Coronavirus Newsletter - The Simplicity

 

The Simplicity / General Update / Comparing Countries / The Anti Hype

I think that over the past few weeks, I've been writing super long newsletters as I think I've gotten overexcited about a new home for these newsletters. Previously I had been doing them on Facebook, but here they are now ... permanently for all to see. And it appears that I felt to restate much of what I had already said over on Facebook, just to have summaries all in one place.

So, from here on I'm going to work back to doing shorter articles.

Today, I'm talking about simplicity.

The Simplicity

If I had to condense all of epidemiology into one goal it would be this:

To get R(t) less than 1.0.

This is mathematically equivalent to saying: To get active cases to drop.

If you've already seen my newsletter on Herd Immunity, then you already know what R(t) is and how it is different from R(0). As a reminder, R(0) = the initial rate of spread of a disease at the beginning of an outbreak. (This coronavirus is estimated to be between 2.0 and 6.0.) And R(t) is the current rate of spread, which can be achieved through artificial means.

What happens if you get R(t) under 1.0? It means that the virus starts dying out, and is eventually eradicated.

All the complexities that you keep hearing about ... the masks, the lockdowns, the social distancing strategies, and the contact tracing are all working toward that one simple goal: R(t) < 1.0.

If you haven't seen this video simulating epidemic math (which I've shared a million times already), I strongly recommend you watch it now ... the best 20 minutes you'll ever spend if you truly want to understand how a sickness spreads. This guy is funny, clear, and finds simple ways to explain complex topics, and from it all, you can gain a better understanding as to why R(t) < 1.0 is the proper goal.

General Update

You'll note how I started with the "simplicity" first, because that's what I want to drive home today ... once you understand this, EVERYTHING else falls into place.

And now, more than ever, this is important because our numbers in the US (and also other places in the world) are threatening to rise again. The Dakotas are still exploding. Wisconsin and Utah also went ballistic this past week. I know Utah is mainly because of where my kids are at school ... BYU, and the neighboring Utah Valley University.

At least the south appears to be chilling now. Hurray for me!

As usual, you can check out the NY Times hotspot map here. (May require a free subscription.)

Comparing Countries

And the update continues as we explore different countries and study their Active Cases profile. Which countries are getting that R(t) less than 1.0?

We'll start with China where it all began. Above, you can see that cases ramped up quickly starting in late January. New cases peaked in early February, but it took people a couple more weeks to start recovering, which then caused active cases to go down near the end of February. This is when R(t) went below 1.0. Then further recoveries brought down Active cases very close to 0. If you look closely, you'll see little tiny bumps ... a few resurgences where R(t) briefly went above 1.0, but quickly came back down. China's got this.

Last week we talked about South Korea's active profile. To put it shortly, there were two big outbreaks and one little one in the middle. And see how fast Korea got those numbers back down?

All China and Korea had to do was to get R(t) below 1.0, and the virus started to disappear on its own. They achieved this mainly from wearing masks and extensive contact tracing.

One more from Asia:

Japan is doing pretty well, though two outbreaks larger than South Korea's. The recoveries are mainly from wearing masks and generally good social distancing and hygiene techniques.

Here are a couple from Europe:

They both had outbreaks, got it under control, and are now seeing the beginnings of a second wave. Most European countries are using some kind of mask wearing, and use of the Google/Apple contract tracing app technology.

And another random one ... Chile:

They've had a lot of death (#6 in deaths per capita), but they've been getting those active counts down ... slowing down further deaths.

And finally, let's look again at the US graph (where Trump claims he's doing an A+ job) ...

Compared to all the graphs above, it's like the US isn't even trying. We've gotten R(t) < 1.0 for perhaps 3 weeks total, but other than that, our Active base continues to increase. Now Actives are practically level with recoveries canceling out the rising new cases over the past week. In other words, R(t) is very close to 1.0.

But it still needs to get below 1.0! That seems to be the goal elsewhere, and should be the goal in the US as well. If we are to start to see a third wave now with our base this high, that would set the stage for deaths at a level not yet seen this entire pandemic. And we shouldn't want this.

Before continuing on, let me show you four countries that appear to have stopped tracking Active Cases -- all in Europe.

See the four N/A's for Active Cases? These four countries (Spain, the UK, Netherlands, Sweden) are all doing terribly ... all four of them experiencing noticeable increases in their new case counts over this past couple of weeks.

I point out these 4 rogue countries, because if you're not tracking Active cases, then how can you calculate R(t)? How can these countries even think to meet the main goal of epidemiology? If I were to give the US a grade of D, these four countries should get an F for not understanding epidemiology 101.

The Anti Hype

And finally it comes to this ... if one isn't trying to meet the main goal: R(t) < 1.0, then one is allowing the virus to spread unchecked. Anything that works to spread the virus goes against the main goal, and thus I call the negative reactions to this goal the "Anti Hype."

This is by far my biggest complaint about the virus in my country and Trump's handling of it. To me, the goal is simple to understand and very achievable as demonstrated by other countries, even in some cases through very simple and cheap methods (while keeping most of the economy open). But there are so many bad actors in our nation who do not understand epidemiology, who think they are smarter, who come up with the craziest nonsense, which actually works to spread the virus rather than help the situation.

This Anti Hype comes in the form of resisting mask wearing, talking up bogus science, aiming for herd immunity to get it over with, and just plain apathy -- not wanting to do their patriotic duty to do simple things to end this pandemic much more quickly.

Because of this Anti Hype, we're still in this situation with a high Active base. I still can't roam around free because of my propensity to catch bronchitis with any respiratory disease. I'm also facing the real possibility that my chances of avoiding the virus is near zero ... thanks to people who refuse to work together to end this thing.

And what would it take for us to end this most quickly? What has proven to get R(t) < 1.0?

1) Mask wearing -- works better than you think.

2) Contact tracing -- you really should cooperate with human tracers so we can end this -- and please consider using a tracing app if one is available. See my earlier discussion for much more info.

3) Testing -- if we can't identify, we can't quarantine fast enough.

Don't be Anti ... be a patriot, and remember the goal: R(t) < 1.0.

Who's Really to Blame for Trump's Election?

 

I'm not going to be nice to a certain group of people. I doubt that many of my readers belong to this group, but if you do, you better listen up.

Several times over the past four years, I've been blamed for Trump's election. Why? Because I voted third party. I voted for Johnson. I'll let you get your laughter out and then we can continue.

Why did I vote for Johnson? Simple answer: out of Johnson, Trump, and Hillary -- Johnson was the one I actually wanted most to be our president.

But then ... I'm told that I had missed my opportunity. Let's consider a little game theory and assume I don't like Trump. If my goal was to keep Trump from getting elected, then giving my vote to Johnson would not have helped anyone -- after all he was never going to win -- third party! What I should have done was to vote for Hillary, and then my vote could have pooled together with other Hillary voters and Trump would have lost. Look at New Mexico where Hillary got 48%, Trump got 40%, and Johnson got 9%. "Trump could have won that state if Johnson weren't in the race." (Only if all of those 9% would have voted for Trump.)

I totally understand this position. After all, that's why so many people voted for Trump -- because they hated Hillary. And they figured the best way to achieve that was to vote for Trump, and not Johnson. There's nothing wrong with carrying out this strategy.

So, why didn't I vote Hillary? Simple answer: I didn't like her, either. It was either Hillary to threaten our economy and religious freedoms, or Trump to threaten immigrants and allow incompetence. I really didn't care which one won. I wanted Johnson, so I voted for him, and I still have no regrets even after seeing Trump's first 4 years.

Because, if Hillary had won, the world would have been different, and I would have had different complaints. And 100% chance, people would blame me for letting Hillary win. In other words, in 2016 I was put into a position in which I was screwed no matter which of the two main opponents won, and I would be blamed for letting whomever win. I voted for the person I wanted, and I was sad he didn't win, but I got over it pretty fast.

But if it's not my fault Trump won, then whose fault is it? Simple answer: more electoral votes went to Trump. Wouldn't that make the most sense? Simple math. More votes, more winning. So, I suppose we could blame everyone who voted for Trump.

