Archive for the ‘Politics’ Category

Mobs and Justice

September 25, 2020

Once again there are mobs floating around major cities in our country demanding justice after the decision of a grand jury not to indict any of the police officers involved in the tragic shooting death of Breonna Taylor. The range of these protests is typically broad, from peaceful protests to more violent protests. The Los Angeles Times reported about two cars that “plowed” through protestors, implying guilt on the part of the drivers, though when you actually read the article it’s far from clear that’s necessarily the best characterization of what happened.

First off, a reminder that protests which block traffic are illegal, though some states allow protestors to block streets if they obtain a permit in advance. But a mob of people arbitrarily deciding to block traffic is in itself an illegal act – pretty much all the time as far as my limited Internet research shows. I’m happy to be proved wrong with appropriate links in the comments section. This document from the ACLU indicates as much. Blocking traffic is in itself illegal, an irony somehow lost in the shuffle of cries for justice, which clearly then are cries for justice in certain situations rather than others, problematic in the least. And needless to say, attacking vehicles and their drivers is very, very illegal, very much against the idea of justice the protestors claim to be demanding. At least one of the vehicles in the LA Times article received extensive damage from protestors who were angered it didn’t want to stop. The car that struck one of the protestors is also said to have damage on it, damage the driver claims was inflicted on the vehicle first and which caused the driver to try and escape the crowd.

Complicated stuff at best, though the headlines certainly wouldn’t lead the casual reader to that conclusion. I don’t think they intend to, frankly.

The cry for justice in this situation is also problematic. The death of anyone is a tragedy, and certainly the death of someone in their own home at the hands of public agents of any kind is additionally odious and should call for investigation. However, investigation actually did happen. The cries and protests for justice come after a grand jury determined no criminal charges were appropriate against the officers involved for Taylor’s death. The officers weren’t cleared of wrong doing by an internal investigation but by a grand jury. A grand jury is a means for determining possible offenses in a situation and lodging official charges to be pursued in a court of law. A grand jury is made up of private citizens, similar to the jury in a court case. They are assembled and tasked with determining to the best of their ability whether a crime has or hasn’t been committed.

So the crowds blocking roads and attacking motorists in a demand for justice are ignoring the fact that justice has already been applied. Typically 16-23 people are assembled for a grand jury and a majority of them must agree a crime was committed and indicate which law was broken. So the majority of the people on the grand jury for this case determined the police officers did not violate a law.

That doesn’t mean Taylor’s death isn’t tragic. It doesn’t mean that perhaps the existing laws might need to change, and already there is discussion towards that end regarding the serving of no-knock warrants, where police can enter a home without prior notification or warning. Of course there are also reasons why such warrants exist, such as protecting officers from a coordinated, deadly response to their ringing of the doorbell or knocking on the door. In this particular case the man they were looking for – an ex-boyfriend’s of Taylor – was not there. Yet her current boyfriend was there, and he was armed, and he opened fire on officers first.

I don’t hear the protestors talking much about that. Clearly, this is a more complicated situation than some people would like it to be. Some details don’t contribute to a story of an innocent young woman shot to death in her own home by reckless and uncaring agents of the State. Apparently the majority of the grand jury realized this as they explored the facts of the case.

So what is justice then? If the due process of the law is inadequate, what do the protestors suggest as an alternative? Is it a matter of mob justice, so to speak, where if enough people scream and yell and threaten and destroy property, they determine the appropriate verdict in a trial? Is this justice? Do what we demand or we destroy things?

Grand juries have been around for over 800 years and are part of a cherished and celebrated legal process and set of protections against mob justice or the arbitrary whims of power. They’re intended to provide as much assurance as possible that a crime really has – or hasn’t – been committed, regardless of which persons or powers demand an outcome to suit their own preferences or interests. Against this what do the protestors suggest as an alternative?

Deadly force is deadly serious, without a doubt. That’s something police officers are trained to recognize and to which they are at least theoretically held accountable. They are also responsible for performing dangerous work like serving warrants on premises or for people that are known to be dangerous and capable of killing them. That’s a lot of pressure to be under, even for professionals, and something the law seeks to take into account. I also assume the man who fired on those police officers when they entered the home understands that deadly force is deadly serious, and if you’re going to pull a gun and start shooting immediately rather than waiting to assess the situation a bit better, I’m going to go out on a limb and say you’re probably more comfortable with deadly force than the average person. Cries for justice ought to reasonably include why this man opened fire immediately.

