Christmas, COVID-19, Reflections

A Covid Christmas

Leave a comment

Following the Christian calendar, year after year, is like reading a favorite book over and over again.   We know the beginning, the middle, and the end so thoroughly that each scene is infused and intertwined with the rest of the story.  This makes it difficult, if not impossible, to enter the story at the beginning while suspending the knowledge of the ending.  After all it is the empty cross that ultimately provides the meaning for Jesus’ birth.  But this knowledge takes us out of the story into the privileged position of a spectator that knows the context and outcome. 

Today’s COVID Christmas is an ideal time to enter into the story.  But we need to try and “unknow” the ending.  Christ was born at time and place when hope was in short supply.  Israel was occupied and under foreign rule.  Jesus enters the story not as the grown up champion of Israel announced with great fanfare to the populace, religious leaders, and military/political leadership.  Rather, Jesus arrives as an infant, whose birth is announced to family (Elizabeth) and a select few.  The select few were not rulers, but shepherds.  The announcement however was glorious!  (Luke 2:8-18).   It was the lowly shepherds that spread the news.  Later Simeon and the Prophet Anna would see the baby Jesus and understand what they were seeing.  According to Matthew, Herod would learn about Jesus from foreign sources (Matthew 2:2), not from local sources.  

To those that are not related to Mary, select prophets, foreign wise men, or shepherds, the hope of Jesus enters as a faint whisper, perhaps a third or fourth hand story of a child, born weeks before, with some prophetic words spoken about His future.  These stories are easy to dismiss as rumors, but somehow, perhaps, eliciting a glimmer of hope.  To those sensitive to the Spirit of God might have perceived that there was something “in the air” that promised renewal. 

This COVID Christmas invites us to enter the story of Jesus’ birth, not as a shepherd, prophet, or wise man, but as a common person outside of Jerusalem or Bethlehem. Many of us are disconnected from in person worship, as a common person was often disconnected from the temple in Jerusalem.  There was no Christmas celebration; Christianity as a religion was something that occurs in the future. I suspect that Hanukah did not have the same emphasis as it does today.   There probably wasn’t the same amount of travel to get family together at the winter solstice as there is today.  Still, to a few, there was perhaps a glimmer of hope “in the air.” 

Today we in the United States are in a very dark period dominated by both political chaos and pandemic.  Yet there is a sense of “hope in the air.”  The hope for the pandemic arises in the nature of vaccines that will at least help lessen the burden of the pandemic.  The hope for the political crisis lies in the 4 year political cycle where a new administration takes power (even if the political debates and divisions continue).  The hope in the spiritual realm lies with an infant, too young to start His ministry, still unable to speak or walk, yet already making His presence known in the “spiritual air” of the era.  It is a start, a promise of what is yet to be, that there is “light at the end of tunnel.” Yet we still need to pass through the remainder of the tunnel.  Yes there is hope for what is yet unseen or experienced.

Today we seem desperate to make Christmas as normal as is possible.  Perhaps we think that minimizing the impact of COVID provides us with some hope.  This is a false hope.  True hope stands in the midst of the chaos and looks into the “spiritual air” to sense the stirrings of possibilities that the Holy Spirit is presenting.  Then our job is to align with the Holy Spirit.

Perhaps we should accept a Christmas that is not “normal,” so that we can reflect on the first Christmas as it actually occurred:  when something new entered the world.   Perhaps true Christmas is attempting to discern what the Spirit of God is doing today that will only become obvious in the future.

Have a great Covid Christmas.

COVID-19, Reflections, Science and Politics

Ode to an Unmasked Man

Leave a comment

Defiantly you marched into the supermarket, without a mask in an era of Covid-19.  No governor, no social pressure, no concern of neighbor would force you to wear a mask.  No sanitizing wipes will you use on the shopping cart.  No extra washing of hands will you tolerate.  Walking down the produce isle, watching people avoid you, getting out of your way, no 6 foot rule will you abide?   Does that make you feel powerful?  If others insist, let them scramble out of your path, “I am free, no one my motions to restrict” is your motto.  Standing by the meat isle as the masked 74 year old woman walks past, she trying to avoid you, and you oblivious to the risk you present, dare SARS-CoV-2 to infect her.  She has a better chance of surviving a game of Russian roulette than your infectious glance.   But that is her problem, not yours?  Like Cain in Genesis, the murderer, you ask, “Am I my brother’s keeper?”  Of course the answer is yes, you just don’t get it yet.  You ignore the question.