But you know what? I'm not going to go there. These people voted for the guy they wanted, and he won. They exercised their Constitutional rights, and good for them. They did their civic duty.

So, whose fault is it? Really? Perhaps you see where I'm going by now. For if the question has to be asked, the person asking is most likely a Democrat looking to blame other parties for Trump's success. It's been demonstrated many times that more people wanted Hillary over Trump, as judged by all the "Not My President" protests.

And yes ... I do believe more people wanted Hillary, but on Election Day 2016, a large number of Democrats sat on their butts at home thinking Hillary had it in the bag -- so why go vote? I heard so many people tell me that year: "I'm not going to vote. I'm just one person and my vote's not going to count anyway. There's no reason for me to stand in long lines." And would you like to guess how many of these non-voters complain and protest? I would like to know.

Because ... all you Democrats who stayed home ... especially in states like Pennsylvania and Michigan that should have been blue ... it is YOUR fault Trump got elected. Conservative people who sincerely wanted Trump to win were very happy that YOU decided to stay home. That sea of red hats you see on TV all the time? YOU helped that to happen.

You had YOUR chance to stop Trump from getting into the White House, but you threw it away. At least people like me braved the long lines to vote for the person(s) we wanted. The way I see it, you don't even get to participate in these discussions, because you have absolutely nothing to complain about. If you didn't participate when it mattered most, why do you even think to participate today?

Why don't you do something about it now in 2020 and show up at the polls? Because I can tell you right now, Trump's supporters are going to be there. They are going to be energized, and there are going to be a lot of votes for Trump. If that bugs you, there's only one clear action for you.

Afraid of coronavirus? Believe me, I am, but I'm still voting. If you're healthy, you should strongly consider voting in person (or early voting if available). Standing in long lines has some risk, but voting lines are not believed to be superspreader events. I talk about the risks in this post here. It's not as risky as you might think.

If you're more susceptible to the disease, strongly consider absentee voting. Every state has some version of absentee or mail-in voting. If you're not sure, just find your state on this voting help website and check out the rules. There may even be drop boxes in your state. Some states like Texas require an "excuse" to be eligible for absentee voting.

In my state of North Carolina, anyone can obtain an absentee ballot, and then you can mail it in, or deliver it in person, or have a near relative deliver it for you. There are no drop boxes in most (and I think all) NC counties.

Or you can do what I'm planning ... I'm ordering an absentee ballot just in case I catch COVID right before I vote. If I get sick I can mail it in and stay away from the polls. But if I'm healthy, I'm going in person. (If you order a ballot in NC, you can still vote in person as long as you don't send in your mail ballot later -- but check the rules in your state, first.)

 

In order to avoid the fiasco that will undoubtedly surround mail-in votes, you will probably want to vote in person if at all possible. But if you're serious about your vote, have a backup plan.

A few weeks ago, the US Mail announced that they can't guarantee your mail-in votes will arrive on time. However, steps have been taken since then to start speeding the mail back up. If you're squeamish about your vote being lost in the mail, then find a drop box near you and use it. (Unless you live in NC, where it'll have to be delivered in person by you or a near relative.)

So vote for Biden, vote for Trump, vote for JoJo ... I don't care ... just go vote, and no excuses. If you ultimately decide not to vote (and you're legally eligible), then I suggest you shut up for the next 4 years and sleep in the bed you let others make for you, because you took absolutely no action when it could have mattered the most.

Coronavirus Newsletter - Churches

 

General Update / Church Introductions / Korea Outbreaks / Are Churches Safe? / Singing / Creative Churching

General Update

Our numbers in the US keep trying to go down, however, there seems to be a small resurgence, which concerns me. We do need our active base to go down much more before the third wave starts in the fall. Schools seems to be the source of the more recent outbreak. But I already talked about that last week.

The NY Times hotspot map shows the south lightening up a little further (Tennessee is looking the worst and South Carolina might be going up again), and the midwest is still rising -- especially the Dakotas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Iowa, Missouri. 

Not much else to report right now, so back to churches ...

Church Introductions

This whole pandemic reminds me of a Babylon 5 episode I saw many years ago, when a fatal disease breaks out on the station. The good news is that it only infects one species from one planet, but it's very contagious with a very high mortality rate.

Almost immediately, the doctor and commanders institute standard epidemic isolation protocol. You separate out the sick people and make sure no one else catches it. At first it seems to be working, but someone sneaks in to see their child (or something like that). They catch the disease and pass it on to other people.

The doctor's doing everything in his power to get in front of it and save the lives of the susceptible species. But then when it becomes evident that the doctor can't find a cure, the species turn to their god. Only he can save them.

So, they all decide to congregate and pray together to their god as their religion and/or customs dictate. The doctor says, "No, no, no. That's a very bad idea. If you bring everyone together, you'll all catch it and I won't be able to protect you."

And the response: "Our god will protect us."

As you may guess, the whole species gather together in a cargo hold and lock themselves in. No one can get in, and they've cut the feed. After a couple of days, the commander finally gets in, but it's too late. They're all dead.

When I first saw this episode, my reaction was this: "That's stupid. This is just an atheist writing something that makes religion look bad. This would never happen in real life. Christians are much more intelligent than that."

COVID-19 proved me wrong. When the methods of fighting a pandemic can be on the easier side, people have proven in several countries to do exactly what it would take to maximize the spread of the virus, and it can be quite frustrating. It's not so much religion behind this, but just all-around ignorance of what the semi-easy fighting methods are. But churches, as you're about to see are excellent places for respiratory viruses like this to spread.

Korea Outbreaks

With this in mind, let's take a closer look at Korea. This is a country that I've been touting as one that's doing it right. They're taking the coronavirus seriously, and they're doing what it takes to fight it. And get this ... ALL WITHOUT A FREAKING LOCKDOWN. Well ... almost ... sometimes they do shutdown some specific infected businesses, and sometimes some hot spots such as bars in certain locations.

Here is view of Korea's Active Cases profile.

I've circled three pieces of interest. First, in red, is the initial breakout in late February. At first, spread of the virus was slow ... only 30 confirmed cases up through February 18. Then, Patient 31 started the big spread. She belonged to Shincheonji Church of Jesus the Temple of the Tabernacle of the Testimony, and she decided to continue going to church after symptoms had developed and ended up spreading it to potentially thousands of other people. (Evidently Patient 31 had not been diagnosed until it was too late.)

This isn't your ordinary church, but rather, a mega-church with required attendance even when sick, and very, very close interactions with other people. To get a fuller understanding of how this church was perfect for spreading the virus, I strongly recommend watching the video embedded in the following CNN news article:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/26/asia/shincheonji-south-korea-hnk-intl/index.html

After watching, you should be able to see exactly how such a mega-church can spread the virus quickly. However, it should be worth mentioning that the church gave the government its full cooperation once it was understood what was at stake. Also, note that Korea only shut down this specific church and all its branches, but not other churches.

This last part may make you squirm, and if so, that's okay. It sounds bad to seemingly target a specific church and risk a church vs. state conflict. But it should also be clear that the reason to target this church justified its closure. Is it worth closing down an infected church if only to save lives?

This one event is believed to have caused most of the cases during their first wave. Looking at the graph, it appears to have taken about a month and a half to get cases down to a much more maintainable level.

It looked like it was going down to zero, but then on May 1, a sick 29-year-old man visited several bars and infected up to 100 people. This occurred among the LGBT community, so it proved to be a challenge for contact tracers (as people didn't want to out their friends). So, Korea had the relatively small resurgence circled in green. It took almost 3 months to get it back down, but it never got anywhere close to March's case levels.

The third outbreak? On August 15, sick members of the Sarang Jeil Church attended an anti-government rally in Seoul, infecting up to hundreds, which would then kick off the third wave marked with the black circle. But note how Korea is on this and is already getting the actives back down ... a little more quickly this time. This was a much smaller church, but still large enough to do some damage.

