Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
The Dangers of Political Science
The December issue of The American Journal of Medicine includes an editorial titled, “Public Health Strategies Contain and Mitigate COVID-19: A Tale of Two Democracies.” Wow, what a majestic title for a medical journal article. It begins with this paragraph:
On January 19, 2020, the first cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) were introduced by travelers from Wuhan, China, the initial epicenter, into both South Korea and the United States. In this commentary, we compare the responses of both democratic republics and demonstrate that the immediate and nationally coordinated public health strategies employed by South Korea effectively contained and mitigated their epidemic. In contrast, the US government mounted a delayed and fragmented response, becoming and remaining the worldwide epicenter of the pandemic.
This might strike you as an odd comparison. South Korea has about 50 million people, and The United States has around 330 million. The population density of South Korea is nearly 15 times greater than The United States – about 515 people per km2 in South Korea vs. about 36 people per km2 in the USA. South Korea’s population is much less diverse, more urban, and has a very different cultural background than America’s. America’s landmass is enormous and highly variable in terms of climate, landscape, and population density, while South Korea is much smaller and more densely populated. The United States is, well, a group of states – each of which is very different from the others, and each of which has its own locally elected governors and legislatures. It makes no sense for Wyoming to take the same approach as New Jersey on various matters, so they often don’t. One might expect the US response to be more “fragmented” than a smaller, more homogeneous country like South Korea. And that fragmented response might make a lot of sense in such a large, diverse group of states.
So why would someone choose to compare those two countries? They would seem to be apples and oranges. Keep that question in mind as we move forward…
In an effort to contrast South Korea to the US, the authors begin the second paragraph with the following sentence, which include the words “promptly” and “efficiently”:
Upon report of the country’s first case, South Korea promptly and efficiently instituted nationally coordinated strategies of containment and mitigation.
A bit later in the article, the authors criticize some American politicians and citizens for questioning the benefit of masks:
Masking in the United States has been politicized despite clear scientific evidence of effectiveness.
Well, ok, that’s true – there is clear evidence that masks help. But there is also clear evidence that they don’t help. (The Mount Sinai study and the Danish study, for example. Not to mention the society-wide data on masks is unclear at best.) This is a common problem in medicine. There are often some studies that show clear evidence of one thing, other studies that show clear evidence of something else, and doctors are left to judge which results are most applicable in various situations based on various criteria.
There is clear evidence of many things, so it can be hard to say which “clear evidence” is correct. The phrase “clear evidence of effectiveness” would be very difficult to defend with data. The data would begin a discussion. But no one really knows for sure.
Much of what I learned in medical school (based on “clear evidence” of the time) is malpractice now. No one really knows for sure.
Now, this journal article is an editorial, so they are simply giving their opinions. They are not beholden to data when writing an editorial. But they are physicians, writing in a medical journal, so one might expect the authors to be a bit more careful with sweeping statements like that.
But hey, these physicians who work in academic settings are under a lot of pressure from a lot of angles, so I can overlook much of the grandstanding that I describe above. Fine. Whatever.
But then I get to the last paragraph, which begins thusly:
We strongly concur with all responsible health professionals that there is an urgent need for a unified national approach to implementation of effective public health mitigation strategies such as social distancing, masking, avoidance of crowds, and frequent hand and face washing. These simple measures are likely to be at least as effective as any safe vaccine that may be developed and approved for widespread use by the general public.
Ok. That crosses a line, in my view. Actually, it crosses a few lines:
“We strongly concur with all responsible health professionals…” So all who agree with them are responsible, and those who take a different view are not responsible. Right. Ok, so if I study this complex problem and reach different conclusions than these esteemed authors, then there is no reason for us to discuss the matter and try to learn from one another. No, I’m simply not a ‘responsible health professional‘ in that case, and can be ignored and treated with disdain.
How many scientific blunders throughout history occurred because people wouldn’t listen to dissenting views?
“…there is an urgent need for a unified national approach to implementation of effective public health mitigation strategies…” Yikes.
When someone combines a casual disregard for scientific uncertainty with a call “…for a unified national approach…” as agreed upon by “…all responsible health professionals…” – geez, that makes my skin crawl. We are sailing into some very dangerous waters, here.
Some of what they’re recommending is probably reasonable. But their adolescent certainty of their own insight and virtue makes my skin crawl.