Bad things happen. Sometimes bad things happen because of bad people, and in those situations the bad people should be held accountable. But not all bad things are matters of injustice or a matter of bad people. This is something that should be – and is – evident regardless of your ethnicity. Yet even ethnic minorities are denounced and vilified if they question or disagree with the mob justice mindset that insists on a particular verdict. Do the mobs have all the details and information the grand jury did? Is their shouting and blocking traffic a superior insight into the happenings of that fateful day? Does their anger somehow trump whatever facts are available?

Should it? Is that how we want verdicts reached – by whoever screams the loudest or makes the most intimidating threats?

Are the protestors demanding an end to grand juries? Are they demanding that police be disbanded? Are they demanding an end to no-knock warrants? Are they demanding a particular charge and conviction of murder in this particular case? Are they demanding other things not specific to this case but part of a larger agenda of change? And how will they respond if a larger or more vocal or more violent group of protestors shows up and demands just the opposite? Who decides who is right? Is it just a matter of starting to shoot and stab each other and see who is left at the end of the exchange? Or do we rather place our faith in a good albeit imperfect system of law, knowing that sometimes injustices will go unpunished, but that far more often than not justice will be done, and can be relied on to be done without protests and threats and violence?

If the laws need to be changed then work for change. But that change involves not simply making demands under threat of violence but wrestling with the difficult realities of a sinful and broken world where many bad people exist, and where most of them probably don’t wear a badge. If you want to agitate for change then know what it is you’re agitating for as well as what you’re agitating against. Because tragedy happens every single day. This doesn’t make it less tragic. But compounding tragedy with riots and threats of violence does make it more tragic, especially if you don’t really understand what it is you’re asking for or protesting against.

Blogging Curiosities

September 24, 2020

I’ve been at this for nearly 15 years, blogging on a regular basis. I never expected it would be a success by any sort of commercial or industrial metric. I never expected to earn revenue from it (and I don’t). I hoped to have some conversations with people, and that has happened.

I have a small following of regular readers (that I know about). A couple of dozen folks from past and present congregations. A little more than 250 followers through WordPress, but I don’t think about that much as I know many of them followed me in the hopes of building their own sites towards commercial viability. I generally get a couple of dozen visits per day, with fluctuation in both directions. Since moving my site to WordPress six years ago, my visitors and views have gradually increased each year. There are at least a few people who read, and that makes me happy.

But it’s interesting to me that yesterday I had double my usual number of visitors. I could pat my back for saying something people found interesting enough to share with friends, but that’s generally not my modus operandi. Rather, I find it curious that some of my visits yesterday came from China, and that yesterday’s post mentioned the conviction of a prominent Chinese opposition figure. I didn’t say much about it, just referenced it in passing. But it makes me wonder just how far-reaching the tentacles of geo-political monitoring go. Did I appear on some sort of Chinese radar for mentioning a related news story? Perhaps. Is that disturbing? Perhaps? Should it be more disturbing? Probably. But I’ll leave it at the curiosity level instead.

Cold Comfort

September 21, 2020

What a relief.

If a COVID vaccine in the United States turns out to be dangerous or unsafe, we know who we can blame. Dr. Anthony Fauci has assured MSNBC and the American public that if anything goes wrong with the vaccine process, he’ll take “the heat” for it and make sure we’re kept informed.

I’m sure he will. Whether he should or not is more complicated. But not as complicated as exactly what his taking “the heat” will actually accomplish. I assume at some level it means he’s willing to fall on his sword and resign in disgrace from his position if a vaccine is approved that turns out to be dangerous. Of course, with no long-term clinical studies ahead of time, it may well not be possible to know of potential problems with the vaccine until long after Dr. Fauci has either been replaced as political flotsam or retired peaceably or even died.

Worst case he’s still in office and has to retire. In which case I have no doubt there are plenty of sympathetic individuals and companies who would be happy to ensure he doesn’t end up homeless in exchange for the relative luster of even a disgraced former Surgeon General on their board or consulting with them and greasing the wheels of product development in a very convoluted bureaucracy.

Fauci might take some level of official blame, but that hardly means much. Not if you or your child or loved one is affected for life by unanticipated side effects of a vaccine. At the very worst, Fauci can rely on the passage of time and the dustbin of history to remove his name from common parlance and disparagement. But I guess that’s what those who might suffer side effects can count on as well. Nothing lasts forever, certainly not even life itself.