You can read more about them here:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-southkorea-church/church-at-centre-of-south-korea-coronavirus-outbreak-says-government-fabricating-tests-idUSKBN25H16W

In summary, Korea had three outbreaks: one was small, and the two that were on the larger side involved churches. One church is a humongous petri dish for respiratory viruses. The other church endangered lives by taking an anti-government stance, knowingly infecting others, and believing that everyone should catch the virus.

If only these guys had stayed home, then Korea would have had very low infection counts. Wow ... the power of hindsight!! As a follow-up, in August, the leader of the large Shincheonji Church was arrested for negligently letting the virus blow up in the country. Now, that was probably overkill.

But guess what ... whatever has happened in Korea, it has already happened thousand-fold in the USA. Everyday, we have at least three sick people, or people who know they've been exposed, that go out into the community -- "You can't stop the virus, so why should I try?" And the virus keeps spreading. It's very annoying, knowing that we could be like Korea with our economy much more open, with people taking the virus seriously, and making people like me stay at home waiting for idiots to stop spreading the virus -- but I digress.

You probably want to see what our Active Case profile look like? Are you ready for this? 

Yeah ... that's us. We're not even trying to contain this thing. It did try to go down the end of May, but then our economies opened up, and protests and parties added to the mix to start a second wave. And now it's trying to go down again -- most likely from the mask thing working. But I'm not sure how long it's going to last, because we're all about to go back inside, and schools are pushing the beginnings of a third wave.

And churches? They are definitely contributing to the spread. I should mention that if we were to superimpose South Korea's Active profile on top of the US profile on a per-capita basis, the Korean curve would be two little blips hardly visible along the bottom line.

So, what were two big church spreads in Korea would have been seen as little tiny outbreaks hardly noticeable here in the US. In fact, we're likely to have had at least 100 church-related outbreaks of same size. Pastors of mega-churches are getting sick. Some churches are being closed down after having opened, and contact tracers are finding churches as one of the sources of spread.

Some may accuse me of currently attacking religion and our first amendment rights ... but no, these are the cold hard facts. The virus doesn't care about our religious convictions, and from experience, we can see that God is not choosing to exempt churches from virus spread. People are getting sick, and they are dying.

Also keep in mind that churches are only a fraction of the cause of spread in our nation. I'm just identifying this as just one of many causes of spread. That's something our freedoms in the US give us ... the ability to infect the virus on each other in a variety of different methods!

Are Churches Safe?

I've seen this meme and several variations floating around ... basically, why is it safe to go shopping, but not safe to go to church?

If you really want to know, I could try to explain it, and it has nothing at all to do with religion or our 1st Amendment rights. It all has to do with how the virus acts.

First off ... yes, shopping is not without risks. We gotta get food and some other necessities. Every time we enter a store, we're risking catching the virus from others, especially if people aren't wearing masks.

But this virus has some weaknesses. For one, air flow -- moderate breezes -- can break up and/or move out aerosol droplets. If those evaporate, the virus dies quickly. If they disperse, then the amount you're exposed to becomes diluted. Many stores are aware of this and will increase air flow to help fight any lingering aerosols.

Also, when you're shopping, you're not staying next to the same person for more than a minute at a time. If someone's infected, they may send you a few droplets of virus ... not enough to infect you ... and then move on. 

You're also not socializing with people ... well, mostly not. No shaking hands, no hugging, and all that jazz.

And you're probably not talking that much to anyone, which is something that can spread the virus.

Now think of your own church to compare. How is its air flow? This may depend on the church. Is it all closed in with doors and windows shut and maybe one little air conditioner? Or is a big space with lots of fans going? The more the air flow, the better the chances of keeping the virus at bay.

Is there a lot and shaking hands and hugging going on? If so, that dramatically increases the chances of catching the virus, even with sufficient air flow. Smart churches will require that congregants not touch each other -- at least for now.

Is there lots of talking going on? If so, it's an avenue of virus spread. Socializing after the church service in a closed space with no air flow is about the worst thing you could do to spread the virus at a faster rate.

Is there singing going on? This could be even worse than talking because everyone is doing it at the same time. And if you sing like me, you're pulling in more breath and expelling more breath ... which significantly increases the chances of virus spread. I'll talk a little more about this in the next section.

Also, I hope that you're seeing a pattern here ... I'm not giving a direct answer to the question: "Are churches safe?" And that's because it depends on the circumstances. One church may take all kinds of precautions, and another may throw all caution to the wind. The one with precautions will be less likely to experience virus spread and remain open, while the one without precautions is likely to close again in a month or so.

And enforcing the rules is also important. A church could set all the best preventative measures, but then at the spur of the moment, everyone could start hugging each other, or start breaking out in song spontaneously, or just not adhering to the rules -- especially people who may not believe the virus exists. Sometimes this can be difficult to predict.

My church will be opening up next week if everything goes as currently planned. They're still working out all the details. And I'm going to have to make my own decision whether or not to go. If I feel unsafe, I will likely skip until I feel it's safer to attend.

Though, I'm impressed with most of the measures my church is taking worldwide to try to ensure safety. They have identified some minimum requirements for all church units to follow, and each area must come up with their own safety requirements particular to local exposures. For example, a church in New Zealand is much more likely to be fully open than a church in the mid-west US where hefty outbreaks are occurring.

Here's a link to my church's guidelines...

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/safe-return-church-meetings-activities

Singing

If you scanned through my church's guidelines, you may notice one major omission ... nothing much is said about congregational singing. It does seem to prohibit choral singing, but seems to allow congregational singing without masks (though contingent on further restrictions that may be added in local areas).

I think this omission is because in May when the CDC provided guidelines for opening churches (which my church follows), President Trump's administration had the CDC remove the warnings about congregational singing, fearing that such a warning would infringe on our 1st amendment rights (of which the virus is fully going to honor -- right?).

https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/white-house-and-cdc-remove-coronavirus-warnings-about-choirs-in-guidance-for-reopening-houses-of-worship/

We know that singing is dangerous because it has already been shown to promote the spread of the virus on a "superspreader" level. A couple of choir practices in March turned out to be deadly. When churches reopened in Germany in May, some that allowed singing experienced outbreaks.

And I ought to know all this, because I'm a music publisher who gets most of my revenue from ... yeah ... choral music. And my sales have dropped like a rock this year. After a killer January and February, my business has basically crashed and burned since March.

But we're all trying to find ways to get back to singing. I miss it, as it's probably one of the best ways to worship together.

If you're at all interested in following the science, the studies, and the debates on choral singing, you should check out this closed Facebook group that specializes on this topic: 

Dialogues on a Safe Return to Choral Singing

I've learned of some fun mitigating measures one can take to safely bring singers back together. Some of the ideas involve singing outside, singing distanced from each other, wearing specially designed singing masks, ensuring adequate air flow in the room, and so on.

Creative Churching

Lastly, I want to talk about the whole "taking away my religion" aspect. As I don't think that's something that can ever be taken away. 

Over the past few months, we've been conducting personal church at home, following the weekly reading schedule my church instituted last year. I'm also frequently visiting one of my older ministering people to make sure they're okay.

Some people are taking to Zoom to hold meetings. BTW, Zoom is really, really bad for any kind of singing.

Some churches are holding a minimal number of people in-person at church and televising to the rest of the congregation.

Some churches are holding parking lot sermons ... like a drive-in theater.

Some are holding in-person services, but spreading it out, having people come at different times, or different weeks.

Some are simply holding church outside.

The fact that we can't meet in our stuffy packed meetinghouses doesn't mean we have to stop worshipping.

This is only a temporary situation until we can safely meet again in full force with the full congregation. That will be a great day to be back to normal!

Hopefully I've given you plenty to think about. If your church is smart you can find ways to reopen safely and protect the lives of your most vulnerable. I wish you good luck and success.

Trump vs. Biden: My Vote

It's almost time for us to cast our votes. Trump vs. Biden? Who's it going to be?

Before I begin, please keep in mind that I am not seeking to sway votes, but rather I am sharing the reasons behind my ultimate decision, which I think you will find interesting. I do not seek to say: "If you disagree with me then you're a murderer and our civilization will die if you seriously vote for that other guy," as this is exactly what I hear from a lot of my social media friends from BOTH sides of the aisle! I can only conclude that if this were true, I'm screwed either way I vote.