How am I to think of you?  Perhaps you cannot afford a mask, but then, your confident stance, your defiant attitude seems to make this unlikely.  If you asked I would give you one.  Perhaps you have a psychological disorder that makes wearing a mask a generator of trauma.  But you stance is defiant, not concerned.  Your defiant stance, your cavalier attitude that we are all fools and you are the one who knows best, seems to argue against rational explanations.   All the experts are wrong, you are right, there is no risk, it is a conspiracy of the left.  Absorbed in your self-confined world, you accept no limitations of your own ego, I know best for everyone, seems to be your motto.  Yet that little piece of RNA we call SARS-CoV-2 knows none of this.  It has no brain, it has no intention, it has no purpose, it will infect all who absorb enough of it.  And you, oh mightily self-sufficient manly “ I will not wear a mask” soul, are nothing more than the transfer vehicle for an a hunk of RNA from yourself to an innocent person who just happened to be near you.  You are nothing but the vehicle for a microscopic piece of RNA, which has outwitted you.

Your refusal to accept the situation makes it more likely that you have the virus; you just don’t know it yet.   In the final accounting, how many lives will you be responsible for ending?  Is that a matter of pride for you?  If this is your attitude? I must assume you are affected.  Perhaps you are not, but since you are not taking precautions, you have a higher probability of being a carrier than that 74 year old woman you just condemned to death.

I tried to avoid you, but you made that difficult, was that deliberate?  Perhaps when you face St. Peter you will be faced with all the people you infected, and especially those you killed.  Perhaps I may be among them.  Do you feel powerful?  You are, we are, all of us are, we are also powerless.  The question we all face in this era is about our relationship to others.  Is it all about me?  Is my freedom worth other people’s lives? 

The choice:  wear a mask, or the 74 year old woman passing you by dies.  What is your answer?  Your answer says a lot about who you are.

(This was stimulated by my experience within a food store. It however conflates several instances that occurred during the same visit, but one make unmasked individual, whom I do not know…)

David A. Larrabee 5/14/2020

COVID-19, Good Friday, Lent

A distant hill: Reflections on Good Friday 2020

Leave a comment

It is close to the start of Passover in 33 CE.  Jeremiah and his family had a land inheritance of about four acres that they worked by hand.    They had a few fruit and nut trees.   The neighbors had similar sized farms.   The small community shared a well for household water, which naturally served as a meeting point.    They were poor by city standards, but managed to survive on the small farms.  The last few years had been hard, and the tax on their farm was keenly felt.  They were too poor and too far away to make the trip to Jerusalem for Passover, so the family usually celebrated the Seder together at home.  The date of the Seder was determined by observations in Jerusalem, and the information never seemed to arrive in time.  So, they took their best guess.  This year they didn’t have a lamb, just a few goats, so there would be no sacrifice of a lamb.  The work on the farms was tough work, and they were falling behind, so this year they decided on celebrating the Seder on the Sabbath, it was close anyway, and they hadn’t heard from Jerusalem yet on the exact day.   Today they were busy getting ready for the Sabbath and finishing up the weekly work on the farm.

As noon approached a dust storm seemed to arise out of nowhere, blotting out the sun.  It made working in the fields difficult, so they abandoned their work, picked up the tools and headed back to the house.  Preparation of the Seder was in progress as the family gathered.   Somewhere around mid-afternoon the dust storm stopped and the earth trembled.   Three years ago there had been an earth quake, and the community had to make some repairs to the houses.  So they took note and waited.  The earth quake stopped and they didn’t see any damage to the houses.   They breathed a sigh of relief.

The sun set and they had the Seder, memorializing Israel’s escape from bondage in Egypt.   One of Jeremiah’s sons had sold some grain in the local village, so after dinner conversation centered on the gossip he had heard about the goings on in Jerusalem.  No one around the table had ever been to Jerusalem, so the stories of the Temple and large buildings strained their ability to even imagine the sight.  There were always rumors of messiahs, and this Passover was no exception.  The idea of a messiah that would really make a difference seemed a flight of fantasy. For the subsistence farmer the more things changed the more they stayed the same, or got worse.  A good year was when nothing major happened; no drought, no famine, no soldiers tramping fields, and no death. The evening’s prayers included the hope for better times, better harvests, and for health. 

