw no statistically significant growth between 2008 and 2018 except in injury prevention. Moreover, state spending levels on public health were not restored after cuts experienced during the Great Recession ...

Axios reports: "The study found that public health spending dropped from $80.40 per capita in 2008 to $75.83 in 2018." It's worth pointing out that these figures understate the drop in public health spending. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics CPI Inflation Calculator that $75.83 in June 2018 "has the same buying power as $65.85 in June 2008". Due to inflation, to maintain roughly the same per capita level as the 2008 public health spending would have required spending $92.59 per person in 2018.

###

Last month I wrote: 

... I consider it grotesquely unethical for government officials, vaccine manufacturers, and public health and medical professionals to conduct what is essentially a massive experiment* on hundreds of millions of people using relatively new vaccine technologies—mRNA and adenovirus vector vaccines—especially during a global pandemic. I am aware of no reason why Congress and health professionals couldn't and shouldn't have insisted that Operation Warp Speed funds be spent on conventional attenuated virus or viral protein vaccines.

In a June 24, 2021, article titled "The mRNA Vaccines Are Extraordinary, but Novavax Is Even Better" Hilda Bastian reports in The Atlantic:

... the hype around the early-bird vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna has distorted perception. Their rapid arrival has been described in this magazine as "the triumph of mRNA"—a brand-new vaccine technology whose "potential stretches far beyond this pandemic."... It was easy to assume, based on all this reporting, that mRNA vaccines had already proved to be the most effective ones you could get—that they were better, sleeker, even cooler than any other vaccines could ever be.

But the fascination with the newest, shiniest options obscured some basic facts. These two particular mRNA vaccines may have been the first to get results from Phase 3 clinical trials, but that's because of superior trial management, not secret vaccine sauce. For now, they are harder and more expensive to manufacture and distribute than traditional types of vaccines, and their side effects are more common and more severe. The latest Novavax data confirm that it's possible to achieve the same efficacy against COVID-19 with a more familiar technology that more people may be inclined to trust.

Bastian continues:

... the success of the Novavax vaccine should be A1 news. The recent results confirm that it has roughly the same efficacy as the two authorized mRNA vaccines, with the added benefit of being based on an older, more familiar science ... Some of those people who have been wary of getting the mRNA vaccines may find Novavax more appealing.

The Novavax vaccine also has a substantially lower rate of side effects than the authorized mRNA vaccines ... Based on the results of Novavax's first efficacy trial in the U.K., side effects (including but not limited to fatigue) aren't just less frequent; they're milder too ... Side effects are a big barrier for COVID-vaccine acceptance.

Bastian concludes:

But here's what we know today, based on information that we have right now:  Among several wonderful options, the more old-school vaccine from Novavax combines ease of manufacture with high efficacy and lower side effects. For the moment, it's the best COVID-19 vaccine we have.

Unfortunately, we don't have the Novavax vaccine yet and, as far as I know, Novavax hasn't applied to the FDA for emergency use authorization yet.

Labels: COVID-19, government, health, medicine, science, technology

After I finished my "The Safety of US COVID-19 Vaccines" post I learned that last week Tucker Carlson had done an episode on the same subject, including the use of VAERS data.

I don't typically agree with everything Carlson says and he is sometimes less careful than I think he should be. However, his segment on "How many Americans have died after taking the COVID vaccine?" is almost perfect. Don't trust me, watch it yourself.

What I want to focus on in this post is the outpouring of dishonest criticism from the rest of the mainstream media in the wake of Carlson's piece. In an all too typical example, rather than refute Carlson with relevant facts, National Review contributor Pradheep J. Shanker tweeted: 

Tucker, being an idiot, took that number of deaths, and says they are related to the vaccine.

This, of course, is nonsense. But again, gullible people will believe these things, because the math and science isn’t exactly crystal clear.

In fact, Carlson simply and accurately reported what is in the VAERS data. Here's a representative passage:

... So the question is how do those numbers compare to the death rate from the coronavirus vaccines now being distributed across the country? That’s worth knowing. 

We checked today. Here’s the answer, which comes from the same set of government numbers that we just listed: Between late December of 2020, and last month, a total of 3,362 people apparently died after getting the COVID vaccines in the United States. Three thousand, three hundred and sixty-two — that’s an average of 30 people every day. So, what does that add up to? By the way, that reporting period ended on April 23. We don’t have numbers past that, we’re not quite up to date. But we can assume that another 360 people have died in the 12 days since. That is a total of 3,722 deaths. Almost four thousand people died after getting the COVID vaccines. The actual number is almost certainly much higher than that — perhaps vastly higher. 

The data we just cited come from the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System — VAERS — which is managed by the CDC and the FDA. [VAERS] has received a lot of criticism over the years, some of it founded. Some critics have argued for a long time that [VAERS] undercounts vaccine injuries. A report submitted to the Department of Health and Human Services in 2010 concluded that "fewer than one percent of vaccine adverse events are reported"* by the [VAERS] system. Fewer than one percent. So what is the real number of people who apparently have been killed or injured by the vaccine? Well, we don’t know that number. Nobody does, and we’re not going to speculate about it ... 

The faux "fact checkers" at Politifact gave Carlson a rating of "false" on their "Truth-o-Meter". How did they justify their rating? Here a sample: "... VAERS data is considered unreliable for drawing causal conclusions. And dying after a vaccine is not the same thing as dying because of the vaccine."

I listened to the segment twice, Carlson did not draw a causal connection and never implied or claimed dying after a vaccine is the same thing as dying because of the vaccine. In short, Politifact's case against Carlson is a classic straw man argument—they thrash away at things Carlson didn't say.

Near the close of their article, Politifact says: "The CDC analyzed the VAERS death reports and concluded that there's no 'causal link to COVID-19 vaccines.' " I rate this claim mostly false. What the CDC actually says is: "A review of available clinical information, including death certificates, autopsy, and medical records has not established a causal link to COVID-19 vaccines" (emphasis in original).

The CDC did NOT say "there's no 'causal link to COVID-19 vaccines' ", as Politifact claims. They said a causal link had not been established but they also did not rule out a causal link. It's also worth noting that the CDC provides no further information about who conducted their "review" or how it was conducted. There's no link to any documentation of the review.