I fully understand why Trumpers want Trump, and why Bideners (and anti-Trumpers) want Biden, and I fully respect your reasons. There is good in both candidates, and there is also bad. I do have strong opinions, a lot of which are molded by my specific set of experiences. And I also understand a lot of independents are in the middle trying to decide which way to go.

So, here goes nothing ... starting with a review of our incumbent candidate. Along the way I'll link to other political posts I've made in the past so you can more fully understand my position in life, and also give you much more information than you'd probably care to know.

Trump: The Good

If you look closely at Trump, you'll see what I see: two totally different individuals. 

One is the more visual: the Tweeter in Chief, the Name Caller, the Alternative Fact-er, the Fake News Pointer, the Hothead, the Downplayer, and so on.

But there is another Trump who comes out rarely, whom I've seen several times ... the Trump that most of his base see. He's much more sincere, more compassionate -- the Trump that can enter a room, walk up to a perfect stranger, put his arms around him, and make him feel that everything is right in the world. Yeah ... I know my liberal friends are thinking: What are you smoking, Mel?

Just bear with me. I do think that he believes he's sincere. He thinks he's doing all the right things. There are areas where he excels, such as making deals -- of which he's already brokered several that benefit the US than before. He has also been able to broker some surprising peace accords between antagonistic parties.

It may be worth looking back to early 2016 when I described my Like Trump experiment. I was able to come to a better understanding of what his base see in him. And I still see some of those same good traits in him today. If anything, he has been consistent, and I don't think much of his base has left him over the past four years.

In early January 2017, I thought I saw more of the humble Trump in his preparation of being one of the most powerful people in the world. So, I actually had some hope that Trump would realize the seriousness of his new position and be more humble.

As a fiscally conservative type of guy, I've been very supportive of most of his economic policies. I love the corporate tax reduction -- a major step in the right direction. I also love that my middle class self has benefited from a $1000 credit the first year under the new tax cut. That is ... I did my taxes old way and new way to compare, and Trump's tax cuts gave me back $1000 more. In fact, the vast majority of people received more taxes back, despite that to this day some liberals still tell their base that they've paid more in taxes due to a confusion between weekly tax payments and the year-end true-up.

Though, I'm not too happy about the state deduction cap and what I like to call the "large family" tax. Also, I think it did cut a little too much on the rich side ... they could definitely afford to pay more in taxes. And this cut was not met with any compensating tax increases or reduction in government expenses, which helped to increase the annual deficit each year -- though we're not quite at Obama levels yet.

But wait -- I need to stick to good stuff this section. I'm also happy with the two conservative judicial picks under Trump. I prefer a balanced bench, and I think we have a good set of judges with 4 conservatives, 4 liberals, and one swing vote (slightly conservative leaning).

I do appreciate some of the recent rulings that reinforce the freedom of religion -- though I have to be a little careful here, as I'm not exactly happy with all the rulings ... I mainly like the idea of people not being forced to do what they don't want to do, as long as that doesn't infringe on the rights of others.

I do think Trump's economic policies have indeed helped jobs to come back to the US, though maybe not as much as he might have hoped.

But then again, I would think just about any conservative president would accomplish these same exact tasks. I would much rather have someone like Romney in his place right now.

Trump: The Ugly

Next comes all the ugly bits about Trump, and he has a lot. 

I already mentioned Twitter in Chief. Never before has any president used social media to speak off script. Toward the beginning of his presidency when I was happy with most of what he was achieving, I mentioned several times: if Trump were to simply stop tweeting, he could be a decent president.

His tweets are usually on the idiotic side, usually divisive in nature, and sometimes indecipherable. Sometimes it even sounds like a kid accidentally logged into Trump's account. And there have even been several times that his tweets reveal too much information that really shouldn't be available to the general public. In a couple of instances, the information he had revealed even put agents' lives in danger. (Though one of those instances wasn't a tweet, but rather during a meeting with other foreign dignitaries.)

Trump often talks big about himself, even if he has to resort to stretching the truth, or as Kellyanne Conway called it: alternative facts.

After narrowly winning the needed electoral votes and having lost the popular vote, Trump claimed that he had won in a landslide, and most of his base believe that even today. However, by any mathematical analysis, it's very easy to see that Trump's win was narrow. I submitted such an analysis back in 2017.

If anything, this picture I prepared should explain all you need to know to see that his win was not a landslide.

Trump also stated that he had more people attend his inauguration than did Obama, and he said the following picture was fake:

In this blog post, I show an analysis from an independent photograph that proves that this picture was not fake. (Though it really is possible that more people watched Trump's inauguration on TV than they did for Obama. After all, who would want to miss that?)

One of the reason I didn't like Obama was because he was such a divisive leader. Right from the start he said to his opponents: I won, you didn't, and you will listen to me. And that pretty much began the gridlock that would ensue. He also attacked Rush Limbaugh and Fox News on several occasions, saying they were not real news.

But whatever Obama did in his eight years in office, Trump outdid it all in just a couple of months. Starting from his inaugural speech when he made it clear that he was not going to be that humble president I was hoping for, Trump has been alienating his opponents this whole time. Instead of attacking Fox News, Trump instead attacks practically everyone else, calling them all FAKE NEWS. Always in all-caps. Very non-productive and borderline unconstitutional -- though I should point out here and now that saying it is different than actually taking action -- on this issue Trump has made sure to stay on the constitutional side of things in a letter-of-the-law sense.

These are all symptoms of the same issue: Trump just isn't a diplomat. He doesn't exhibit the minimum amount of decorum that all presidents in my lifetime had exhibited -- the way that you show respect to everyone, not call them childish nicknames, not mock people with childish gestures, and all-around listening to people.

Though, a part of me has always admired his "my way" approach to things. His unconventional ways may have helped him get away with certain accomplishments -- similar to Nixon in China. But other than those achievements, I think his unique way of handling things in the states has been much more negative than positive.

Also, I think he has done a terrible job responding to the BLM-related riots currently going on. At first, he did mention that what had happened to George Floyd was "sad and tragic," but these days he hardly brings it up anymore. Rather he talks about how he needs to use "law and order" to quell the riots, entirely ignoring the underlying issues causing the riots to happen in the first place.

This is the Trump most everyone is used to seeing. Sometimes he embarrasses me in front of the world. Sometimes I enjoy laughing at our Comedian in Chief.

And I've heard several people say, especially now that we're getting ready to vote again, that: "You're voting for a leader, not a best-friend -- he doesn't have to be perfect and refined like you want him to be. You need to look at his policies, which will last longer than Trump himself. If you like his policies, and not his opponent's then it should be clear who you need to vote for."

To this, my first thought is ... but I am choosing a leader. And BTW, most of my friends are imperfect, and I love them in their imperfections, and I wouldn't change them.

As for choosing leaders, I strongly believe in the instruction my church often provides: "[We] are to seek out and then uphold leaders who will act with integrity and are wise, good, and honest." I do not think Trump fits these requirements. (More about this coming in another blog post next week in The Mormon Mel.)

Then again, I must be honest. If everything up to now were the only things wrong with Trump, I would most likely vote for him come November. Because he would be the "evil that I know" and would be happy to have him carry out four more years if only to get a few more conservative fiscal policies passed to help the economy more.

But everything I've written up to now is not the whole story of Trump. What comes next are the real reasons I will NOT be voting for Trump. These are actual policies that I just cannot in good consciousness support going forward.

Trump: The Bad

As far as immigration is concerned, I've always been of the mindset: "Help them become legal, make them pay taxes." If someone really wants to be here, then let them. After all, that's what makes America so great -- so many cultures merging together so we can benefit from the best of all worlds. None of us wouldn't be here if we didn't have an ancestor who left their motherland to come here.

I've always thought that Democrats were historically the ones against immigration ... gotta protect our jobs. And maybe the 9/11 attacks curtailed our desire to accept immigrants, but one thing's for sure ... Trump helped to introduce and lock in xenophobia into the Republican Party -- possibly a holdover from when Trump used to be Democrat -- maybe?