I’m not faulting Dr. Fauci or even MSNBC. This is political talk and it’s expected and perhaps has some place. But let’s be clear about the limitations of such talk. Having a scapegoat hopefully won’t be necessary. But if it is, nobody’s going to be very comforted by knowing who to point the finger at, no matter how willing that person is to be pointed at.

Replacements and Rhetoric

September 20, 2020

With the death of long-time Supreme Court justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the battle over her replacement begins. At least the public battle. Have no fear, folks on both sides of the political aisle have long been considering how this would go down, and her unfortunate failing health in the last year only accelerated those back room discussions. But now that she’s gone, you and I begin to be privy to the battle over her replacement.

The battle is accentuated because Ginsburg was noted for her steadfast ideological concerns over issues of reproductive health and gender. It’s unfortunate that the career of anyone should be boiled down to issues that probably occupied a relatively small percentage of her 27-year tenure, but there it is. Those who share her ideological views are adamant that her successor must embody those same ideological views and carry on her legacy. Those who disagree with her ideology see an opportunity to create long-lasting change in the Supreme Court.

Obviously, this disagreement is going to cause problems. And the problems have already begun. Prominent liberals are already threating violence if RBG’s seat is filled by the Republican controlled Senate and Oval Office prior to the election (and before the possibility of a shift in control to the Democrats of one or both branches of government).

Speaking of government and branches. Y’all remember your basic civics lessons, right? The division of our government into three different branches – Executive, Legislative and Judicial? Checks and balances, to ensure that no one person or group gains to great control over things? And as part of this checks and balances system, Supreme Court vacancies are filled by Presidential appointment with Senate approval (a process some have humorously expanded)?

It’s all about balance, presumably. And the funny thing about balance is that it’s rarely a matter of stasis. Like driver’s education used to teach, staying between the lane markers requires constant adjustments, which means at any given point in time you might be straying a bit to the left or a bit to the right, but through constant corrections you hopefully stay in your own lane and don’t go veering off the road. Or into someone else.

Ginsburg apparently forgot this concept when she allowed herself to disparage the process of checks and balances and judicial appointments. And both she and her supporters conveniently forget (and the media certainly isn’t going to help us with a pertinent history lesson) that Ginsburg replaced someone else, a Supreme Court justice by the name of Byron White. White was appointed to the Supreme Court by John F. Kennedy. White cast a dissenting vote in Roe v. Wade, meaning he voted against legalizing abortion. He also voted not only to outlaw capital punishment but to reinstate it under allegedly better legal conditions.

So Ginsburg herself hardly carried on the ideological bent of her predecessor. I’m sure if someone had suggested to her at any point in her career that her duty was to carry on the ideological leanings of a particular predecessor, she would have dismissed the idea as ludicrous and odious. It’s unfortunate if she really did express a desire that the process should be short-circuited intentionally, and that others would take the opinion or wish of any single person, no matter how beloved, as a pretext for a call to violence on a national level.

Supreme Court appointments are usually passionate affairs, at least in the last 40 years. The decisions have long-term effects on judicial rulings that impact law on a national level. It’s right that people want to see someone they agree with given the honor of serving in this capacity. But it’s unconscionable that anyone would advocate violence or a deliberate disrespect of the mechanisms that protect all of us by rule of law. Our elected legislators are quite good at utilizing or inventing all manner of mechanisms to sway things in their preferred direction, and there has only been one Supreme Court Justice nominated to the position in an election year (early in 1988, rather than a month or two before the election). But to call for violence, as though the law of the land has now become mob rule or might-makes-right is a sign of just how dangerous our current cultural and societal situation is.

And a sign of how important the law has become – or not become – whether at the Supreme Court level or otherwise.

Words Matter

September 19, 2020

As I’ve tried to argue here repeatedly over the last 14 years (!), words matter. Language matters, and we need to pay attention to what is being said and how it’s being said.

For instance, for the first time I can remember, the flu is being called a pandemic. I don’t argue whether or not the flu qualifies as a pandemic. I’m pretty sure it does – it affects a good portion of the world (at least I assume it does – I think press coverage of world health issues is normally pretty light, and since the flu recurs every year, there has been little interest historically in talking about it unless it’s somehow more dangerous or otherwise distinctive) and it affects a good portion of the population (in the neighborhood of 19 million Americans annually (as opposed to the estimated 6.7 million cases of Coronavirus reported in the US after 6 months).