* The report Carlson reference is from 2011, here's more context from it:

Adverse events from drugs and vaccines are common, but underreported. Although 25% of ambulatory patients experience an adverse drug event, less than 0.3% of all adverse drug events and 1-13% of serious events are reported to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Likewise, fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported. Low reporting rates preclude or slow the identification of “problem” drugs and vaccines that endanger public health. New surveillance methods for drug and vaccine adverse effects are needed.

Labels: COVID-19, government, health, media, medicine, science, technology, Tucker Carlson

People sometimes ask me if I've gotten a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine yet. My answer is always no. This usually prompts a query as to why I haven't been vaccinated.

My standard answer is that I'm not an anti-vaxxer, I get a flu shot every year. However, I add, I consider it grotesquely unethical for government officials, vaccine manufacturers, and public health and medical professionals to conduct what is essentially a massive experiment* on hundreds of millions of people using relatively new vaccine technologies—mRNA and adenovirus vector vaccines—especially during a global pandemic. I am aware of no reason why Congress and health professionals couldn't and shouldn't have insisted that Operation Warp Speed funds be spent on conventional attenuated virus or viral protein vaccines. That said, until today I usually added that I thought the new technologies would probably prove safe.

* As the FDA notes all of the COVID vaccines in use in the US today have been approved under as investigational drugs under an Emergency Use Authorization. The FDA Letter of Authorization for the Pfizer vaccine says: "Pfizer-BioNTech COVID‐19 Vaccine is for use for active immunization to prevent COVID-19 ... It is an investigational vaccine not licensed for any indication." Its "Investigational New Drug application (IND) number" is 19736. According to the FDA: "Emergency Use IND  allows the FDA to authorize use of an experimental drug in an emergency situation ..."

Today, I actually looked at the CDC's and FDA's Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) data for the first time. What I learned was pretty amazing.

As you can see from Table 1 below the number of deaths recorded as adverse events associated with COVID-19 vaccines is almost exactly the same as the number of death associated with all other vaccines since 2006 (all VAERS data reported in this post was selected by vaccination year).

Table 1. (VAERS data as of May 10, 2021 for 2006-2021)
	Adverse Event Type
Vaccine Type	Death	Life Threatening	Permanent Disability	Sum
COVID-19	3,729	3,362	2,379	9,470
All Other Vaccines	3,733	9,648	9,174	22,555
Sum	7,462	13,010	11,553	32,025

From 2016 through April 30, 2021, there were 4,621 deaths reported as adverse events associated with all vaccines in the US (there's no table in this post for that data).

Table 2 covers 2016-2021 and compares deaths associated with the COVID vaccines and the non-COVID vaccine (Prevnar 13) associated with the most deaths in the same time period. For comparison purposes I also added in the flu vaccine type associated with the most deaths.

As you can see there are far more deaths associated with COVID vaccines even though they have been in use for only a few months. An apples-to-apples comparison would require other data, including the number of doses of each vaccine administered in the selected time period. However, I could not find that data for the non-COVID vaccines although the CDC said that in the 2020-2021 flu season the estimated number of quadrivalent flu vaccines expected to be available was 195 million.

Table 2. (VAERS data as of May 9, 2021; click on images to enlarge)

Table 3 gives the breakdown by COVID vaccine manufacturer of the following combined adverse events: Deaths, Life Threatening, and Permanent Disability. At first glance, it may look like the Janssen (Johnson & Johnson) vaccine is safer but as you can see from Table 4 far fewer doses of that vaccine have been administered.

Table 3. (VAERS data as of May 9, 2021)

 

Table 4. (CDC data as of May 9, 2021)

Combining the data from Tables 3 and 4 we find that there were 11,209 doses (numbers are rounded) of the Janssen vaccine administered for every associated serious adverse event recorded in Table 3. The corresponding count for the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are 33,951 and 28,423, respectively.

It's interesting to me that I have not read or heard any mainstream reporting on the relatively large, as compared to other vaccines, number of deaths associated with COVID vaccines as adverse events. There are four things to bear in mind about the current numbers: First, an adverse event report is not proof that the vaccine caused the adverse event; Second, the number of adverse events associated with COVID vaccines is tiny compared to the number of adverse events caused by the virus itself; Third, many adverse events including deaths go unreported for a variety of reasons**; and, Fourth, the reporting of adverse events associated with COVID vaccines is just getting started. Who knows how things will look in five or ten years? Hopefully, there will be no great increase adverse events associated with COVID vaccines that emerges long term. Time will tell.

** According to the CDC's VAERS summary page: "VAERS data are from a passive surveillance system. Such data are subject to limitations of under-reporting, reporting bias, and lack of incidence rates in unvaccinated comparison groups." This echoes findings in a workshop summary published in 1994 by the National Academies Press: "As a passive surveillance system, VAERS suffers problems of both underreporting and overreporting. Although health care professionals are required to report some adverse events, specifically, those that are covered by the no-fault component of the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, there are no provisions for enforcement. It is likely that many events that occur after the receipt of vaccines, like those that occur after the receipt of medications, go unreported."

###

There is a March 31, 2021, letter in the medical journal, Circulation Research, titled "SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein Impairs Endothelial Function via Downregulation of ACE 2" that some COVID and COVID vaccine deniers/skeptics are using innaccurately to scare people about COVID vaccines. For example, HEALTHRANGER says:

The prestigious Salk Institute, founded by vaccine pioneer Jonas Salk, has authored and published a bombshell scientific article revealing that the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein is what's actually causing vascular damage in covid patients and covid vaccine recipients, promoting the strokes, heart attacks, migraines, blood clots and other harmful reactions that have already killed thousands of Americans ... Critically, all four covid vaccine brands currently in widespread use either inject patients with the spike protein or, via mRNA technology, instruct the patient's own body to manufacture spike proteins and release them into their own blood. This floods the patient's body with the very spike protein that the Salk Institute has now identified as the smoking gun cause of vascular damage and related events (such as blood clots, which are killing many people who take the vaccines).