Whatever the case, at the end of 2015, Trump made it clear that he hated Mexicans and Muslims. At the time I didn't think he had a chance to win the Republican nomination because of his blatant racism and/or xenophobia toward those two groups. In December 2015 when Trump proposed his Muslim ban, it shocked practically everyone. Even my church made a statement. For a few days the world was united against Trump and his racist ideas. Every other Republican candidate condemned his thoughts. Why would Trump suggest anything so clearly against the 1st Amendment concerning religious freedoms?

And then they didn't. As Trump quickly increased in popularity, the most prominent Republican candidates became more afraid to challenge Trump, fearing that it would look bad and cause themselves to lose votes in the quickly approaching primaries. Rather, they started speaking up in SUPPORT of said Muslim ban. Only Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio stood against Trump. I really wanted Jeb Bush to be the Republican candidate.

So, in January 2016, I made a decision for myself. Seeing that if the Republican Party were to support such an unconstitutional idea, then maybe it wasn't the party for me. If they weren't going to condemn Trump and stop him from becoming the nominee, then I didn't want any part of it. So, I officially switched my party affiliation to Unaffiliated.

Now Trump is the President, and he's had his chance to enact policies that has made it harder to come into the country legally, and has caused a lot of pain to many people ... all in the name of border security. He has started building an expensive wall that is more of a symbol than it is an effective way of keeping people out. And he has chosen to vilify one of the strangest groups to choose from ... our neighbors, who really are the least we should be worried about. What exactly is Trump protecting us from? Taco trucks at every street corner?

Immediately after going into office, Trump got to work on the first version of his Muslim ban. Here are my thoughts on that first ban. He got the list of predominantly Muslim nations from Obama's time in office, but he included in the language a religious test -- where prioritization would be given to those belonging to a "minority religion." And what religion is minority in those areas? Christianity, for one.

Judges jumped on that clearly unconstitutional clause. I believe Trump's lawyers argued that the Constitution doesn't apply to people outside of our country. My response: if it doesn't, then what good is our Constitution?

Trump put an end to it by instituting Version #2, which basically removed that paragraph. So, the letter of the law was stricken down, but the spirit of the law was maintained.

There's more to the story, of which I haven't been paying attention, but this ACLU website gives more details in further developments which have been happening quietly in the background.

By far, this bothered me because it seemed to target the Syrian refugees who were fleeing death and persecutions. The great country of the USA was going to refuse help to these people in need, under the guise of possibly allowing terrorists unknowingly inside our borders. (As if we don't do any kind of vetting.)

And then came the crackdown on the Mexicans and Central Americans trying to come through our southern borders. Trying to keep the story short, Trump had instituted an asylum ban when it was getting bad. And most people here in the states seem to have no idea how devastating this was to many families fleeing death and persecutions from antagonistic gangs. There are many reports of illegally-crossing asylum seekers who were deported back to Mexico only to be immediately picked up by awaiting gang members, tortured, and killed.

In addition, Trump famously had families separated at the borders, supposedly due to a law that came into effect during Obama's presidency. The idea is this: if you cross our borders illegally, then you are a criminal. Thus you need to be thrown into jail. But we have this law that says we can't throw children into jail, so we have no choice but to separate you.

Some say that Obama also separated children, but by count, Trump's administration did it far more than Obama's did. The "zero-tolerance" stance was what really led to the conflict with the Obama-era law, which caused at least 2,800 children to be separated under Trump. There was no "zero-tolerance" stance under Obama, so it happened far less frequently -- perhaps under 100, and only in cases where the children seemed to be in danger.

These actions against Syria, Mexico, and Central America violate the Geneva Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, which states that countries should not do the following:

• impose penalties on refugees who entered illegally in search of asylum if they present themselves without delay (Article 31), which is commonly interpreted to mean that their unlawful entry and presence ought not to be prosecuted at all;
• take exceptional measures against a refugee solely on account of his or her nationality (Article 8);
• forcibly return or "refoul" refugees to the country they have fled from (Article 33). It is widely accepted that the prohibition of forcible return is part of customary international law.

I totally get wanting to increase enforcement at our borders, and to have even better vetting, but I can't think of any angle that makes it okay to refuse refugees, to send them back into dangerous territory and not care when they are killed in the process.

I also get the desire to have people enter the gates legally. I share in that desire. I have many legal immigrant friends who did things the right way. 

But what a lot of people don't seem to understand is that Trump has intentionally made it harder to enter at the gate legally. In 2017, the limit for incoming refugees had been set by the Obama administration at 110,000. In 2018, Trump had this reduced to 45,000. And then 30,000 for 2019. And 18,000 for 2020.

At the Mexican border, those trying to enter legally have reported receiving the run-around, and many of them in desperation decided to chance crossing illegally.

As you may remember in late 2018 a caravan of migrants tried to cross illegally at the same time. In response, Trump sent an army of 5,000 troops to join 2,000 National Guard to secure the borders. It appears that the US (behind the scenes) was making an attempt to process asylum requests, but the slowness caused several of the migrants to storm the border, resulting in a big commotion (though I think no one died).

At the time it may have been prudent to send troops to increase security, but I've pointed out several times that Trump's usual answer to these type of things is to send troops instead of social workers. Had he done the latter and had workers be able to process claims much more quickly, and make the good ones legal, then it wouldn't have come down to needing troops.

Trump's priorities in regards to Mexico are clear, and I do not agree with these policies.

Then enters Ken Cuccinelli, who may be one of the most racist people I've ever seen to be appointed as the Director of the US Citizenship and Immigration Services. Shortly after being appointed in June 2019, he instituted a new means-testing requirement for those with green cards. If a family is determined not to be sufficiently self-supporting, then they could lose their green card. In other words, it is now harder for legal immigrants to remain legal, and that bothers me.

In an interview, Cuccinelli was asked about the new regulation: "What do you think about what it says at the bottom of the Statue of Liberty?" Cuccinelli responded: "Give me your tired and your poor who can stand on their own two feet and who will not become a public charge."

Cuccinelli was then subsequently named as some kind of Deputy of Homeland Security where he had influence in deploying armies in Portland against BLM protests, and also the failed recent decision to require international students to attend in-class instruction in order to remain in the country (during the coronavirus pandemic).

All of these immigration policies alone are enough to stop me from voting for Trump, but sadly that isn't all.

I just mentioned the troops in Portland, but backing up a little bit, the real shoe fell when Trump gave his Law and Order speech on 6/1/2020. He said:

If a city or state refuses to take the actions that are necessary to defend the life and property of their residents, then I will deploy the United States military and quickly solve the problem for them.

He also invoked the second amendment, which at first seemed strange, as it really has nothing to do with the riots and the George Floyd protests. (How are the right to bear arms in jeopardy?) He said:

I am mobilizing all available federal resources — civilian and military — to stop the rioting and looting, to end the destruction and arson, and to protect the rights of law-abiding Americans, including your Second Amendment rights.

But the effect was immediate. The images of storm troops on domestic soil sent an instant shiver down my spine. And sure enough, we got to see some of that play out -- first as self-proclaimed militia (some of which consisted of white supremacists) started patrolling the streets. And then the whole Portland thing of Cucinelli troops illegally carrying away people in vans. And also the unfortunate incident in Wisconsin when a teenager involved in a militia ended up killing two people. All of which could have been avoided if Trump had not invoked his usual troops-on-the-ground solutions when so many other more effective solutions exist.

If this all wasn't enough, we can add to this Trump's response to the coronavirus disaster. I've already written about that last week in this blog with much detail, so I won't repeat it all again. In a nutshell, with his record, I seriously would doubt his ability to protect us from another outbreak, such as Ebola -- from which Obama protected us in 2014 and surrounding years.

As part of this whole coronavirus pandemic and the mail-in voting movement, I should also mention briefly Trump's intentional sabotage (to which he has admitted) of the US Postal Service. And I should also mention his repeated instruction to his base to vote twice (once by mail and once in person) in order to ensure votes get counted. I see all of this as a clear attempt to sabotage the whole system in his favor for this coming November.