“These simple measures are likely to be at least as effective as any safe vaccine…” Ok, that’s an absolutely incredible assertion. When you look at COVID data from counties, states, and countries that took various different approaches, it’s difficult to find a pattern – did their “national approach to implementation of effective public health mitigation strategies” actually help? Probably, some. Perhaps. Hard to say, in some cases. But hey, these things are complicated, right?
The vaccines we have now claim a 90% reduction in COVID cases. Can any “national approach to implementation of effective public health mitigation strategies” that we’ve seen so far get anywhere close to a 90% reduction in COVID cases? Of course not.
The cynic in me suspects that when they say, “These simple measures are likely to be at least as effective as any safe vaccine…” that all they’re really trying to say is that when COVID starts to improve, whenever that is, it will be thanks to whatever President Biden is about to do, and not thanks to President Trump’s vaccine. That’s a tricky assertion to substantiate, so they make no effort to do so. At least, no serious effort to do so. They simply assert. They do not substantiate. And again, in an editorial, that is not an unusual approach.
But these are physicians, writing in the American Journal of Medicine. I might expect more.
Or rather, I wish I expected more. The long slow march through the institutions has now conquered academia and research. Which is a tragic loss for us all, as we are now learning. American universities and scientific research are a big part of what made this country great.
We politicize such important institutions at our peril.
So a group of academics wants to pre-emptively rob a Republican president of credit for fighting COVID by helping develop a vaccine. Fine. It’s your name on the article, not mine. Go ahead.
But then they write an editorial with some things that are probably true (handwashing helps), and some things that might be true (masks help), with some things that are obviously not true (These simple measures are likely to be at least as effective as any safe vaccine…). They casually summarize complex and conflicted data with a wave of the hand, and then authoritatively declare that anyone who disagrees with their “urgent need for a unified national approach to implementation of effective public health mitigation strategies” is not a responsible health professional.
So they mix good data with bad, find in that complex data a consistent pattern that does not exist, and demand that we all follow a plan of centralized control, much of which isn’t clear to have benefit.
They then pre-emptively declare that any who are foolish enough to question them are dangerous radicals. So those who want to control society based on questionable data are just being reasonable. But those who stop and think about all this are radicals.
Right.
When our doctors and scientists say things that are so clearly politically biased, they discredit everything else they say (including the stuff that’s probably true). Some of what they say is important and merits our careful attention. But why listen to them now? They’re just playing politics.
These are dangerous waters…
Published in General
“… US government mounted a delayed and fragmented response, becoming and remaining the worldwide epicenter of the pandemic. …”
Is the US the “epicenter” – wait, the worldwide epicenter of the pandemic…? COVID-19 thus flows from the US to the rest of the world due to the collective “our” not reacting accordingly?
Spa fon! Nonsense, says my BS detector. Is this rag actually a respected journal? Is its readership in lockstep agreement?
That’s some pretty bad writing from scienticians. They’re wrong all over the place, and proudly strutting about it.
When we finally decide to tar and feather our political “leadership”, let’s save a few buckets for these chowderheads. Also, this is a good reminder to not get sick, since these same chowderheads practice medicine.
When I went to school, Politics was still part of the History Department.
No they don’t. They’re academics. They tell the rest of us how to practice medicine.
Which is another danger of political science…
I agree, and my oldest daughter has her degree in Math and Computer Science. I too prefer Software Engineering or Programming over Computer Science . . .
Political science:
“Is Political Science really a science?”
To answer, one must make a decision.
According to some psychologists, each of us prefers to use one of two methods when making decisions. The Myers-Briggs people call these “T” and “F”.
Type F decision-makers will tend to decide on “Yes” or “No”, as Stad did.
Type T folks will tend to choose “It depends. What is your definition of “science”?
I bring it up because I use “T”, and there may be a few other members who do, too.
Unfortunately, if you wish to communicate with one of us, you will have to, temporarily at least, adopt our method.
Why is it up to you to change? Is that fair? You all are large majority, after all.
No it is not fair, but it’s the only possible way of bridging the vast communication gap between the Ts and the Fs. Once a person has switched from F to T, as all of us T-type problem solvers did at some point in our lives, it is literally impossible for him or her to go back.