How could they know that on Golgotha the Messiah they gossiped about had been hung on a tree and died?  They could not know what that death would portend for the world, it was just another Saturday.  Sunday, Easter Sunday, they would go back to work their fields.  How long would it be until they knew of the events and what it meant?

Stories take on a different meaning when you know the ending.  On Good Friday, we know that Easter is just a few days away.  We know that the disciples will establish a church that will spread though out the world.    Jeremiah knew nothing of this story as it was happening.  Perhaps Jeremiah and his community will hear of the news as gossip reaches the village.  Jeremiah cannot know what future possibilities were brought into being on that day.  

We are probably unaware of some of the real changes that are becoming possible because of what is happening today, either good or bad.   We may not even know the major events, which will be for historians to reveal.  We see the dust storm and earthquake, but like Jeremiah, we do not yet know the ultimate significance of recent events.  For most of us, we are physically separated from our church, just as Jeremiah and his family are separated from the Temple.  Like Jeremiah, we can live in the present and celebrate Lent as best we can with our families.  We know not what the future will bring.   

Since the 15th century the Seder ends with the phrase “Next year in Jerusalem.”  Let’s take that as a reflection of hope that we will be reunited next year.   May it be so.  

COVID-19, Financial Ethics

COVID-19 and Financial Ruin: some reflections

Leave a comment

Pres. Trump wants to restart the economy as soon as possible and possibly sooner.  The unemployment rate is skyrocketing.   A recession seems likely, and even a depression has been discussed.  The economic pain is real, and not to be discounted.  The urge to get it over with and move on is real, but very dangerous from a public health standpoint.  Some times when the desire to get back to work  is raised in social media the response is something along the lines of “how dare you put financial consideration ahead of lives.”  This is an understandable response, but not helpful to those who are fearful and suffering.  Such a response may feel good, but is not effective in either changing peoples minds, or giving comfort to those who are fearful of the future.

A Good Question

A person responded to one of my Facebook posts with the following question.

And what do you propose for those of us who stand to lose everything if it all remains closed? Honest question

I have decided to extend my remarks to their post, correct some grammar, and clarify some points. The result is below.

Confronting our Fears

Your question is an honest and good question. My answer would depend on an individual’s particular situation. For me losing everything is more like losing a child, a parent, a spouse. People cannot be replaced by money. But financial stress and uncertainty are real and important.  I would suggest that you change the wording of your question slightly, to help clarify your thinking. I suggest you replace “lose everything” to something more specific to your situation like; “risk bankruptcy”, “become homeless”, “be unable to pay the mortgage or rent”,” find something to eat”, or whatever is the actual financial fears you face. Let me give you a personal example.

I am retired; my retirement funds are in things like 401K’s TIAA accounts etc. I do not yet receive Social Security.  The value of those investments has taken a nosedive.  I started my adult financial life in the massive inflation of the late 1970’s early 1980’s (peaked at 14.75%), and high interest rate (prime at it is peak was like 15%). So I naturally fear that excessive federal spending will push up inflation as we emerge from COVID-19.  The response to this could raise interest rates, a repeat of the late 1970’s. Of course inflation will lower the real financial values of my retirement and high interest rates will hurt many investments.  I expect my financial situation to continue deteriorating for quite a while.   The fear therefore is that I will no longer have enough money for retirement.  Confronting my fears allows me to consider options. I am lucky, in that I have options to consider (come out retirement, etc…) 

So, my answer to your question would depend on the given situation you are in (which I do not know).   So let me examine several possibilities.

Those unable to cope financially

Some people in the United States are living in a constant state of financial crisis.  They did not have adequate financial resources or income to adequately meet basic needs (shelter, water, food, medical care, etc.) before the pandemic.   COVID-19 makes their situation even worse.  Institutions that help (food kitchens, homeless shelters, etc.) normally struggle to meet their needs, and now when they are needed more, supplying that help is more difficult.   A far better safety net for those who were living below or near the edge of financial viability needs to be developed.  It is simply immoral to throw the most vulnerable under the bus.  To do this well will probably mean increased tax burden on the rest of us.  So be it.  Perhaps a truly progressive income tax system is one positive result that might emerge.  