I'll end this section with something that may seem small to you, but I evidently find this one somewhat upsetting, and that is Trump's continual insistence of forcing people to stand for the National Anthem.

Don't get me wrong. I love the National Anthem. I always stand, and when appropriate, I'll sing loudly and proudly. Some of my favorite memories include the couple of times I got to sing the Anthem from the mike at sports events.

But this country was built on the idea of freedoms and non-coercion, so I find "you better stand or else" to be somewhat ironic and non-constitutional. You can read my full thoughts here. It's really subtle, but I present this as well as some of the other items above as evidence that Trump may be the most out of recent presidents to seriously jeopardize the Constitution.

I don't think that Trump is evil. I still don't think he's Hitler, and if elected, I don't believe he's going to send in his storm troops and ensure himself a third term. Rather, I think he's just incompetent and doesn't know how to handle all these items that I've listed above. I don't think he realizes he's being unconstitutional when he threatens people who don't stand for the flag. He's just pushing his heavily-held opinion that people should stand for the flag and the anthem. I don't think he knows how to handle the BLM protests and say the right things to diffuse the riots. He doesn't know how to handle pandemics, and would much rather ignore them and hope the virus magically goes away (still waiting for that to happen). And his xenophobic ideals are causing pain and death.

We've already seen what has happened under his watch, and in my opinion, his record speaks for itself. He's just the wrong man for the job, and he does not have my vote in 2020.

What About Biden?

To be honest, I was very happy that Biden was chosen as the Democratic nominee. I know in the past I've called him an idiot. I've even said he's one of the few people who looks like his own party mascot. So, past Mel is very surprised to discover that current Mel is actually considering voting for Biden.

Out of all the Democratic candidates, I found Biden to be the closest to what I believe. He was the most moderate of the bunch. In early 2020, it looked as if Bernie Sanders was going to win the nomination, and that concerned me -- such that my fear of him destroying our way of life would be worse than what Trump could accomplish in the next 4 years.

So, with my unaffiliated status in North Carolina, I chose to vote in the Democratic Party so that I could help choose Biden over Sanders. And the strategy paid off. After that Super Tuesday I watched Biden's "Joementum" speech. You may remember this as the speech where Biden pretended to confuse his wife and his sister. Funny guy!

He had a lot of energy in that speech, and I thought he had a lot of good things to say. It was the first time he caught my attention and the very first time I seriously considered giving him my vote.

I would much rather prefer another conservative candidate, but the existence of Trump destroys that hope. If for any reason, Trump were to stand down in the next couple of weeks, and Pence were to be the next candidate, I'd give him some serious consideration.

And in 2016, I didn't care which of Hilary vs. Trump won. I remarked a couple of weeks before the election: If Hilary wins, we can lose our economy. If Trump wins, we can lose our soul. I couldn't bring myself to vote for either one, so I ended up voting for the Libertarian Johnson. I'll write more about this in a couple of weeks in a much shorter article.

This time around, there is another Libertarian candidate available: Jo Jo. I've yet to seriously look at her and see what she has to offer. But I'm still thinking it has to be Biden.

What I didn't like about Hilary was big enough for me not to vote for her. She wanted to punish businesses and go after religious freedoms -- make churches change their beliefs to be consistent with recent political movements.

What I don't like about Biden is much smaller. He's not a socialist like Trump and my conservative friends keep telling me. He doesn't want to punish businesses and rich people -- so no wealth tax. He does want to raise taxes on those making more than $400,000, but that higher tax brackets won't be more than 40% tax, which I'm actually okay with. So, thankfully we're not going back to 90% brackets any time soon.

There are some items I disagree with -- such as trying to reinstate Obamacare. But there is no truth to Trump's claim that Biden will usher in sweeping socialistic agendas that will destroy our economy forever.

What really resonates with me is Biden's message of healing. He claims to be a unifier, and that's what our nation desperately needs right now. I'm not sure if we can handle 4 more years of this separation without resorting to the weirdest civil war we've ever seen. I can see King George looking over us right now -- he's probably very happy. ("You'll be back!")

I would love it if Biden were to become president and then we would go days without hearing about him and what he's doing ... you know ... like how life used to be before Trump? Then we might all be able to heal and start working together on things and actually start making the world a better place for our children ... learning how to respect each other ... even those with whom we disagree.

So, for now, that's where I stand. Biden currently has my vote.

Coronavirus Newsletter - Schools

 

General Update / 90% Too Sensitive? / Colleges / High Schools / Conclusions

Today, let's talk about schools, but first ...

General Update

The numbers continue to go down! This is great. It appears that the masks are working.

All summer long, the growth rate itself of new cases and deaths has been lower when compared to growth rates at the very beginning of the pandemic. I think this is because of the warmer weather. But even with the slower growth, the base of actives at the beginning of this 2nd wave that hit "everyone but NY" was very high, so the actual counts of cases and deaths have been just as high as they were in the 1st wave.

As the 2nd wave is nearing an end, one big fear is that the colder weather could bring on a major resurgence in COVID-19 cases, and together with the onset of our next flu season, it could bring a major stress to our hospitals ... everywhere. The best way we can fight this is to keep working hard to get the base of active cases down even more. We've just started to go down from our high of a week ago. The lower we get it over the next couple of weeks, the better a fall/winter we're going to have.

So, keep wearing those masks, keep washing your hands, don't crowd, cooperate with contact tracers, keep working from home if you can -- if we all cooperate now the base will continue to drop dramatically and we can actually get this thing over with much sooner.

The NY Times Map shows a better situation overall for our country. There are still splotches here and there. Illinois and Missouri still look bad, as do western Tennessee and eastern Georgia. South Dakota and North Dakota had major increases (and just after how much they bragged about how well they did without locking down).

90% Too Sensitive?

Okay. Before we turn to schools, we need to clear something up. There's a NY Times article making a lot of traction lately -- basically a left-leaning newspaper published a health article saying that coronavirus tests are too sensitive. So, right-wingers have been using this article to say a lot of crazy things that the article just isn't saying. Click here for the article.

Perhaps later I'll come back and give this article more time, but as it relates to the school discussion, today I want to focus on the 90% number floating around.

The idea of the article is that there are too many false positives because dead virus fragments, or insufficient amounts of virus, are causing positive results when they should really be negative. These are people who are unlikely to be contagious at the time of testing.

Unfortunately, the article said this:

In three sets of testing data that include cycle thresholds, compiled by officials in Massachusetts, New York and Nevada, up to 90 percent of people testing positive carried barely any virus, a review by The Times found.

On Thursday, the United States recorded 45,604 new coronavirus cases, according to a database maintained by The Times. If the rates of contagiousness in Massachusetts and New York were to apply nationwide, then perhaps only 4,500 of those people may actually need to isolate and submit to contact tracing.

The first paragraph is fine, but the second paragraph is a common mistake of logic. So bad that I must say: Apoorva Mandavilli, give me your wrist. Bad bad! Slap!

To see the error of this logic ... how about we extend it to today's USA numbers? 6,636,247 total would mean 663,625 real cases total, but with deaths at 197,421, that would give us a 30% death rate? That doesn't sound right. (Note that once it gets to death -- we're usually pretty sure by that time that COVID really is involved.)

Where did Mandavilli go wrong? Look at the states she mentioned. Both Massachusetts and New York were hit hard by the virus early on, and Arizona got hit heavier later, but its population is small compared to Massachusetts and New York.

This means that a large chunk of the tests coming in lately from those states are likely to be re-tests from those who are seeing if the virus has left. In other words, the long-haulers, who are known to have dead remnants of the virus causing lingering symptoms, but who are also known not to be contagious.

So, no ... you can't transfer that 90% number to "new" cases ... not at all.

This is important to realize because when schools opened up, our country-wide New Case counts stalled briefly in their downward trend. Cases were popping up in noticeable clusters at several campuses and high schools, and not because of insufficient virus ... but because of super-spreader events. In other words, we can tell by the pattern of the spreads that these people are contagious. We can even trace it to parties that were held in late August, and there are several reports of students being sick -- though usually not so serious as to require hospitalization.