However, in the very first paragraph of the Salk Institute news release it says:

LA JOLLA—Scientists have known for a while that SARS-CoV-2’s distinctive “spike” proteins help the virus infect its host by latching on to healthy cells. Now, a major new study shows that the virus spike proteins (which behave very differently than those safely encoded by vaccines) also play a key role in the disease itself.

The authors of the letter itself conclude with this: "... our results suggest that the S protein-exerted EC damage overrides the decreased virus infectivity. This conclusion suggests that vaccination-generated antibody and/or exogenous antibody against S protein not only protects the host from SARS-CoV-2 infectivity but also inhibits S protein-imposed endothelial injury" (emphasis added). There is a hyperlink to an article in the paragraph I quoted above from the Salk Institute that goes into greater detail on this subject. I recommend reading it.

###

In the final analysis one ought always to be skeptical of powerful people and institutions but also of their critics. My read of the data and science is that the new vaccine technology, not the spike protein, is probably more to blame for the comparatively higher rates of adverse events associated with COVID vaccines. I will be cautious going forward but as of now I plan to receive the Novavax vaccine—a more conventional viral protein vaccine type—when it becomes available.

Last revised: 11 May 2021

See also: "The Safety of US COVID-19 Vaccines Revisited"

Labels: COVID-19, government, health, media, medicine, science, technology

I complain about the routine dishonesty of mainstream and Left media outlets because they are my main sources of news and commentary. However, I have zero illusions about the routine accuracy and integrity of Right media outlets.

A case in point is a recent article by Jordan Davidson on the site of The Federalist titled: "Major Study Finds Masks Don't Reduce COVID-19 Infection Rates". In the body of Davidson's article it is claimed: "A high-quality, large-scale Danish study finds no evidence that wearing a face mask significantly minimizes people's risk of contracting COVID-19." 

However, right in the Danish article's abstract the authors, Bundgaard et al., state: "Although the difference observed was not statistically significant, the 95% CIs are compatible with a 46% reduction to a 23% increase in infection."

Davidson writes: 

After a month, 42 of the mask-wearers in the study (1.8 percent) were infected with the virus while 53 of the non-mask-wearers (2.1. percent) were infected with the virus. Statistically, this is not a significant difference between the two groups, suggesting these infection differences were a product of chance, say the study authors.

Echoing similar misinformation from the New York Times, Davidson again misleads her readers by misrepresenting the meaning and importance of a lack of statistical significance.* In fact, Bundgaard et al. use the word "chance" exactly nowhere in their article. They actually describe their findings as "inconclusive" rather than attributable to mere "chance".

In the "Discussion" section of the Bundgaard et al. article it says:

The findings ... should not be used to conclude that a recommendation for everyone to wear masks in the community would not be effective in reducing SARS-CoV-2 infections, because the trial did not test the role of masks in source control of SARS-CoV-2 infection. [emphasis added]

In other words, Davidson did exactly what the authors said she shouldn't do based on their work.

In the "Discussion" the authors again note that one of several limitations of their study was that it made "no assessment of whether masks could decrease disease transmission from mask wearers to others." In other words, the study offers no evidence about whether masks do or don't prevent COVID-19 infected mask wearers from infecting other people.

Moreover, as Bundgaard et al. indicate in their "Intervention" section, they were testing the effects of "no mask recommendation" versus "a recommendation to wear a mask". They were not testing masks or mask wearing per se. Also, only "46% of participants wore the mask as recommended" but Bundgaard et al. did not exclude from their results people in the mask recommendation group who were "predominantly" but not fully compliant with the mask recommendation. Only the 7% whose compliance was characterized as "not as recommended" were excluded.

In short, the Danish study says what pretty much any sensible person already realized—masks alone are not a silver bullet but there is evidence that they do help reduce the spread of COVID-19 from infected people to non-infected mask wearers.

Liar, manipulators, and incompetents working in the media depend upon the fact that most people will never question their reporting or never question it enough to do their own research. It also bears remembering that reporters and editors are also fallible humans—not every error or falsehood reported is deliberate. In any case, when it comes to important matters never blindly trust a media outlet (or a politician) to be accurate or honest.

###

* A note on "statistical significance": Davidson is not alone in botching the reporting on "statistical significance" the Danish authors do it, too. In 2019's, "Moving to a World Beyond 'p < 0.05' " the editors of the journal of the American Statistical Association write:

... it is time to stop using the term "statistically significant" entirely. Nor should variants such as "significantly different," "p < 0.05," and "nonsignificant" survive, whether expressed in words, by asterisks in a table, or in some other way.

Regardless of whether it was ever useful, a declaration of "statistical significance" has today become meaningless. Made broadly known by Fisher's use of the phrase (1925), Edgeworth's (1885) original intention for statistical significance was simply as a tool to indicate when a result warrants further scrutiny. But that idea has been irretrievably lost. Statistical significance was never meant to imply scientific importance, and the confusion of the two was decried soon after its widespread use (Boring 1919). Yet a full century later the confusion persists.

They also offer this guidance:

• Don't base your conclusions solely on whether an association or effect was found to be "statistically significant" (i.e., the p-value passed some arbitrary threshold such as p < 0.05).
• Don't believe that an association or effect exists just because it was statistically significant.
• Don't believe that an association or effect is absent just because it was not statistically significant.
• Don't believe that your p-value gives the probability that chance alone produced the observed association or effect or the probability that your test hypothesis is true.
• Don't conclude anything about scientific or practical importance based on statistical significance (or lack thereof).

Labels: COVID-19, critical thinking, health, media, science, statistics

.

Labels: COVID-19, health, medicine, science, statistics

Thanks to a fawning, largely uncritical media and a feckless, gullible public, Gov. Andrew Cuomo of New York was able to falsely position himself this year as the COVID-19 anti-Trump. In May, The Guardian published an op-ed titled "Andrew Cuomo is no hero. He's to blame for New York's coronavirus catastrophe". The authors noted:

Andrew Cuomo may be the most popular politician in the country. His approval ratings have hit all-time highs thanks to his Covid-19 response. Some Democrats have discussed him as a possible replacement for Joe Biden, due to Biden’s perceived weakness as a nominee. And there have even been some unfortunate tributes to Cuomo’s alleged sex appeal.