Those just getting started financially

I can really sympathize with this group.  Getting my first job in the midst of high inflation and high interest rates meant that I saw my income erode in earning power month by month.  It did teach me a few things.  It taught me to manage my money and budget.  It taught me to keep some food in the house so if I ran out of money by the end of the month I had something to eat.  It taught me the difference between what I actually needed, and what was a desire.  It was a tough time.  It did come to an end.  

If you had to pick a point in your life when you went through a major financial crisis that took you to the breaking point (and perhaps beyond), having it early in your career has several benefits.  First, you have more time to recover.   Second, you might have less investments and resources to lose than you will have later in life (like a mortgage).  Finally, you probably have less investment in a particular career.  Of course having an entire working life without going through such turmoil is preferred to living through a crisis.  But that is beyond your pay grade….

A mid-career crisis

For those that are mid-career, but have skills that are valued and needed, yes you might have to start over, you might suffer a drop in your lifestyle, or you might not. Many individuals have faced that possibility before. Your house burns down and insurance doesn’t adequately cover the replacement cost, so you have to start over.  An illness in your family forces you into a medical bankruptcy.  You are then forced to seriously downgrade your lifestyle. Divorce causes a massive drop in your income.   People go through all these things every day.  It happens, most survive and adjust. 

In my life time there were periods when a lot of highly skilled engineers and scientists were laid off, with almost no possibility of reemployment.  This is more like today, where everyone is being hit simultaneously.  One such time was just after the moon landings.  There were other times since then as well.  It seems we can’t go too long without going through this.   I had an acquaintance that hid their PhD so they could get a job pumping gas (an extreme case I admit). Other’s started new careers in their 40’s and even 50’s. The choice is between fear, bitterness, or using the experience to reshape one’s life using the experiences already gained.

Near retirement

Other’s near retirement (60’s+) often have a really tough time getting another job if they are laid off (age discrimination is very real).  For those near retirement there is little chance to recover from a major financial loss.  So this would often mean delaying retirement and a real downsizing of the standard of living. It happens. Better to happen before retirement than after retirement.

Retired

Social Security payments do not provide even a moderate standard of living by themselves.  That means either retired people have to work, of have some income from savings, or retirement account. Financial losses at this stage can be disastrous.  Social security benefits are the subject of much political infighting.  I can only guess at the damage COVID-19 is going to do the retired poor.   It will be an uphill battle to address this issue in the federal government. 

Where does that leave us?

The categories I have considered are by no means complete.  We haven’t discussed differences in financial hardships due to: race, immigration, undocumented persons, religious backgrounds, location (rural vs urban), etc.  But I hope we have done enough to come to a tentative way of looking at the issue. 

Those of us that face financial hardships now, have not had to face them in the recent past, and have built up some financial cushion, are privileged (myself included).  Also privileged are those to whom financial troubles are new and have time in their lives to recover financially.  We have options.  We may not like them, but we have options.

This situation can allow us to consider the difference between our actual needs and our desires. Before this pandemic I was giving a talk about energy policy and less developed countries. One of my points was a personal definition of greed that comes from my Christian background. Greed is when my desires become more important to me than my neighbor’s needs. Many times I stand self accused of this kind of greed.

The future will present difficulties. Those of that are able need to support those of us without the necessary resources.  That is what love your neighbor means in the day to day activities that constitute our lives.  That support can take many forms.  If you look around, you will see individuals acting out of their love of neighbor.  

Conclusion

I acknowledge (and share) your sense of financial fear. It may well be justified.  If you have the resources right now, here is my suggestion, which perhaps you have already done. Find a local charity that runs a food bank, or provides shelter for the homeless, and make a donation. Make it 50% larger than you think reasonable. Then be thankful that you can do this.

There used to be a book called What color is your Parachute, it was pretty good.  This book, or some book like it, might provide some insight as to the options you have in a post COVID-19 world.  Make it your intention to turn adversity into opportunity.