For some reason this article brought to mind the fall of Rojas Pinilla in Colombia, but sort of reversed. Rojas was put in charge by the powers that be who were fighting each other to the death, tearing the country apart, but like all dictators after bringing peace he didn’t want to leave. The story I heard from a key journalist in the midst of it all, once it was clear both parties and almost all of the people wanted to get rid of him, a broad and deep anti Rojas movement exploded forth. The movement was real, country wide, and supported by ordinary families when the verbal story spread country wide overnight that Rojas had fallen. He hadn’t, the journalist told me, but the celebration was so wide and deep there was nothing Rojas could do except step down.
So what reminded me of this? It’s sort of on its head. The people sit quietly wanting Trump to have won, and real evidence is that he did in a landslide, but democrats, organized interests and the bureaucracy asserts Biden won and everyone sort of goes along, including the courts and both party leaders who found Trump troublesome to the way they like to exercise political power.
So there may be nothing similar, but it popped in my mind as I read this excellent article because in the Colombian case mass movement was ignited and worked against a narrowly supported dictator. In our democratic system voters elected Trump but the establishment is asserting and the press is confirming that Biden won. I don’t think we can sit around and if we do I don’t think we’ll get another chance for many years to unseat the top down dictatorship that will be deepened and expanded.
Actually the hand washing part along with excessive cleaning of surfaces appears to not be true either in public settings. Due to how influenza spreads. Granted there is only like 3 or 4 studies on each in a public setting only one showed it really helped but it was a culture with no handwashing.
Unlike Mask in medical facilities, extra hand washing (10+ times a day) even in medical facilities does not appear to help much.
Plus how helpful mask are per Danish study is what I told people I thought it would be back in the summer after reading the 2004 SARS mask studies from hospital setting. Being disciplined with cotton mask help a little (not much). (300 people have to wear a mask to stop one additional case)
98%+ of people wearing mask don’t follow the Danish mask protocols and don’t have high grade medical mask. Therefore the other studies come into play. Mask are worthless.
From researchers who have study the issue before COVID-19 that I have seen interviews with. They basically say there is almost nothing you can due to stop the spread at large once the virus got out. You can only reduce risking in specific areas but a little or get a Vaccine.
The lie public health officials brainwash people into believing the control they and the population have in the long run (short run it appears to only delay) is criminal and manslaughter ( Don’t use the words lightly but the evidence is pretty strong).
I think the 94% vaccine number sounds impressive but if the study I heard about but have not read is true then the vaccine is helpful. But the numbers are phrased to make it sound way more effective than it is. If 80% of people who get COVID-19 are asymptotic (the 50% I believe you hear stated is only the one in eight who test positive for COVID-19 that get COVID-19). And they way they phrase it is that 94% of people (in a very small sample aka 94 people getting COVID-19) don’t show any symptoms when they get COVID-19 who had the vaccine.
You can see the marketing BS they are trying to pull. Heck I don’t always trust my own doctor because they are full of it at times and don’t care about root cause analysis and the science. So it does not surprise me a political organization is even worse at something that is messy from a messaging standpoint.
Also I question that if you can even call South Korea Democratic anymore after their massive voter Fraud in April that appears to be supported by China
You just don’t hear about it because in South Korea the Government can go after their media organizations for stating factual statements if it disparages someone unless its in the public interest. I will give you one guess who decides what is in the public interest?
–As I have pointed out to a lot of people, that is what those in power want you to believe. But every day I see more and more people realizing that something is wrong and are taking steps to do something about it.
–7 States have sent duel sets of electors for the first time in nearly 150 years! Trump will be giving monthly rallies forever about how this election was stolen from him and from all his voters.
–I dont know what the establishment thought was going to happen? But clearly they are clueless and ripe for being knocked over by a revolutionary moment. Reminds me a lot of the 1991 coup against Gorbachev.
The lockdowns and other measures that have devastated the economy have accomplished one thing. We have had no flu season this year. Yes, I am being ironic as I assume the flu cases are all lumped with the more remunerative Covid.
By probable coincidence, I recognized AMA corruption about the same time. I was a delegate from California and quit soon after attending the June convention, which is all about dividing up the spoils.
Grants ! When they say it is not about the Benjamins, it is about the Benjamins.
Exactly ! I arrived at Dartmouth for a year studying health policy in 1994. The faculty was still recovering from Hillary’s loss and the 1994 election came along right after I arrived. These guys had been the source of Hillary care. No wonder they were depressed. Not one of them had any experience in front line care.