All of which is bizarre, because Cuomo should be one of the most loathed officials in America right now. ProPublica recently released a report outlining catastrophic missteps by Cuomo and the New York City mayor, Bill de Blasio, which probably resulted in many thousands of needless coronavirus cases ...

Federal failures played a role, of course, but this tragedy was absolutely due, in part, to decisions by the governor.

Nevertheless image triumphed once again over reality, as The Atlantic put it last August: 

The opening night of the Democrats’ virtual convention was the beginning of a coronation for Joe Biden, but it was also a victory march for Andrew Cuomo, New York’s governor and a supposed hero of the coronavirus pandemic. “For all the pain and all the tears, our way worked,” Cuomo declared in his five-minute speech. “And it was beautiful.”

“Beautiful” is an odd way to describe a virus that has killed more than 25,000 New Yorkers, or about 15 percent of the total number of Americans who have died from COVID-19. But Cuomo has long been a curious leader for Democrats to hold up as an emblem of successful leadership during the pandemic: He has somehow presided over the worst and deadliest coronavirus outbreak in the country while eluding the widespread criticism that has surrounded both President Donald Trump and New York City’s Democratic mayor, Bill de Blasio.

Earlier today I had bizarre conversation about one of Cuomo's many failures. In 2015, the New York State Task Force on Life and the Law (TFLL), its members appointed by Cuomo, released its "2015 Ventilator Allocation Guidelines".

The TFLL estimated that during the "peak week" of a severe "1918-like" pandemic scenario the state would have a ventilator shortfall of 15,783 units (p. 30). Instead of urging the state's leaders to come up with a plan to close the shortfall of ventilators and trained personnel to operate them the TFLL accepted a shortage of life-saving equipment as a fait accompli. The TFLL was focused on rationing ventilators without any analysis of whether the shortage could be ameliorated through advance preparation. Cuomo implicitly, if not explicitly, agreed he could live with the projected shortage and the deaths that would entail.

Their solution, then, was to create a triage plan that, by design, likely consigned hundreds, if not thousands, of patients to a needless death when the pandemic arrived this year. When I pointed out this to my friend she defended Cuomo asserting there was little or nothing he could have done differently. I replied he could have said: This is unacceptable, we need to figure out how to close this gap. She claimed, "That's not how government works." I'll never understand why some people make excuses for corrupt and/or inept politicians.

In 1984, the governor's father, Mario Cuomo, who was then himself governor of New York, gave one of his best known speeches at the Democratic national convention. His vision of government included the idea that people should be "protected in those moments when they would not be able to protect themselves." Andrew Cuomo echoed this notion when, in 2017, he asserted of the subway "crisis": "There is no time for delay and there is no tolerance for a lack of commitment on this issue ... The fundamental responsibility of government is to respond in a timely and effective way when people need help."

If Cuomo's TFLL could identify the problem then they could also have come up with a better solution. Moreover, Cuomo could have demanded one. No, he can't magically conjure ventilators or the money to buy them but experts have been predicting a serious viral pandemic for years. Cuomo (and governors and legislators across the country) had the ability and responsibility to ensure his state was better prepared for it.

Instead in March, Cuomo lied or betrayed a profound ignorance. As Colin Kalmbacher at Law & Crime wrote:

On Wednesday morning, during his quotidian Coronavirus press briefing, the three-term Democratic governor told an easily verifiable falsehood about New York’s state of health.

“No one has these ventilators and no one ever anticipated a situation where you would need this number of ventilators to deal with a public health emergency,” Cuomo said–explaining the Empire State’s recent move toward rationing the highly in-demand medical devices.

“So we have purchased everything that can be purchased,” he added. “We’re now in a situation where we’re trying to accelerate production of these ventilators, and a ventilator is a complicated piece of equipment.”

But Cuomo’s claim that “no one ever anticipated” the “number of ventilators to deal with a public health emergency” is directly undercut by a report from New York State itself–under his own administration–released halfway into Cuomo’s second term in office.

Like Cuomo, the New York State Commissioner of Health he appointed, Howard A. Zucker, was also given to uttering falsehoods. In a letter accompanying the TFLL's report he claimed: "Protecting the health and well-being of New Yorkers is a core objective of the Department of Health." So, Zucker knew about the anticipated ventilator shortage and the "death panel" solution to deal with it. 

Yet, in March of this year, Newsday reported: 

"I always felt if you can improve the life of others — whether an individual or many — you should," he [Zucker] said in an interview. "I learned practicing clinical medicine that I have to do everything possible ... it's our role in society."

"But I never expected this kind of situation," he said of the coronavirus threat."

Zucker has mostly flown under the radar compared to his boss but his COVID-19 performance prompted one editorial titled: "New York health chief Howard Zucker: Call him Dr. Death".

By April, Cuomo was throwing tens of millions of dollars around to try to buy ventilators at elevated prices from people who often couldn't deliver. If instead, he had ordered 15,783 ventilators in 2015 when his Task Force released its report then the state would likely have had a stockpile on hand during the COVID-19 crisis for less than 0.14% of the state's 2015-16 disbursements.

For the calculation above, I used a 2020 ventilator retail price via ProPublica of $12,495 per unit. I have no doubt that price is actually significantly higher than a competitive bidding process in 2015 would have obtained. If the state had spread the acquisition out over five years then the cost would have been less than 0.03% of the annual budget.

In any event, it seems both unsurprising and clear that few high-profile politicians of either major party actually concern themselves much with the victims of COVID-19, whom they largely regard as superannuated drags on the economy or otherwise disposable people. They don't say this out loud but their policies speak volumes. Instead of taking effective steps to save lives and safely re-open the economy, Democrats blame Trump, Republicans blame China (or engage in various forms of denial) and, in the meantime, the US has the largest COVID-19 death toll and one of the highest per capita COVID-19 death rates in the world.