For the rest of this discussion, we can just throw out that 90% or 10% number. It's just wrong.

Colleges

Today you'll see a few articles from the New York Times. This is mainly because I think they're doing a good job compiling the data and putting together some nice dashboards. I may not agree with all their conclusions, but it's interesting stuff.

Several colleges have opened up their campuses. Some have kept the virus at bay while others haven't been doing quite as well.

You can check out how each school is doing by visiting this NY Times School Dashboard. Look at the map to see how each school is doing by color. And you can scroll down to your state to get a running total of cases reported at each school (though some numbers may be delayed).

In my city, Wake Forest is up to 56 cases. To get a sense of how they're handling the virus, you can check here. I also hear that Wake Forest is working with nearby hotels to help spread out the students living in on-campus housing. I present this as a school doing an okay job fighting the virus.

And then there's UNC, which as per the dashboard is up to 1,152 cases. Yeah ... whoa Nellie! And get this ... when the school saw that things were getting bad, they basically closed up on-campus housing and sent everyone home ... even the sick people.

This seems to be normal among several other colleges ... sending home sick students home so that they can all infect people at home and in transit.

The good news is that any bump from this new vector -- so far -- looks to be small. The schools just had to learn the hard way that opening campuses without proper preparation doesn't work so well, can lead to increased cases, and then infect the surrounding communities and contribute to more deaths.

BTW, xkcd ventures a guess as to why an optimistic model on schools turned out to be so wrong ...

High Schools

You can check out this NY Times Safe Schools Dashboard, which tries to show which areas are likely to be safe for opening up schools. It also shows some interesting stats. According to the map, it claims that my county of Forsyth should be safe to open up elementary schools, but not high schools yet.

I believe part of this is based on studies similar to the South Korea study showing that kids in the 10-19 age range are just as likely to spread the virus as adults are. And sure enough, we've seen several reports of immediate spread in the first week of high schools opening up, often resulting in moving studies back to remote.

These children have a much lower incidence of death, but can still be a vector, bringing home the sickness to their more susceptible parents and grandparents.

That same study seemed to indicate that kids in the 0-9 age range do not spread the virus as much, and thus the reason why elementary schools may be able to open sooner.

My child's high school is still holding remote classes. She really misses in-class learning, being with friends, and marching in the band. Though, with football season being moved to the Spring, there's hope that she may still get in some marching this school year. BTW ... I think marching itself could be quite safe, being outside and all, however inside practices could spread the virus as well as possible crowding in the stands.

Many have pointed out that schooling from home can be detrimental to the child's learning, and I can see why. It would be good to find any way to get them safely back to school.

BTW, you can keep up with developments among high schools across the states in this impressive database being maintained by the NEA. It attempts to report case counts and death counts (if any) from each individual school. Just look up your state and see if there are any reports for your school. (Note: if your school is remote, there's unlikely to be any reports yet.)

Conclusions

These younger students are less likely to die, but they can still get sick, and can still spread the virus, even if asymptomatic. Schools can be safely reopened if there is adequate preparation, cleaning, contact tracing, low-enough new case volume in the surrounding community, mask-wearing (for now), distancing, adequate ventilation inside, washing hands frequently, etc. Schools that fail to do this will spread the virus and/or end up closing. Those who succeed can enjoy having the students return safely.

I am happy to see overall counts dropping, so perhaps by January we can get our kids fully back in school. If we work hard now to keep counts low in the upcoming dangerous fall/winter months, it could help our kids get back to school much sooner.

Coronavirus Newsletter - Trump's Report Card

General Update / Trump: What He Did Right / What He Did Wrong / Final Grade / What About Biden?

Yes ... I know that the virus doesn't care about politics, and yes ... politics should be entirely separate from the virus. After all, the virus only cares about lungs and nom nom nom, whether we be Republican, Democrat, white, black, Asian, gay, straight, devout Christian, Muslim, atheist, or whatever.

But unfortunately if there's anything 2020 has taught us is that politics can and does determine how successfully the virus can spread. Some policies give the virus more lungs to infect, and some policies do a better job at protecting people.

So now we'll take a good look at how Trump has done, and give him a grade for his biggest test of his career.

But first ...

General Update
Deaths are slowing down, and New Cases are showing the very first signs of starting to speed up again. Worldwide, several countries in Europe are seeing resurgences. Brazil and Peru seem to be the most ballistic at the moment.

In the US, it looks like it's time for the midwest to have their turn at being the center of attention. The south is still trying to go down in counts, though my state of NC continues to struggle because of school outbreaks.

I guess that's all I got right now for updates ... so ...

What Trump Did Right
Next we must all realize that most everyone who is passionate about this subject wants the best for the people of the United States.

We may all disagree as to the best strategy. On one end of the spectrum, some believe that not even a single person should die from this disease, so we must all lockdown until it's all over in 4-6 weeks. And on the other end of the spectrum, some believe that we should ignore the virus, change no habits, and let our healthy immune systems take care of it.

However, we have a long history of pandemics, and other lesser breakouts. We have knowledge, experience, and experts who dedicate their lives to learning and stepping in to protect people from these sicknesses. These experts keep up to speed on the differences and similarities between outbreaks, and believe it or not, there are more similarities than differences, and thus we are able to use time-tested strategies.

For example, we know that universal mask wearing is effective with SARS coronaviruses, but not so much with influenza. We also know that identifying exposed people and quarantining them is very effective with practically all outbreaks, which means testing and contact tracing are vital to success. Lockdowns are only supposed to be used in emergency situations where other methods fail.

So, what about Trump?

I think he actually started out strong. At the end of January, he instituted travel restrictions against most parts of China. And he also instituted heavy quarantine measures on anyone exposed to the virus, while his opponents accused Trump of being racist or xenophobic. At the time, it seemed that Trump was the one overacting (good), and the Democrats were mocking him. (Though, isn't it funny that the Democrats are silent on all the countries that now have travel bans against us at this time?)

It was clear in early February that Trump did not want this virus in our borders, and I believe that his actions did indeed delay the spread of the virus for about a month compared to Italy and Spain whose cases shot up like a big explosion. Later in mid March, he increased travel restrictions to include most of Europe. He also instituted a 15-day "Slow the Spread" campaign encouraging social distancing and no groups larger than 10 people.

As the disease progressed late March/April, Trump (eventually) made sure there were plenty of supplies for New York, and he also mobilized military personnel to assist and set up makeshift hospitals to handle overflow. He also provided daily coronavirus briefings to keep the states informed on the latest developments.

In early April, Trump announced Operation Warp Speed, an effort to expend resources in an attempt to speed up the development of a safe vaccine against COVID19, though it's unclear to me how much this has helped the three vaccines currently in Phase 3 trials.

Up until this point in April, it really looked like Trump was mostly sincere about the fight against the virus, but then as soon as cases and deaths started to go down, he just seemed to stop caring.

What Trump Did Wrong
Despite the evidence that Trump tried to fight the virus through April, he wasn't consistent. From the beginning he wasn't perfect, though I'd say his handling was average through mid-April. He could have acted faster, pushed the "Slow the Spread" two weeks earlier, helped to push more testing earlier to help identify and quarantine.

The earlier containment strategies weren't the best. My favorite story was when our administration decided to rescue Americans off of the Diamond Princess mid-February. They loaded up a couple buses with everyone who had tested negative for the virus. But as they approached the planes, word came out that 14 of the passengers just then tested positive.

And remember what the rescuers did? They decided to go ahead and bring the sick people home. The 14 were placed at the very back of the plane with a plastic sheet to separate them from the rest of the non-infected passengers. Oopsies! Nom nom nom!

And as usual, Trump has been inconsistent throughout the whole epidemic with his tweets and strange utterances. For example, as early as March 9, he tweeted some stats from Fox News:

"So last year 37,000 Americans died from the common Flu. It averages between 27,000 and 70,000 per year. Nothing is shut down, life & the economy go on. At this moment there are 546 confirmed cases of CoronaVirus, with 22 deaths. Think about that!"