In closing

Wash your hands. Don’t touch your face.  Practice social distancing.  Stay at home, if directed to do so. 

Be safe: I hope to see you on the other side.

COVID-19, Politics, Science and Politics

Walking the Arete between science and Trump

Leave a comment

Being a scientist working with Trump under public scrutiny has to be like walking along a arête, a knife like ridge between two mountain peaks. Falling over one side is loosing one’s position (and influence) by clearly contradicting Trump, even when he is wrong. Falling over the other side is saying something that is questionable scientifically, thereby loosing ones credibility, in order to pacify Trump. It seems as if one of the key scientists (Dr. Birx) may have fallen off the ridge on the side of trying to justify Trump’s optimism. If so, we should question everything she says.  Credibility is hard to gain, and easy to loose.

Whom am I to say?

This is a hard thing for me to write. I am not an epidemiologist. In any per review in an epidemiological journal, I would not qualify as a reviewer. So  I am out of my discipline , I admit it.  The scientist in me (Physicist) says, I am not qualified to judge, so rather than risk my own credibility I should remain silent.  Credibility is hard to acquire, and easy to loose, and is the currency of the successful scientist.   But in this pandemic the risk of staying silent perhaps outweighs the risk of losing ones credibility.  I also need to walk an arête.
 
On the other hand,  as a computational physicist I find I can read the technical literature on the mathematics of epidemiological  modeling and understand it. In fact, my work in modeling physical systems (from graduate student thru retirement) involved far more involved mathematics than is present in at least the basic epidemiological models based on differential equations.  Some of the models developed are impressive team efforts.  The simpler, well known, epidemiological models can give plenty of insight.  
 
My weakness with the modeling is in correlating policy to the mathematical constants in the equations. This is made more difficult  because the analysis of COVID-19 is still in process.   Perhaps it is even more difficult to know societies response to the various public policies.   

Misleading statements on Attack Rate

Dr. Birx suggested that the models are inaccurate and overstate the threat of Covid-19.   If you like you can see a video of her presentation on 3/26/2020 here
 
I have a few questions about her presentation:
 
“In no country to date have we seen an attack rate over 1 in 1,000” (1:04 in the above video).  
 
First, what is the definition of attack rate?  If I go by the CDC’s online self study course, which also agrees with other authors. 
 
 
“Incidence proportion is the proportion of an initially disease-free population that develops disease, becomes injured, or dies during a specified (usually limited) period of time. Synonyms include attack rate, risk, probability of getting disease, and cumulative incidence. Incidence proportion is a proportion because the persons in the numerator, those who develop disease, are all included in the denominator (the entire population).” {I added the Bold}
 
Now the population needs to be specified, and she did, a country.  But the period also needs to be specified.  She added “to date.” When you are in the middle of the pandemic the attack rate “to date” doesn’t tell you much!  What you would like to know is how large the attack rate will become!   However, the statement was almost certainly not true when she said it.  
 
Italy, on 3/25/2020 had 74,386 cases with a population of 60.5 million or an attack rate of 1.2 per thousand.   This data is from the John Hopkins tacking website on 3/25/2020 at 1:12 pm.  The same number is in the World Health Organization Special Report number 66.
 
 
Worse than being wrong, this is highly misleading.  Few countries have yet been through the entire pandemic sequence.  So the number for Italy has already risen.  Right now (3/28/2020 2:30 pm) Italy has 92,472 cases for “to date” attack rate of 1.53 per thousand and rising.
 
Restricting the geography to country allows for a larger denominator and lower rates.   Why does this matter?  New York city (population: 8.7 million) the evening before her talk,3/25/2020 had 20,011 cases according to the John Hopkins site.   This is 2.3 per thousand and climbing!  Now that has climbed to 29,158 so the “to date” attack rate is 3.34 per thousand and climbing.   
 
In addition, in the US we are not testing everyone with symptoms.  So the figures for New York City are lower that the actual number of infections.  It takes time for symptoms to emerge.  So the current testing measures what has happened a few days ago (or longer). 
 
Ironically at 4:13 she acknowledges that some of us will look up the numbers (yup) and that we will only find “small countries” that will top 1 in 1,000.   She didn’t do her homework, even though between 1:41 and 1:57 she talks about Italy.
 