Labels: Biden, COVID-19, Democrats, government, health, media, medicine, politics, science, Trump

ALL MODELS ARE WRONG BUT SOME ARE USEFUL

     Now it would be very remarkable if any system existing in the real world could be exactly represented by any simple model. However, cunningly chosen parsimonious models often do provide remarkably useful approximations. For example, the law PV = RT relating pressure P, volume V, and temperature T of an "ideal" gas via a constant R is not exactly true for any real gas, but it frequently provides a useful approximation and furthermore its structure is informative since it springs from a physical view of the behavior of gas molecules. For such a model there is no need to ask the question "Is the model true?". If "truth" is to be the "whole truth" the answer must be "No". The only question of interest is "Is the model illuminating and useful?"

Source: G. E. P. Box., "Robustness in the Strategy of Scientific Model Building" in Robert L. Launer; Graham N. Wilkinson, Robustness in Statistics, Academic Press (New York, 1979), pp. 202–203.

Labels: critical thinking, quotations, science, statistics

One week ago, I wrote:

As of today, the global COVID-19 fatality rate (deaths divided by aggregate confirmed infections) is about 4.1%.

We know that the actual fatality rate is probably significantly lower than 4.1% because not everyone who has been infected has been tested.

There are a lot of other factors leading to uncertainty over the actual fatality rate from COVID-19 that I didn't write about. There is an excellent discussion of the "Coronavirus (COVID-19) Mortality Rate" that elaborates on those factors. I recommend it.

Today, the crude global COVID-19 fatality is about 4.6% per figures from the UW Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) Infection Map. I still have every expectation that the final rate will be much lower than 4.6% globally, in Italy, the US, and elsewhere. However, because of the failures mentioned in my earlier post I still fear that "the progression of the COVID-19 in the US will likely resemble Italy's trajectory more closely than South Korea's or China's." Nothing that's happened in the last week has dissuaded me from that view although I remain hopeful something will change.

A week ago, I also wrote: "By the end of next week we may start to see how effective efforts to flatten the curve have been in Washington state." The Governor of Washington believes this may be the case but in my reading of the data it's still too soon to know for sure.

I want to elaborate a bit on the comparison I made between the US and South Korea. China, in my opinion, is the wrong place to look for comparisons. Although China has some aspects of a market economy, large and important entities are state-owned enterprises directly controlled by the Communist Party of China (CPC) and the remaining sectors are subject to indirect CPC control in the one-party authoritarian regime.

There is evidence that the Chinese government suppressed key information about the virus at least in the early stages. In contrast, South Korea has a modern, mostly private market economy with a political system that is, by one measure, at least as democratic as the United States' "flawed democracy" (but see here for a different ranking).

One of the big mistakes that many people will undoubtedly make in the aftermath of COVID-19 is to demand a larger, more centralized public health and medical system in the US. One of the big pitfalls of such thinking is that centralization creates the risk of severe consequences from a single point of failure.

We are actually seeing that play out in the US where state and local public health agencies and officials take their lead from the federal government and were slow to react appropriately to the threat of COVID-19. They were also hamstrung by their dependence on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to roll out COVID-19 testing and misplaced reliance on supplies from the Strategic National Stockpile (SNS).

One counterargument is, yes, but if the federal government had done its job correctly then we wouldn't be in this situation. True enough but there are no guarantees that when a crisis develops there will be an able, humane leader at the helm of the large, centralized ship of state.

I am aware of no compelling evidence that, say a President Hillary Clinton, would have prepared for or handled the COVID-19 crisis markedly better than Trump. Speculatively, we can say she may indeed have risen to the challenge of COVID-19 but Clinton would have been under the same pressures by the investor class not to disrupt their profit-taking and to win re-election this year.

More crucially, the lapses in the CDC and the SNS, for instance, didn't develop under Trump alone. I have been unable to find a concise depiction of inflation-adjusted CDC annual budgets (there is this though) but it's clear that the Obama administration proposed significant cuts in 2011 (-11%). In 2013, the Obama administration again proposed more cuts in "biodefense and emergency preparedness programs" along with a $38 million reduction in the "allocation for the Strategic National Stockpile of emergency medical supplies".

And as NBC reports:

[The] U.S. strategic stockpile isn't intended to be the solution to a crisis. It's designed to be used as a stopgap during emergencies. The stockpile has limited resources, government officials and public health experts say, which weren't at full capacity even before the coronavirus was on the horizon.

And:

The stockpile wasn't at full capacity before the COVID-19 outbreak in the U.S., in part because it never fully replenished some of the critical supplies used in the 2009 H1N1 pandemic response ...

A 2016 report published by the National Academies repeatedly raised concerns about the SNS inventory and the logistics of distributing it in an emergency. The chair of the committee that prepared that report, Dr. Tara O'Toole, presciently told NPR in 2016:

"We have drastically decreased the level of state public health resources in the last decade. We've lost 50,000 state and local health officials. That's a huge hit," says O'Toole, who wishes local officials would get more money for things like emergency drills. "The notion that this is all going to be top down, that the feds are in charge and the feds will deliver, is wrong."

My point is that the inability and failure in the US to implement the successful model of South Korea to tamp down COVID-19 via widespread testing, contact tracing, and isolation of the exposed or infected was born of a longstanding failure of the values and priorities of the bipartisan political establishment and by the servile dependency and doltish complacency of the American people who keep electing them. Trump surely deserves a lot of blame for his failures but much of the finger pointing by, for example, Michigan Gov. Whitmer, is simply not grounded in fact and is counter-productive, self-interested blame-shifting by culpable partisans in the midst of a major crisis.

It bears stating that governments weren't invented for the well-being of commoners and only servile fools would willingly depend upon them for that. Governments were created to secure and enhance the power of the already powerful and to provide rhetorical cover for that domination. That is not to say they cannot potentially be transformed by people to more closely reflect the rhetoric of, say, "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" but we should never forget that decent treatment of ordinary people is, at best, a means, not an end, of government.

If we are to have a centralized state or any state at all then, ceteris paribus, one that could competently stop an COVID-19 epidemic, for instance, would be preferable but this is a false dichotomy. There are other, better ways for humans to organize themselves free from the coercive state if only we will imagine and create them.