What I do question is the curious fact that this year, the flu is being called a pandemic. Most of the news stories I see using this terminology are fear-mongering, painting dire possible scenarios since COVID-19 is ongoing as flu season begins. The other common denominator in stories referring to the flu as a pandemic is the emphasis on getting the flu shot.

The overall impact is one of creating fear. Fear is a particularly useful emotion as it is very powerful and hard to resist. It’s also hard to live with over a prolonged period of time (like, say six months or more) without some debilitating psychological, social, spiritual and even physical side effects beginning to manifest in some people. In a situation where one is afraid, the urge to remove the source of fear somehow can become nearly overwhelming.

How do you remove fear of illness? With the flu, the insistence is not on proper rest or diet or hygiene or anything else – it’s almost exclusively on getting the flu shot. It’s not that these other things aren’t recommended, it’s just that you never hear about them. The only thing that appears in the news and media is the importance of getting the flu shot, despite the fact the flu vaccine at best has effectiveness rates of 60% and regularly (four times between 2014 and 2019) still clocks in at less than 40% effectiveness. Still, the answer to easing fears about the flu is to get vaccinated.

Likewise, much emphasis has been placed on a vaccine as the answer to our Coronavirus fears. Certainly, government mandated social distancing and mask wearing is also emphasized, but particularly in the last month or two, the emphasis increasingly turns to vaccines and when they might be available. Part of this is due to the fact that like it or not, most people are resigned to the reality of masks and social distancing. There are mandated signs and other repeated emphases locally to reinforce these measures (though they are, at best, questionable as to the degree of their effectiveness).

So media decides to focus on the vaccine. As a political football (of course), and as the source to the end of our COVID-19 fears. Despite the fact there are nagging suspicions that immunity is short-lived (I’ve seen allegations of someone getting reinfected just a month after recovering from COVID-19. Other reports question anti-body likelihood after 12 months).

Vaccinations are the answer to our health fears. Health fears stoked in large part by incessant and uncontextualized media reporting. Big numbers provided in isolation from other numbers that might give them different meaning. Big numbers intended to create fear, and fear intended to be dealt with by recommended (and eventually, I’m sure, mandated) measures such as vaccinations.

Watch the language, folks. And watch what it does to you. I’m not saying there isn’t anything to be worried about. But what I am saying is the change in the way language is being used this year should be an equal source not just of curiosity but of concern and intrigue to you as well. Stay informed, but recognize that simply watching or reading the news is not enough to accomplish this.

Yes,the Press Is Biased

September 16, 2020

Great article linking to another great article about woefully inadequate press coverage of anti-Christian vandalism and other kinds of attacks – here in the United States (obviously there’s little interest at home in the press for anti-Christian activities elsewhere – we’ve known that for a long time).

Buyer Beware or Unaware?

August 19, 2020

One of those nagging little facts I retain for no particular reason is a phrase I learned in my high school economics class my senior year – caveat emptor. A Latin phrase which means let the buyer beware. The basic concept is that in any given transaction, the one handing over money for goods or services should beware to the best of their ability they are not being taken advantage of. This could be in purchasing a faulty product or not studying the terms of service carefully (a common problem these days when Terms and Conditions of products can be very lengthy and very small print!). If you aren’t careful about how you buy, you might be taken advantage of. Don’t simply trust blindly.

It’s an important concept, as it presumes the buyer is capable of being wary. That they have the requisite skills and understanding to make decisions regarding who they give their money to and in exchange for what. It was a fundamental, undergirding principle of our country for a long time, though I’m not so sure it is any longer.

Of course the buyer can’t possibly know everything. Laws have been created and passed to give buyers protections. Did that new big-screen TV not work out of the box like promised? The seller or the manufacturer or your credit card company – and likely all three – provide you with some level of protection from the reality that despite best intentions and through no deliberate attempt to defraud, goods and services don’t function the way they should.

That’s a far cry from assuming consumers are too stupid to know what they’re doing. But more and more, the assumption seems to be that consumers shouldn’t be held at all responsible for the decisions they make, and that experts should take that responsibility for them.

One example of this is in the field of health care and insurance. Since costs for health care and healthcare insurance continue to skyrocket (perhaps because the system is faulty?!?), and because more and more health insurance companies are covering procedures that are elective in nature and passing the costs on to others (gender change surgeries, abortions, etc.), it’s an important arena for consumers to be aware in. Sometimes it’s simply a matter of taking whatever your employer provides. Other times, you have options or choices, either through your employer or because you are self-employed. Even with your employer, there are usually various options and plans to select from a given provider, and so the consumer is still required to beware what they are purchasing or paying for is really what they want and need.

