Can Minnesota please join your club?

Did you hear the news? Washington, Oregon, and California have announced their independence on matters dealing with the pandemic, forming the West Coast Pact. The political fragmentation predicted in so many cyberpunk novels is actually happening! How exciting! Maybe.

COVID-19 has preyed upon our interconnectedness. In the coming weeks, the West Coast will flip the script on COVID-19 – with our states acting in close coordination and collaboration to ensure the virus can never spread wildly in our communities.

We are announcing that California, Oregon and Washington have agreed to work together on a shared approach for reopening our economies – one that identifies clear indicators for communities to restart public life and business.

While each state is building a state-specific plan, our states have agreed to the following principles as we build out a West Coast framework:

  • Our residents’ health comes first. As home to one in six Americans and gateway to the rest of the world, the West Coast has an outsized stake in controlling and ultimately defeating COVID-19.
  • Health outcomes and science – not politics – will guide these decisions. Modifications to our states’ stay at home orders must be made based off our understanding of the total health impacts of COVID-19, including: the direct impact of the disease on our communities; the health impact of measures introduced to control the spread in communities —particularly felt by those already experiencing social disadvantage prior to COVID-19; and our health care systems’ ability to ensure care for those who may become sick with COVID-19 and other conditions. This effort will be guided by data. We need to see a decline in the rate of spread of the virus before large-scale reopening, and we will be working in coordination to identify the best metrics to guide this.
  • Our states will only be effective by working together. Each state will work with it’s local leaders and communities within its borders to understand what’s happening on the ground and adhere to our agreed upon approach.

Those are smart, science-based goals, contrary to what we’re getting from the federal government and the nest of grifters and thieves that occupy it. I can understand why they’re doing this, and wish Minnesota could join them. We’d be a real asset! We’re a center for biomedical research and industry, and we can buy our way in with corn — lots of corn. I, personally, have strong ties to the west coast, as do many of our citizens. Let us in! You know, we’re surrounded by Greater Wingnuttia, with Wisconsin, Iowa, and the Dakotas all full of Trumpkins. Maybe we can negotiate a connection through Canada to Washington?

But then I think…you know, our brothers and sisters in Wisconsin have struggled against the forces of darkness for so long. For the last election Republicans cut the number of polling stations in Milwaukee from 180 to 5, citing coronavirus fears…but then these same Republicans refused to allow voting by mail-in ballot, while all the State Supreme Court justices who rejected the notion voted by absentee ballot. It was a blatant, criminal act of voter suppression, yet the voters persevered and kicked one of the conservatives off the court and elected a liberal judge.

Jill Karofsky beat Daniel Kelly, whom then-Gov. Scott Walker (R) appointed to the state’s high court in 2016. Trump endorsed Kelly and on Election Day urged Wisconsin voters “to get out and vote NOW” for the justice.

She won? In spite of all the hurdles Wisconsin threw in her way? This should be an inspiration to us all.

And then, South Dakota. Sioux Falls, SD is currently one of the hottest hot spots for coronavirus infections in the country, thanks to the Smithfield food processing plant, which responded to demands to keep the economy alive (and money flowing into the owners’ pockets) by keeping their workers toiling away. The city’s mayor did the right thing by asking to impose orders to limit the spread of the infection. He was listening to the recommendations of scientists.

“A shelter-in-place order is needed now. It is needed today,” said Sioux Falls Mayor Paul TenHaken, whose city is at the center of South Dakota’s outbreak and who has had to improvise with voluntary recommendations in the absence of statewide action.

He was overruled by the Republican governor, Kristi Noem.

But the governor continued to resist. Instead, she used a media briefing Monday to announce trials of a drug that President Trump has repeatedly touted as a potential breakthrough in the fight against the coronavirus, despite a lack of scientific evidence.

“It’s an exciting day,” she boasted, repeatedly citing her conversations with presidential son-in-law Jared Kushner.

She was listening to the recommendations of Jared Kushner, slumlord, profiteer, con artist.

Noem deserves to rot in hell, but does TenHaken? Do the workers at Smithfield?

I’m beginning to doubt the wisdom of the Western States Pact, and I keep returning to that last statement in their declaration: “Our states will only be effective by working together.” I think that’s true, but I’m not sure what they mean by “our”. Which “our”, 3 states on the west coast? Or should we be thinking bigger, of 50 states and American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, all working together to tear down one corrupt regime in Washington, DC, united to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States. The problem isn’t Wisconsin, or South Dakota, or Idaho or Nevada or even Texas — it’s the incompetence and malfeasance of the Trump administration and the Republican senate. That’s what we need to work together to destroy.

Well, also, maybe Wall Street should be one of our targets.

Factio Republicana delenda est.

Jinkies!

Be sure to read the explanatory text on the site: “One of the large motivations for Adam Smith writing The Wealth of Nations was to convince people to try to move capital away from the unproductive landlords (who at that time were mostly comprised of very wealthy landed English gentry) into the hands of entrepreneurs and workers.” and “In short, when someone tells you that you are a dirty communist for saying landlords contribute nothing and merely drain society, remind them that the idea came first from Adam Smith.”

Please, someone use this to make Republicans go all head-explodey.

Welcome to real skepticism

Some anonymous guy wrote a popular blog post in which they proposed a radical new idea that the real mechanism of SARS-CoV-2 action was that the virus invaded red blood cells, displaced iron from the heme group in hemoglobin, and thereby both reduced the O2 carrying capacity of blood cells, and released large amounts of toxic iron. They had no expertise in medicine, molecular biology, or epidemiology, and their hypothesis was total bollocking nonsense. The post has since been taken down.