See also: "A Few Thoughts on COVID-19"

Labels: anarchism, COVID-19, government, health, medicine, politics, science, Trump

Don't be deceived, COVID-19 is more lethal and more infectious than the normal annual influenza outbreaks. As one example, in roughly three weeks COVID-19 has already killed almost as many people in the Seattle area (King, Snohomish, and Pierce counties) alone as have died so far from the flu (lab-confirmed cases) in the entire State of Washington during the 2019-2020 flu season and COVID-19 shows no sign of slowing down yet. In part, this is because almost no one has any natural or vaccine-induced immunity to COVID-19 as it is "novel" and there is no vaccine for it.

Everywhere that COVID-19 has infected large numbers of people it has quickly overwhelmed the local health care system. That means the death toll from COVID-19 is added on to the existing, more routine causes of death from heart disease, cancer, influenza, accidents, etc. and the rapid influx of those sick from this new disease impairs the health care system's capacity to manage more typical cases of disease and trauma.

If unchecked by effective public health measures or natural immunity COVID-19 has exponential growth rates of infection and death (see also here and here and here) although the death curve is much flatter because the disease does not kill at nearly the same rate as it infects or sickens people. As of today, the global COVID-19 fatality rate (deaths divided by aggregate confirmed infections) is about 4.1%.

We know that the actual fatality rate is probably significantly lower than 4.1% because not everyone who has been infected has been tested. In South Korea, where there are high rates of testing and a very successful public health response, the fatality rate is about 1.2%. By contrast, the US 2018-2019 influenza fatality rate was about 0.1%. (There are a lot of factors, such as quality of the health care system, mean population age, smoking rates, etc., that influence fatality rates.)

Below, from the University of Washingon Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) Infection Map, are two images (click to enlarge) showing the exponential growth of COVID-19 infections and deaths in the US and Italy.



The graphic below demonstrates that exponential growth of infection and death from COVID-19 can be arrested. South Korea had its first confirmed COVID-19 death on February 21 and in about three weeks it had stopped the initial exponential growth of infections. The number of COVID-19 deaths there is currently 102. China, too, after early missteps has reportedly stopped local transmission of COVID-19 altogether.



We did have earlier warnings to alert us to the potential of a dangerous viral pandemic. In addition to the Spanish Flu (1918; 25,000,000 - 100,000,000 deaths), there was the Asian flu (1957; 1,000,000 - 2,000,000 deaths), Hong Kong flu (1968; 1,000,000 - 4,000,000 deaths), SARS-CoV (2002; 774 deaths), H1N1 flu (2009; 151,000 - 575,000 deaths), and MERS-CoV (2012; 862 - 912 deaths). MERS is notable because it has a high fatality rate (~37%) and continues to infect and kill people every year. With few exceptions, the media, public health community, and politicians of all political stripes failed to alert Americans to the very real dangers of a viral pandemic and the country is, thus, woefully unprepared.

Unfortunately, I am afraid the progression of the COVID-19 in the US will likely resemble Italy's trajectory more closely than South Korea's or China's. I hope I will be proven mistaken in this.

American individualism is, in many ways, pathological and more communal attitudes and behavior are not necessarily antithetical to freedom or a healthy individualism. Whatever their downside, a more community-oriented culture was one factor that evidently contributed to the successful Chinese and South Korean responses to COVID-19.

If competently led, adequately staffed, and sufficiently provisioned, I think America's decentralized health care system could have responded in a coordinated and effective manner. This was not the case, however, and one result has been the very slow roll out of widespread COVID-19 testing that would have enabled the early isolation of infected people. The US also has a warped, hollowed out industrial base that has left it dependent on the importation of key health care supplies—masks, drugs, reagents, gloves, ventilators, etc.—that were seemingly not stockpiled and/or aren't being distributed in sufficient quantities.

Chinese health officials were able to successfully confine the COVID-19 outbreak to primarily one region of the country and then bring the resources of the rest of the country to bear in order to tamp down the disease. Unfortunately, for reasons described above, the US has failed to keep the outbreak of disease concentrated in one or two regions.

The result is that the COVID-19 is now, apparently, spreading exponentially in every US state. The first US death from COVID-19 was on February 29, 2020. Since that time Washington has had 82 more deaths, New York 43, California 24, Louisiana and Georgia 14 each, New Jersey 11, and Florida 10. COVID-19 deaths have been reported in several other states, too. The wide geographic dispersion of infections in the US will likely make it immensely difficult to bring COVID-19 under control quickly. Again, I hope I am proven wrong in this.

By the end of next week we may start to see how effective efforts to flatten the curve have been in Washington state. However, even if they have been effective the state has already fallen far short in comparison to South Korea. Consider the table below based on the 2018 populations.


So what is to be done? For those on the medical front lines of the struggle and those directly supporting them the path is pretty clear. The rest of us need to support those folks and each other. Don't panic, don't hoard. Don't worry about getting sick but do take scientifically supported steps to help prevent it.

For those who are able to do so, physical distancing and staying home as much as possible is probably the most critical task now. If you're not concerned about your own well-being then think about the others you might expose if you do get sick or the health resources you might take up that could have been used by someone who had a heart attack or a child hit by a car.

See also: "A Few Thoughts on COVID-19 - Part II"

Labels: COVID-19, government, health, medicine, politics, science, statistics

The mainstream media is abuzz about Sen. Elizabeth Warren's (D-MA) latest salvo in her battle to validate her claim to American Indian ancestry. Out of curiosity, I had a look at the report Warren commissioned from a "famous geneticist", i.e. Carlos Bustamante, PhD.

A few things that I haven't seen discussed in the mainstream media stand out to me. First, the Bustamante report has no discussion about how it was verified that Warren provided the sample that was tested and how the chain of custody was maintained and verified.

Second, it is curious that Bustamante does not more specifically identify the segments he used to conclude that the results of Warren's test "strongly support the existence of an unadmixed Native American ancestor". He merely speaks of "five genetic segments", averaging 5.8 centiMorgans long (with the longest being on chromosome 10). Bustamante says the entire human genome is 3,595 centiMorgans long.

Finally, check out the image below from the Bustamante report. Notice anything major missing?