For seven years now my family has been a member of a health sharing ministry. This decision was made because of concerns of the changes in health insurance in terms of what they decided they would cover (and therefore what we would be helping to pay for), particularly in terms of abortions. We did our research, I talked with at least one person who had been a member for years already, and we read and reread the fine print. Samaritan Ministries did a good job then and now of clearly stating what we were and were not getting and what was and was not covered. We understood not everything was covered, and we understood that our membership and ability to submit needs for coverage was based on a shared set of Christian principles in terms of how we live our lives.

Had our health situations changed substantially (we’re all basically healthy), this might not have been a good option or an option we needed to leave behind. But we’ve so far not ever regretted the decision to move to Samaritan Ministries, and we genuinely feel good, knowing we are helping other Christians in their needs.

But, caveat emptor. And so when I saw this article pop up in a news feed the other day warning against such programs, I naturally read it. After all, regardless of how I feel about something, I want to be well informed.

Firstly, the article is primarily politically motivated, in opposition to a move by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to allow health sharing ministries to be considered a form of health insurance and therefore allowing participants to potentially claim their expenses as deductions on their taxes. The article perceived this as an attack on Obamacare (the Affordable Care Act) since it could entice more people to leave traditional health insurance plans and participate in health sharing ministries instead. This would reduce the number of healthy people paying into insurance plans and drive up insurance costs. The goal of the author is to protect the costs of those participating in health insurance plans, rather than to honestly evaluate whether there might be viable alternatives to such plans that could – using market forces – pause or reverse some of the spiraling costs of health care and health insurance. The author’s irritation that health sharing ministries are less expensive than many health insurance plans is palpable.

One particular critique is that health sharing ministries aren’t as comprehensive in their coverage. This is very true. There are many things our membership with Samaritan Ministries don’t cover. This is part of the appeal for us, in some ways, as we don’t want to be funding abortions if we can help it. In other ways, it does serve as a reinforcement to pay attention to our membership and potential needs. If we developed a health condition not covered by our membership, we’d need to evaluate whether we could remain members or not. Likewise, when I’ve been asked by others about our experience, I’ve emphasized that while it works for us, it may not work for everyone and they need to pay attention very carefully to the fine print.

Also as our needs have changed, I’ve been proactive in asking questions of Samaritan. When our oldest son left home for an internship a few weeks ago, I needed to ensure he was still considered part of our family plan, or else we’d need to help him get his own individual plan with Samaritan (or a different insurance plan if he decided to go that route). In all such communications Samaritan has been clear and forthright and prompt. Sometimes less coverage is exactly what you want, because you know you aren’t ever going to need some of the things that aren’t covered.

Yes, this means that someone with a pre-existing condition who opts for a health sharing ministry could end up with some substantial bills they need to pay on their own. That’s why they need to read the fine print very carefully. Yes, someone could simply see the lower monthly share amount and decide it was best to switch out of traditional health insurance to save some money on a monthly basis, and because they ignored the principle of caveat emptor, they could end up hurting themselves financially when things they assumed would be covered aren’t covered. This isn’t because the health sharing ministry is being dishonest or attempting to defraud people. Rather, it’s because health sharing ministries by default and design cover fewer things than traditional health insurance does. That’s not bad (at least it doesn’t have to be) but it does require paying attention to details.

Not that this keeps people from insulting health sharing ministries and, by extension, those who find them valuable.

The Los Angeles Times ran a rather bitter column on the topic of the proposed IRS changes. “Healthcare experts” are invoked nebulously as disapproving of health sharing ministries because of “substandard coverage”, ignoring the fact some such health sharing ministries are intentionally providing less coverage for certain things deemed necessary and essential by experts, such as abortions and elective surgeries for gender reassignment.

I’ll assume the columns assertions that sometimes these plans are marketed in less than honest ways might sometimes happen. Frankly, I don’t see many advertisements for these plans out there, but still, I’m sure it could conceivably happen. That doesn’t mean the plan or ministry itself is dishonest. Unless of course they’re deliberately misleading people, in which case they should be held accountable as any provider of goods or services should be – and not simply because they’re health sharing ministries.