If you really wanted to “control” the spread, you might look here:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/german-town-finds-a-blueprint-for-lowering-covid-19-deaths-11609257334?mod=searchresults_pos1&page=1
The Great Barrington Declaration enacted.
Why do I think that lack of testing for flu means there is no flu is a cartload of BS?
People still die from Pneumonia and Influenza.
You understand, of course, how this is being interpreted by the CDC: “Wow, we may not have ‘flattened the curve’ for the covid-19 virus, but we have found the way to rid the world of influenza.”
This is also bugging me.
My daughter gave her brother (my son) a blank book for Christmas: Things I Was Right About. Longest-Christmas-morning-laughter-in-our-family laughter record. :-)
I want one of these books! Because I am positive that the covid-19 virus is somehow overpowering the influenza virus in the war among microorganisms. I can’t prove that, but I’m sure I’m right. :-) Unfortunately, at the moment, the lack of flu cases is being put in the CDC’s win column, to the peril of all of us. :-)
Coroners still report deaths related to P&I.
I’m watching this now. It was made recently, December 17, 2020.
The video is certainly an interesting presentation. Thank you.
The American Society for Microbiology is as interested as I am :-) in the relationship between the influenza and SARS CoV-2 microorganisms. This article was written in October 2020:
As I have called them for years, #LabCoatLeft — that term sprang to mind when I saw the video of all the leftists on the White House lawn putting on white lab coats for the ObamaCare celebration.
@MarciN go back to JohnEHoover for more exposition how WORLDWIDE reporting of the flu stopped in March.
The data used is from coroners, on Pneumonia & Influenzema and Covid.
Additionally, note that the CDC seems to now aggregate published data for P&I and covid.
#iamjohncullen uses data buried in the CDC, as a check against what the CDC puts on the front of its website.
My point is that those deaths are included in the WuFlu numbers.
Half of whom were not MDs. The few MDs were young women employed by hospitals.
Deployed.
Well they are, going forward. Last year thise data were not aggregated. But the CDC is conveniently blurring the lines now.
I just interviewed a kid today who had a Bachelors in Econ and just finished a Masters in Poly Sci. What I discovered was that the work he was doing was really micro-based Behavioral Economics. So I might be able to use him after all.
I know there’s been a lot of bad testing and reporting on the flu and SARS CoV-2 viruses this past year.
And it’s always been that way. I have had a long-standing beef with the CDC for years. I blame them partly for the too-high number of pediatric deaths from “flu” each year. In their desire to push the cheap flu shots, a desire I appreciate, and in their desire to keep antibiotic-resistant superbugs from developing, again, a desire I appreciate, they have pressured physicians to not prescribe antibiotics and parents to not ask for them. They do not talk about secondary infections clearly and emphatically enough.
Parents should be told every flu season how to identify a secondary infection. And doctors should be prescribing antibiotics if the child is way too sick and got that sick too quickly. Because they have muddied the information they give out on the flu, the result has been that (a) doctors in ERs are being too slow to prescribe antibiotics for secondary infections that occur in children who have the flu and (b) parents do not know what to watch for. I think there are far too many pediatric deaths each year from “flu” when we have antibiotics that will treat these secondary infections if they are caught in time.
And I know the testing has been screwed up this year–it was an unusually warm year globally this year (I am not a climate change nut, but for some reason, sun spots or underwater volcanoes, it was warm), and there were more microorganisms than usual, which was the reason the first tests were rejected by the CDC–they were picking up too much noise and not enough signal.
And I also believe that way back in December and January, the uptick in flu cases we were seeing everywhere in northern United States (a big uptick on Cape Cod at that time) was not the flu but the covid-19 virus. That’s my guess. How would we know? There were no tests until March. The symptoms look the same by the time people arrive at death’s door.
Then the hospitals started counting flu deaths as covid-19 deaths.
These statistics have been so unreliable that I stopped looking at them.
All that said, the disappearance of the flu is somewhat global, so it’s not the fault of our CDC or the WHO. It really seems to have disappeared. And one reason might be some interaction between the covid-19 virus and the influenza virus that occurs within a host. Perhaps the covid-19 virus is creating an inhospitable environment somehow. I just find it really interesting. :-)