If your answer was "only the most populous continent on earth" then you get a gold star. Yes, Asia is missing, and since most geneticists believe American Indians descend mainly from early Asian immigrants to the Americas then inquiring minds wonder what that scatterplot would look like if Asians had been included. And how did Bustamante decide that the "five genetic segments" in Warren's putative DNA aren't from long ago admixture with an Asian ancestor—a Hun or Magyar, perhaps?

Labels: Indians, politics, science, White folks

Watch what happens when these color blind men are able to see in color for the first time.

Labels: medicine, science, video

Right: Rachel Dolezal poses in front of a mural she painted at the Human Rights Education Institute offices in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho. Nicholas K. Geranios/AP 

On June 11, 2015, the Coeur d' Alene Press broke the story that the head of the Spokane chapter of the NAACP, Rachel Dolezal, had woven a web of lies in order to falsely present herself as a Black woman. In a testament to the highly charged and contested nature of modern racial discourse the story has since "Gone viral" and international.

The phenomenon of so-called light-skinned Black people "passing as White" has long been a source of curiosity to me. If someone has so much non-African ancestry that they appear to the casual observer as White and they have/have adopted "White" cultural values and behaviors—whatever those may be—then who is to say they are not White? Do we take the White racist's and/or the Black racist's word for this?

Of course, it is true that the "one-drop rule" was a creation of White people made for enforcing slavery and later Jim Crow but now it seems just as many, if not more, Black people accept it (see, e.g. a recent Atlanta Blackstar photo gallery with the contradictory title "9 Black Celebrities Who Rejected The One Drop Rule" and especially the photo captions for Devyn (#2) and Zoe Saldana (#5)). It is in no small part because many Black people embrace the one-drop rule or some version of it that Rachel Dolezal was able to "pass as Black," apparently, for years.

This Black and White madness over racial identity leads to other bizarre outcomes. So, on The Atlantic we have Baz Dreisinger, author of Near Black: White-to-Black Passing in American Culture, telling an interviewer: "The earliest cases [of Whites passing for Black] that I look at are from the slave era. There are cases of white people who are kidnapped and sold into slavery, and which therefore are cases of involuntary passing." While on Slate, Jamelle Bouie writes:

Of course there were also black Americans who could pass but chose to stay in the black community. Walter Francis White led the national staff of the NAACP for nearly a quarter-century, from 1931 to 1955. The child of formerly enslaved people, White looked, well, white. And yet he chose blackness. "I am a Negro," he wrote in his autobiography A Man Called White. "My skin is white, my eyes are blue, my hair is blond. The traits of my race are nowhere visible upon me."

White is Bouie's example of a Black American who stayed Black. Bouie nowhere admits the possibility, if not fact, that the obviously European traits of White's race were quite visible upon him. Instead, implicitly, slavery is equated with Blackness (because there was no such thing as White slaves in the antebellum South, right?) and the one-drop rule is affirmed.

So why did Rachel Dolezal decide to deceive people about her identity? If anyone knows for sure, and that's not clear, it would be Rachel Dolezal herself. However, there are some interesting possibilities to consider. First, as Baz Dreisinger claims: "Anytime you're talking about the cultural domain, it certainly can be advantageous to pass as black." Dolezal is a talented artist whose work seemingly has mostly African-American themes. So there's that.

Second, and this is the one I find more compelling, there's the possibility that Dolezal is a victim of self-hatred for being White. As David Smedley, a Howard University associate professor, who was Dolezal's Master of Fine Arts thesis adviser told the Washington Post:

" 'White' people who have inherited a privileged place in society seemingly have just two choices: stay ignorant, accept and continue to justify the delusion that America is and always has been great and democratic; or do some research and then feel the heavy guilt and shame upon discovering the ugly truth about the systemic unfairnesses that their ancestors perpetuated.

"Neither of these are healthy, and I suspect that this isn't the last time we will see another white person chose to switch sides."

One need not accept Prof. Smedley's beliefs lock, stock, and barrel to see that there's more than a grain of truth to what he says about the choices White people are presented with in terms of how they see themselves. More evidence for this perspective comes from Dolezal's adopted Black brother, Ezra Dolezal. According to CNN:

Dolezal's time at predominantly black Howard University may have been a major turning point in her transformation, her adopted brother said.

"When she applied they thought she was a black student," he said. "When she came there, they saw she was white and she wasn't treated that well, especially by people that worked there. She probably started developing this kind of dislike for being white and dislike for white people. She used to tell [her Black adopted brother] Izaiah ... that all white people are racists. She might have developed some self-hatred."

Rachel Dolezal unsuccessfully "sued Howard for discrimination in 2002, the year she graduated from the historically black college with a Master of Fine Arts degree." If her brother is correct, then Rachel Dolezal would not be the first person to internalize perceived and/or actual discrimination and bias as self-hatred. In the case of White people like Dolezal there is also the poisonous concept of trans-generational collective guilt for the past sins—real or imagined—of others.

If the story of Rachel Dolezal is a case of self-hatred then one can hope that she will examine the lies and distortions that led her to this point and reject and combat them. She doesn't need the people who she may have thought needed or wanted her to be Black and there are probably far more Black and other people than she imagined who would have embraced her openly as an artist and humans rights activist who is White.

I want to shift now to the comparisons of Rachel Dolezal to Caitlyn Jenner. As Nick Gillespie writes: "... what conservatives dig most about Dolezal is that she is a punchline regarding not racial misrepresentation but gender identity. Hence, conservative folks are using Dolezal's unmasking to yet again mock Caitlyn Jenner, the 1976 Olympic decathlon champion and reality TV star formerly known as Bruce." I agree but I also think it overstates the case to say that "There is no comparison between transgender people and Rachel Dolezal", as does the title to a Guardian article by Meredith Talusan.

Talusan, who is transgender, claims:

The fundamental difference between Dolezal's actions and trans people's is that her decision to identify as black was an active choice, whereas transgender people's decision to transition is almost always involuntary. Transitioning is the product of a fundamental aspect of our humanity – gender – being foisted upon us over and over again from the time of our birth in a manner inconsistent with our own experience of our genders. Doctors don't announce our race or color when we are born; they announce our gender. People who are alienated from their presumed gender and define themselves according to another gender have existed since earliest recorded history; race is a medieval European invention. Thus, Dolezal identified as black, but I am a woman, and other trans people are the gender they feel themselves to be.