Now there is a thorough post up that utterly demolishes the original claim. I’m not a fan of the hyperbole of saying someone was “destroyed” by a blog post, but in this case, the word applies. The author is an MD/PhD with a specialization in the molecular biology of mammalian heme globins, and he tears into the claims at every level and burns them to the ground. It’s wonderfully entertaining, if you enjoy good science and despise quacks.

His conclusion also brings up a very good question: why do people promote pseudoscience?

The above discussion is by no means an exhaustive list of the blog post’s incorrect statements or conclusions. Nonetheless, I hope it has been sufficient to make clear that the blog post, and even the scientific article that likely inspired it, should not be viewed as a source of any meaningful insight into SARS-CoV-2, how it affects patients, or how the virus might be treated. What I still don’t know is why the blog post author, under a pseudonym, chose to present such an incorrect description of this disease and the underlying pathophysiology with such confidence. That they would go so far as to suggest treatments for the disease despite a lack of any medical training, and in virtually the same paragraph condemn “armchair pseudo-physicians” who push incorrect information, is truly mind-boggling. Tragically, whether it arises from genuine malice, unfounded arrogance, or just simple ignorance, this sort of misinformation about a deadly pandemic can genuinely put lives at risk, and it’s up to those of us who work in this field to fight back against it in whatever way we can.

I wish I understood this phenomenon myself. It comes up all the time in evolution debates — some clown makes grand, sweeping statements dismissing evolutionary biology, and when he gets quizzed on the subject, it becomes rapidly apparent that they know nothing about the subject, and their colon is packed with so much misinformation it’s backing up their throat and dribbling out their ears. Yet somehow the frauds get all the acclaim, get paid well, and bring in adoring mobs of followers who love to see the experts get dissed…oh wait. I think I might have just answered my own question. It’s all money and ego.

Note: there are also skeptics who are all about the money and ego. I’ve known a few.

Watch party on 30 April!

Mark your calendars — the makers of We Believe in Dinosaurs are hosting a watch party of their movie on 30 April. What that means is…

  • Sign up for a seat at the link. You’ll be sent a Zoom URL so you can join a group of people online.

  • Get a copy of the movie on your streaming service. It’s $3.99 on Amazon.

  • On 30 April, before 7pm, make popcorn, log in to zoom, get your movie queued up.

  • Precisely at 7, hit play, watch the movie and listen to commentary from the makers.

  • You can, I presume, use the chat feature to make text comments of your own.

If you’re wondering what the movie is about, it’s a documentary about Answers in Genesis’s Ark Encounter. He’d rather nobody saw it, so you’ll get the bonus thrill of pissing off Ken Ham.

Do economists have even more hubris than physicists?

It’s hard to believe, but it’s a valid question. Tyler Cowen demonstrates his arrogance by questioning the validity of epidemiology, and he asks a series of stupid questions that show how little thought he has put into the subject.

a. As a class of scientists, how much are epidemiologists paid? Is good or bad news better for their salaries?

You know, there’s this thing called “Google” which economists apparently haven’t heard about yet. If you look it up, it turns out that epidemiologists work in public health — which should already tell you they don’t get absurdly rich at this job — and they make on average about $69K per year. I would ask what the point of the question is. Does their salary say something about the accuracy of their conclusions? Because, near as I can tell, salaries under capitalism have nothing to do with intellectual rigor.

The employment of epidemiologists is not contingent on whether their results are good news or bad news, but on the quality and accuracy of their work. Why? Is it different for economists?

b. How smart are they? What are their average GRE scores?

Holy shit. Cowen reveals his own ignorant biases there.

Epidemiology requires solid skills in statistics and biology, neither of which are exactly easy-peasy topics. Their GRE scores were good enough to get them into demanding academic programs. There aren’t any shortcuts.

c. Are they hired into thick, liquid academic and institutional markets? And how meritocratic are those markets?

“Thick, liquid”? That sounds like economics jargon. I have no idea what he’s talking about, and I won’t pretend to know, unlike some.

I can say that academia is only loosely meritocratic. There are a lot of built-in cultural biases that mean we get some incompetent people, and some brilliant people get excluded. The question ought to be whether epidemiology is more or less meritocratic than economics. The evidence here says “more”.

d. What is their overall track record on predictions, whether before or during this crisis?

Crack an epidemiology textbook. There are a lot of variables and a lot of case studies. Unlike in economics, failed models tend to be rapidly discarded.

e. On average, what is the political orientation of epidemiologists? And compared to other academics? Which social welfare function do they use when they make non-trivial recommendations?

Fuck me. Like most educated academics, they probably skew liberal and Democratic. Their recommendations favor maximizing public health and minimizing death and illness. That’s their job. Economists seem to be much more twisted by flaky ideological concerns.

He has more questions, but I’ve had enough. What a chuzzlewit.

Vote for the lesser of two dotards

I agree with Rebecca. She’s voting for Biden because he’s somewhat better than Trump, but does not think that imposes an obligation on others to do likewise.

I’m making no predictions on the outcome of the November election. I know people are apathetic about voting at all, and are going to skip the election because they cannot bear to vote for a man who sexually assaults women, and that might depress Democratic turnout. On the other hand, Trump is such an egregious incompetent that maybe we could nominate an old stick and it would win. On the next hand over, on the basis of incompetence Trump should have been crushed in the last election; right now he’s busy fanning the flames of fear and xenophobia, and his party is engaging in widespread voter suppression, so maybe he’ll win. The president is not the product of a process that optimizes for the best person to do the job at all.

I don’t know what other people will do. My plan is to unenthusiastically vote for whoever runs against Trump, to hope they make a smart choice for the VP, and to hope Biden is at best a one-term president.