Nineteen state attorney generals think the proposed IRS changes are illegal because of a lack of analysis of the outcomes, and because it could be damaging to existing health insurance markets. Why is it that we are guarding against potential competition in this market? Oh yeah, that’s right. Because this is a government mandated and controlled market to some extent now, and the government apparently didn’t consider the possibility of competition messing up the amazing numbers it used to convince our lawmakers to approve it. Gee. I guess we should just stick with the status quo despite there being potentially good alternatives that give the power and decision making back to the people rather than the government.

Because people apparently aren’t capable of being wary or informed in their decision making. So let’s just eliminate options for them. Much simpler. Very American. Not.

The author asserts that my health sharing ministry is offering me junk, and I’m stupid enough to buy it. While that’s always potentially true (even of insurance companies) my experience thus far is that this is not the case. To assert otherwise in such broad brushstrokes displays the very type of willful or unavoidable ignorance the author is accusing me of possessing and seeks to protect me from.

Unfortunate.

The New York Times weighed in as well with an emotional piece about a young boy with a tragic illness. The implication in the article is that this poor family is going to be ruined because they are members of a health sharing ministry instead of an insurance company. The article has multiple compelling photos of the young boy in various stages of health, and essentially paints the picture this family is being left out to dry by their health sharing ministry – Samaritan Ministries, the same one we use.

But nowhere is that specified in the article.

Instead, the severity of the boy’s situation and treatment and the likely costs of such treatment will likely exceed the cap on per incident issues. Ignoring the fact that Samaritan negotiates with healthcare providers for reduced charges because they will be paid via cash rather than having to jump through insurance hoops hoping for reimbursement. And despite the specific fact – mentioned but lost in the shuffle in the article – that Samaritan has a program specifically to help in such extreme situations. The boy’s family hasn’t been cheated or misled or anything, and there’s no certainty yet the bills will exceed the incident cap, or that Samaritan won’t cover up to the cap, and that there may not be additional funds to help them.

But just the possibility that there could be a problem is enough to justify the attack article. Despite the fact the father defends Samaritan in terms of previous issues they’ve submitted for coverage. Still not good enough.

So, after reading these various articles, I come back to to what my high school economics teacher, Mr. Conway, taught me. Caveat emptor. Know what you’re doing to the best of your ability. But also recognize you can’t know everything, and nothing is guaranteed. The authors of these various articles all give the common impression that health insurance coverage is guaranteed, yet I’m sure we all know someone who was told their coverage wouldn’t be as extensive as they were led to believe, or who were denied coverage for a particular issue.

The New York Times article mocks the company’s exhortation for members to trust in God. But that’s just what it’s members do. Not simply a claim of Christian faith is required for membership but also reasonably verifiable evidence of regular church attendance. Members do trust God, and that’s part of the point of Samaritan Ministries – is faith not simply as a pleasant sounding mantra but something that guides the decisions we make and the money we spend and how we spend it.

I pray these authors never run up against the unpleasant truth that health insurance is not a guarantee of financial safety and security. And I pray they might reconsider whether deliberately opting for programs that don’t cover everything is the same thing as receiving “substandard” care, and whether the potential for misunderstanding is the same as duplicity.

Watch Lists

August 17, 2020

Governor Newsom of California introduced the idea of a county watchlist in mid-July as he ordered reimplementation of some of the restrictions placed on the state as a whole in mid-March at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. In July, it was announced that rather than state-wide restrictions, restrictions would be on a county-by-county basis. The six criteria by which counties would be evaluated are:

  • Are more than 150 COVID-19 tests per day per 100,0000 residents being administered? If yes, this is bad. If no, this is good.
  • Are there more than 100 new cases reported per 100,000 residents over the past 14 days? If so, this is bad. If the numbers are lower, this is good.
  • Are there more than 25 new cases per 100,000 residents, or more than an 8% positivity rate on on tests administered? No is good, yes is bad.
  • Has there been a 10% or greater increase in COVID-19 hospitalized patients over the past three days? No is good, yes is bad.
  • Are Intensive Care Units at 80% capacity or more? Yes is bad, no is good.
  • Are 75% or more of available ventilators being utilized? No is good, yes is bad.

Some of these criteria seem straightforward and others are somewhat nebulous. How many ventilators does my county have? How many could it obtain if needed? Who determines how many tests are administered and on what basis? My county is currently administering more than 200 tests per day on average, as of yesterday. Who decides that and on what basis? The other area of failure for my county is the cases reported per 100,000 residents a day. We’re at ~150 new cases per 100,000.