I think this confused the general public. People did think about it, and they resisted safety protocols.

When Trump was pushing hard for the drug HCQ, and immediately after, there was an uptick in poison calls from people ingesting a fish chemical with a similar sounding name. And when Trump talked about detergents, again there was an uptick in bleach poisoning.

It all just shows how influential utterances from the President can be. It's part of the job, so when Trump shows that he personally can't take the virus seriously, it inspires practically all of his base to likewise not take it seriously -- and the result? More spread of the virus. Nom nom nom.

One day Trump says, "You should be wearing masks," and then the next day, he can't be caught dead wearing a mask, and even goes so far as to imply that NOT wearing a mask is showing support for himself. Even a couple of days ago in a rally in Pennsylvania, Trump again mocked Biden for wearing a mask everywhere he goes, and how stupid he looks.

So -- which message are we supposed to believe? The one where Trump is serious and says, "Wear your mask"? Or the one where he's joking around and saying, "Masks are stupid"? When provided with two conflicting messages, the general public is going to pick the one they want to hear most. (Nom nom.)

If it were just saying stupid things and being a little lax at the beginning, I could probably cut Trump some slack, but this is not all.

In mid-April, when Trump was hoping to reopen the economy by Easter, even though the base of Active Cases was still very high, he first indicated that he was going to force every state to reopen. But then the very next day he said he was going to leave it up to the states' governors to decide how to best reopen. But then again the very next day after that, in response to some lockdown protests, he tweeted on April 17:

LIBERATE MICHIGAN, LIBERATE VIRGINIA, LIBERATE MINNESOTA. 

This wasn't just saying something stupid, but rather a direct attempt to incite an insurrection against the very governors he purported to be free to proceed as they saw best. And ever since then he has been openly critical about "liberally run" cities and states that are slow to reopen ... even threatening to cut funding on schools that don't resume in-person schooling.

If anything, after mid-April, Trump has shown an enormous and complete lack of support in the efforts of local states and cities to do what it takes to eradicate the virus, which in and of itself contributes to the spread of the virus. Nom nom nom nom. Yeah.

And ... this is very important to understand ... I know why Trump is doing this. It all started mid-February when the global stock markets crashed. The market was his pride and joy, knowing that if the stocks are down, so are the chances of his reelection. That's when he started painting more of a rosy picture ... when he went from overreacting to under-reacting ... (and incidentally about the same time the liberals started taking it more seriously -- except for Pelosi?).

So, he has been downplaying the virus for months now, just so the markets can come back up and save his election. In other words, he has been choosing to take these actions to benefit himself ... not to save you and me from the virus, but to make the numbers look good for his chances. Don't believe me yet?

Just look at his campaign trail of death. In June, he held a rally in heavily-infected Tulsa, OK. Free masks were available on request, but everyone got the message -- if you truly support Trump, don't wear the mask. The organizers of the event negated their agreed-upon safety precautions by removing safety tape from social-distancing empty chairs so the participants would be allowed to cram together.

Trump knows that a well-attended rally drums up support, so he wasn't going to let a non-existent virus stop the perception of a lively event. Again, more proof that his own reelection was more important than the safety of the people. During the rally setup, several of Trump's staff -- organizers and secret police -- caught the virus, and a noticeable surge hit Tulsa shortly after. It was about the same time that Herman Cain caught the virus and subsequently died. He could have also picked up the virus at any of the other events held in Arizona and elsewhere that week.

At the Republican Convention in Charlotte, reports are already coming in of virus spread during the event. I haven't heard anything yet from the DC gathering for Trump's acceptance speech, but just give it time. Again ... trying to ignore the virus doesn't stop it from munching on lungs ... nom nom nom.

Also recently, Trump has added a new member to his coronavirus task force -- not an epidemiologist, but rather a radiologist? He doesn't know much about epidemics, but he sure knows how to pretend to know, and had been quite loud on Fox News. Trump liked what he saw, so he welcomed Dr. Scott Atlas on board. Evidently, he has been instrumental in pushing for some of the more recent policies to downplay the virus. It's almost as if the Emperor with the New Clothes desired to hire someone to tell him that he indeed is wearing clothes.

Dr. Atlas, it seems, was the one who recently forced the CDC to announce the guideline that asymptomatic people no longer need to get tested, even if exposed to someone with the virus. Seriously? Nom nom nom.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/02/us/politics/trump-scott-atlas-coronavirus.html

And this will be my last observation in this section. The CDC is a federal department that reports to the President. As such, Trump has corrupted guidelines and instructions issued from the CDC. The one I just mentioned above was one instance -- one in which the Director Redfield was vehemently opposed.

Another case involved guidance removed from the CDC guidelines for reopening churches. The CDC had a paragraph warning against the dangers of singing in church, being proven to be superspreading events. Evidently the Trump administration had the paragraph removed because of concerns that it might be seen as trampling on First Amendment religious rights. (Nom nom nom.)

https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/05/29/865324310/cdc-quickly-changed-its-guidance-on-limiting-choirs-at-religious-services

Final Grade
There is so much "little" evidence against Trump, I'm struggling to bring it all together into this one blog post. All you have to do is open up the news and you can see the latest and greatest tactic Trump is using to promote himself over the safety of his constituents. Yet, the most interesting thing is that his base can't see any of this. Trump can do no wrong.

But to tell you the truth, even now I could delete that whole last section above and just present the following evidence, and by itself it would be enough to condemn Trump -- it would condemn any leader of any country that had the results you're about to see.

For months now, I've been tracking the total COVID deaths per million for several countries. This is much more appropriate number to track than total Cases reported or even total Deaths. Seeing it on a per-capita basis takes care of the issue of the US having a relatively large population. And Death counts are much more accurate than Case counts -- the last of which depend on testing, which rates vary between each country.

My source comes from the data at this website: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

And here is what my latest compiled graph looks like:

I start counting when a nation reaches 1 death per million to put each country on the same basis. The US is the bold green line with the currently steep upward slope. At the beginning of this week, the US ranked 9th place in the world for this stat. (Note that this excludes San Marino and Andorra, which are very small countries -- their high stats don't make sense in this context.)

But in the last couple of days, the US just now passed Sweden, and in a few days will bypass Italy as well, putting us in 7th place. It may even bypass Spain and the UK (and Chile) in a couple of weeks, placing us in 4th place. Not pictured in this graph are Chile at 600, Belgium at 854, and Peru at 894.

And keep in mind that this is out of 156 countries that have 1 million or more population (anything under that amount fails in this analysis).

That means by this stat alone, our current 8th place means there are 148 countries that are doing better than us. Also for comparison, Germany -- that curve just above 100 -- ranks 41st place, leaving the vast majority of countries below that line. The average for the whole world combined is 112.8 deaths per million. The US is at 580 deaths per million. 5 times more than world average!

There's just no way to spin this except to say that whoever is in charge of this country is doing a terrible job. He isn't doing whatever all these other countries are doing, and people have been dying from it.

The results speak for themselves. We're doing really poorly, and many experts are saying that we're not even halfway done yet. Is it possible to start doing what some of those other countries are doing? Maybe -- but not likely under the current leadership, and the confusing messages being sent to our public, and the lack of support in all the right places.

Trump's final grade: F

He doesn't even get points for trying early on. In fact it's so bad that I believe if Ebola were to hit us now, like it did in and around 2014, I think we'd have a humanitarian disaster on our hands. I do not feel safe.

What About Biden?

Are there any good alternative candidates that may more effectively fight the virus? If anything, I think Biden couldn't do worse. He is already running on the platform of issuing a nation-wide mask wearing mandate, not unlike what many successful countries have done.

He also evidently has a 8-step plan that he says will reopen the nation safely.

https://joebiden.com/reopening/#

I definitely prefer his proposals over Trump's plan (wait -- does Trump even have a plan?). But some items on his list might be a little overkill, and I really think we could benefit from the Google/Apple automated contact tracing app -- it could really save us a lot of time and help the human contact tracers.

And as I said before, the trifecta of masks / testing / contact tracing are together what get the best results in the most successful countries. Biden's plan almost sounds like that.