I wonder how fully Dolezal experiences/ed her decision to pass as Black as voluntary. And "our race or color" is frequently determined when we are born by our parents or a bureaucrat via a birth certificate. Talusan's insistence that she is different from Dolezal because "I am a woman" strikes me as a case of protesting too much. Mind you, I'm not disputing her claim to being a woman, it's her vehemence in the service of criticizing another that I find troubling.

I suppose I am more, though not fully, in agreement with Camille Gear Rich, who, in "Rachel Dolezal has a right to be black", writes: "The central issue that separates Jenner's and Dolezal's choices is deception. Jenner chose carefully how and when she would disclose herself as actually female." In Dolezal's case I think the problem with the deception is that it was active rather than passive and she hitched that deception to her status as a Black community leader.

If Bruce Jenner had long ago ceased to have been a recognizable celebrity would Caitlyn Jenner then have any blanket obligation to out herself as transgender to anyone? No, but I think she would have an ethical obligation not to deliberately mislead people into thinking she'd had a girlhood or the lived social and biological experience of a typical natal female, except when her safety or well-being was at stake. To be clear, in light of the violence and discrimination faced by transgender people when I speak of deliberate deception I'm talking about steps akin to what Dolezal did—inventing a fake father, presenting her adopted siblings as her own children, and, possibly, falsifying hate crimes.

Camille Gear Rich writes: "People allow Caitlyn Jenner to change because she has some biological basis for believing she is female. But is this all identity is? Are we prepared to accept the implications of this view?" She raises a good point but I would go further, I've never been fully convinced by the science suggesting that biology is behind transgender (or LGB) identity.

Mostly, the studies I've read (admittedly quite a few years ago now) fail to address the question of causality: Are you transgender because your biology is different from a non-trans person's or is your biology different because you're transgender? Often, due to small sample sizes and ambiguous findings, they also fail to convincingly show that there actually is a biological difference. In any case, while I'm willing to go wherever the evidence leads, I also think it should be kept in mind that biological explanations are potentially dangerous.

See also:

• "Adolph Reed, Jr. on the Dolezal Affair" on the Dissident Veteran For Peace blog
• "Pike County, OH: As Black as We Wish to Be" by State of the Re:Union
• Gulliver as Slave Trader: Racism Reviled by Jonathan Swift
• Quotable: Fraud, Gunpowder, A Soldier on the Dissident Veteran For Peace blog
• "The Bad-White Body" in Performing Whiteness: Postmodern Re/Constructions in the Cinema

Labels: Black America, gender, identity, LGBT, race, Rachel Dolezal, science, slavery, White folks

It is very advisable to examine and dissect the men of science for once, since they for their part are quite accustomed to laying bold hands on everything in the world, even the most venerable things, and taking them to pieces. –Friedrich Nietzsche, epigraph to The Science Delusion.

Curtis White's latest non-fiction offering is The Science Delusion: Asking the Big Questions in a Culture of Easy Answers (Melville House, 2013). For those who wonder about such things, a self-described atheist, White is not critiquing science from a religious perspective. White's attack is grounded in the notion of classical Romanticism as a counterculture to a science or scientism that seeks to subsume or devalue non-scientific human enterprises such as art, religion, and philosophy.

White begins by taking a look at the "new atheists"--Dawkins, Hitchens, Rosenberg, and Harris—observing "that the story these writers have to tell is one that a very powerful part of our culture wants told and emphatically so" (p. 3). He develops the idea of science's "too-comfortable place in the broader ideology of social regimentation, economic exploitation, environmental destruction, and industrial militarism," declaring that "how the ideology of science meshes with the broader ideology of capitalism will be a consistent interest of my investigation here" (p. 11). In this vein, White wonders: "Where is Richard Dawkins's book on the almighty, self-correcting Market God? Or on the military-industrial complex that science and technology has made possible? But, then, it's not in science's interest to notice such things" (p. 55).

After taking on the new atheists, White goes after biology, neuroscience, and physics. Lawrence Krauss, Watson and Crick, Richard Feynman, Stephen Hawking, and Sebastian Seung, among others, fall under White's withering gaze. Along the way, he also brings to bear the arguments of others more attuned to Romanticism, citing for example, Friedrich Schiller: "Art's primary purpose as antagonist to the 'robot' is to 'model freedom.' 'Art models freedom' is Schiller's aesthetic mantra, and it is the Romantic aesthetic in full force. Do you want to know what it is like to be free? Then live in art. ... Art is a counter-discourse, it is a counterculture, or it's not art" (p. 69).

Contra reductive physicalism/materialism, White also cites physicist Arthur Eddington: "The stuff of the world is mind-stuff" (p. 174).. And James Jeans, also a physicist: "I incline to the idealistic theory that consciousness is fundamental, and that the material universe is derivative from consciousness, not consciousness from the material universe ... In general the universe seems to me to be nearer to a great thought than to a great machine" (p. 174).

In closing, here are two excerpts from White's final pages:

"We [Americans] are a culture in which self-evident lies, supported by stunning lapses in argument, are eagerly taken up by our most literate public, which is happy to call it 'fascinating' and 'provocative,' while also assuming it is our inevitable future" (p. 182).

"... Romanticism goes science one better: it also liberates us from the scam—the delusions—of science, of technology, and of the reign of the ever more efficient administration of life that has been the essential problem in the West for the last two centuries" (p. 192).

See also:

• Mark Kingwell, "Taking on scientism's big bullies: Hitchens, Dawkins and Pinker."The Globe and Mail. 14 June 2013.
• Pat Finn. "Romanticism for the 21st Century: Curtis White's 'The Science Delusion.' "Tottenville Review. Undated.
• Maggie Koerth-Baker. "The real problem with Curtis White's The Science Delusion." Boing Boing. 20 June 2013.
• Curtis White. "Ode to a Straw Man: What critics are getting wrong about my book." Slate. 12 July 2013.

Labels: art and literature, Curtis White, freedom, science, technology