But what does this mean? Are there more than 150 new cases of active COVID-19 cases being discovered per day? Again, according the data provided on a daily basis from our County Public Health Department, no. Tests are administered, large numbers of cases are added to the reported total, but the number of actively infected people has remained constant or decreased since mid-July. Here are the numbers of ACTIVE COVID-19 CASES in our county, as gleaned from the e-mails Public Health sends out:

  • July 15 – 334
  • July 16 – 414
  • July 17 – 401
  • July 20 – 274
  • July 21 – 295
  • July 22 – 350
  • July 23 – 361
  • July 24 – 369
  • July 27 – 308
  • July 28 – 333
  • July 30 – 290
  • July 31 – 249
  • August 4 – 227
  • August 6 – 205
  • August 7 – 198
  • August 10 – 306
  • August 12 – 310
  • August 14 – 290
  • August 17 – 278

Our County reached a peak level of infections in late July, and has remained consistently well below that peak ever since, despite a slight spike the second week of August. An average rate of 304 cases per provided data point from the County. The State of California claims our infection rate per 100,000 residents is just over 150. But that apparently is a measure of all positive test results rather than active, current infections. Why this is the measure I don’t understand, frankly, other than that it’s an attempt to mitigate obvious errors in reporting and other mistakes human beings make all the time, and which California in particular has had a good share of in the past few months, culminating in the resignation of the state’s highest public health official.

Still problematic to me that you would shutter entire industries, curtail Constitutional rights all for an infection that on average over the last month has affected roughly 7% of our county population and resulted in only 80 deaths over the past five months.

Political Suggestion

July 27, 2020

Perhaps like you, my town is starting to be dotted with notices of businesses closing. Doors shutting for good after being forced to shut down as part of the grand social sacrifice to stop the spread of the coronavirus. I’ve heard little mention through official channels of remorse for these closures, the preliminary wave of what I expect will be a much larger wave continuing on into the years ahead of us. I’ll assume our leaders presume loan monies are adequate to sustain businesses shuttered for months on end.

The signs and notices around town tell a different story.

Of course most of our elected officials don’t have businesses to run. Their salaries as well as their premiere health benefits are guaranteed through tax dollars. They can literally weather the pandemic indefinitely, determining who closes and who opens without any serious personal risk themselves. I’m sure they know people who are affected. At least I hope they do. I hope somebody close to them has lost their business or their health insurance. Not out of vindictiveness but so our leaders have an accurate measure of the economic and psychological pain being caused through prolonged closures.

For an illness that is far less lethal than we originally feared.

In some ways I imagine it is like royalty in centuries past. While the masses of people beneath them might be struggling through catastrophe, the wealth of the aristocracy could effectively insulate them from those effects, or allow them to relocate for a period of time. Responsiveness suffers when there is sufficient buffer between the reality of the electorate and the reality of those elected.

So a suggestion.

For as long as some businesses must remain closed or at much reduced capacity, those elected leaders responsible for mandating the closures should endure a commensurate level of economic suffering as well. As long as there are businesses not allowed to reopen, all officials from the Governor down to the local elected leaders should not draw any salary. They should be entitled to unemployment benefits like everyone else, for which they must file like everyone else. They should have the same health insurance coverages – or lack thereof – of anyone else on unemployment. This situation should continue until mandatory closures are lifted and businesses can reopen.

If businesses are allowed to reopen (or continue operating) but at reduced capacity, all officials from the Governor down to locally elected leaders will only draw salary and benefits directly proportional to the reduction in capacity they are mandating for others. If restaurants can only serve half the customers, government officials should draw half salaries.

In the case of varying levels of closures or reductions in capacity mandated, government official compensation will be tied to the most restrictive mandates currently in force.

Again, this is not intended to be punitive. At least no more punitive than the existing closures and restrictions. But it is intended to lend an air of urgency to a very real and pressing catastrophe that many of our elected officials seem to be personally unaffected by. Their salaries continue as they order others into unemployment. Their benefits packages continue to operate without a blink while others are at risk of losing health coverage and any number of other benefits tied to employment and the overall economic health of an employer and the economy at large.

This would motivate our leaders to be more creative in addressing the issue than simply ordering people to stay in their homes and close down their businesses. It should motivate our leaders to be more creative than simply adding trillions of dollars to our national debt in bailout payments or destroying state budgets through loss of tax revenues.

If our leaders share our pain and our concerns, I have to believe they will be far more motivated to figure out solutions that everyone benefits from. This can’t go on indefinitely, or even through the end of the calendar year as some people (academics, government officials or others without any real skin in the game in terms of personal finances) are prone to warning us.

Thoughts?

Coronavirus Roundup

July 23, 2020

A few miscellaneous items related to the COVID-19 pandemic, mostly in the United States but also around the world as well. After all, who can escape the daily headlines with staggering infection counts and updated fatality tallies? And if these things are being reported so loudly and often, they must be important, right?

Certainly they are important. It’s not as though Coronavirus appears to be fictional. The question becomes what sort of important are they, and how do we make sense of them with other important things?

For instance, we’re being quoted daily the number of new fatalities linked to COVID-19. Certainly we don’t get daily death tallies for other illnesses, diseases, or accidents. Surely the death figures for COVID-19 must be devastatingly abnormal? Surely far more people are dying in 2020 – and primarily related to COVID-19 – than in other years?

What if that doesn’t appear to be the case? What if death rates aren’t massively higher than in other recent years? Could that tell us anything about Coronavirus or how it’s being treated or reported?

More and more I hear different industry experts and commentators talking about how they don’t anticipate any change in how things are being done right now until a safe and effective vaccine is developed. Considering vaccines aren’t necessarily discoverable on demand, this seems like a problematic place to lodge your hope. Add to that how effective or safe is defined with no long-term studies and things get further complicated. And add to that the possibility that antibodies may not last, or may not act like other antibodies and it gets even more complicated. After all it would be pretty frustrating to push (or demand) everyone get vaccinated only to find it didn’t offer long-lasting protection.

And protection is what we’re after, right? We want to know we’re being protected. That’s what our governments are there to help do, right? Protect us?

Or maybe just some of us?

Evidently some people aren’t as deserving of protection as other folks, which is disturbing to say the least. But this is an issue European nations find far less disturbing now than they did when, say, the Nazis were deciding which people merited living and which ones didn’t. At least this is Great Britain we’re talking about, rather than America.

Oh, whoops. Perhaps the problem isn’t as distant from the land of the free as we’d like to imagine.

So this COVID-19 thing has a lot of dimensions to it. But in the midst of it, don’t think that while your businesses and schools and churches might be shut down, that your legislators have stopped working on their pet projects.

AB 2218 was introduced into the California Legislature back in February of this year. In other words, a lifetime ago in Coronavirus terms. I’m sure it didn’t seem so unusual back then, wanting to take money from the general fund to specially fund and provide for transgender individuals and their very specific needs. Whatever those are, as defined by special interest groups where the president/CEO is transgender and 75% of the employees are transgender (Section 2.f.2.A-C). Doesn’t sound like a very diverse workplace, frankly.

Back then in February, it was apparently suggested that a specific amount of money be appropriated from the General Fund for these very vague purposes. Fifteen million dollars ($15,000,000). However despite the pandemic raging and society crumbling and all that, this bill was amended in Assembly not once but twice (May and June). Somewhere in those amendments the dollar amount was eliminated. Meaning there is theoretically – or literally – no limit to how much money from the General Fund could be appropriated for these purposes. After all, this Bill clearly defines the huge need. It asserts at least 218,400 Californians identify as transgender. That’s a huge number. But considering California has an estimated 40,000,000 residents (and that’s probably a low figure given our very hospitable attitude towards unregistered folks), the figure comes out somewhere in the neighborhood of .00546 percent of our overall population.

Now there are roughly double the number of Coronavirus infections (remember Coronavirus? That’s where we started this post!) in California as transgendered people. I think it’s safe to say that the Coronavirus case numbers will grow much more rapidly than the transgendered numbers. And currently most of the counties in this state are under some sort of restrictions or lockdowns due to inadequate medical facilities to handle the potential surge in need for hospital beds and ICUs and qualified medical staff.

So why in the world would our lawmakers decide that right now, in the middle of a pandemic when California is reporting more cases of COVID-19 than any other state in the country, right now we should free up unlimited funds for the support of transgender folks? Why aren’t they figuring out how to direct more funds to those areas areas with the least medical support or the highest rates of hospitalizations? Or at least I’d think they’d be working tirelessly to direct any available funding towards relief of from the Coronavirus, and providing support services for people and families who have lost their jobs and businesses and savings.

So yeah, curious times to be sure. Good to keep your eyes and ears open. You never know what you might learn.