At best her statement wasn’t up to date (she should have checked).  At worst it was deliberately misleading. 

Can 20% of the Population become infected?

She suggested that models that predict that 20% of the US could be infected were over estimating the problem.  (2:11)  She didn’t actually say that, but it was surely implied.  Just before that was a general downplaying of the accuracy of the models, and assertions that they were not predicting the correct behavior.
 
Can 20% of the United State become infected?   Of course we cannot fully know the what will happen in the United States, much of that depends on how we react to the situation.    We can look at the ordinary flu data to see if it is POSSIBLE for 20% to become infected.  Again lets go back to the CDC website.
 
 
This is directly from the website (3/28/2020)
 
“A 2018  CDC  study  published  in  Clinical  Infectious  Diseases  

looked at the percentage of the U.S. population who were sickened by flu using two different methods and compared the findings. Both methods had similar findings, which suggested that on average, about 8% of the U.S. population gets sick from flu each season, with a range of between 3% and 11%, depending on the season.

Why is the 3% to 11% estimate different from the previously cited 5% to 20% range?

The commonly cited 5% to 20% estimate was based on a study that examined both symptomatic and asymptomatic influenza illness, which means it also looked at people who may have had the flu but never knew it because they didn’t have any symptoms. The 3% to 11% range is an estimate of the proportion of people who have symptomatic flu illness.”

We vaccinate people for the flu.  Looking around the web perhaps 50% of the population gets a flue shot.  However there is no vaccine for the current SARS-CoV-2 virus.  So the 3% to 20% range of the number above is more like 6% to 40% of the population that is not  vaccinated.  It should be noted that the H1N1 pandemic in 2009 is estimated to have effected 19.9% of the population.  

https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/52/suppl_1/S13/498323

(see last paragraph before the summary)

So yes, 20%  of the population COULD (not will, COULD) become infected.  It is our job to prevent that.

Again, her statements are at best misleading, playing down the dangers that we confront.

60% to 70% in 8 to 12 weeks is …. (3:46-3:59)

Dr. Birx closes with a statement about no models show 60% to 70% of the US affected within the next 8-12 weeks. Let me start this off by saying that I do not think that the pandemic will get that bad in the US. I have faith that enough people will act appropriately to prevent this. Notice I didn’t base my comment on models. Non the less, we should parse the numbers and ask if this is possible.

Before Dr. Brix spoke John Hopkins reported 68,572 confirmed cases in the US. The population of the United States is roughly 327 million. 70% of that is 229 million. Thus the number of cases would have to grow by a factor of 4,768 (327,000,000/68,572). If (and its a very big if) we were to continue to grow exponentially this would require a little over 12 doublings. (212 = 4,096).  12 doubling in 12 weeks is one doubling a week.  Is that possible?  Take a look at the data yourself from the WHO, plot it up in excel and fit an exponential to it.  So yes, IF the current trends continue, this is mathematically possible.  Is it likely? Only if we are very foolish and twiddle our thumbs, refusing to change our behavior, while the epidemic runs through the country.  

My issue with Dr. Birx’s statement is the potential that it be interpreted as saying: we don’t have to worry.   But with Trump’s wanting to start the company up, and Dr. Birx as his adviser, this is the wrong message to send. At Best Dr. Birx should have qualified the statement by indicating whose models she was considering.

Be concerned, but funnel that concern into actions that help.  Practice social distancing, wash your hands and do it right, know the symptoms and if you have them, self isolate.  We can do this, but not without some self sacrifice and effort.

The Biggest Issue

Perhaps the biggest problem with Dr. Birx’s statements is she hasn’t shown us her data.   Perhaps she would make the argument that she was only talking about the one study she mentioned.  But she inferred much more.

Scientists are data based.   If a scientist is unwilling to show the data, then they cannot be taken seriously.  Statements about models that are hidden from public view are not to be trusted.  A scientist is obligated to share their work, their data, and their reasoning so that others can examine, and critique their work.  Any scientist that makes statements about the data, that they are unwilling to submit to per review, are not to be trusted.  Period, end of story, drop the mic.  It is per-review that puts the disinfectant of public disclosure on ones work.  

Conclusion

I morn the loss of a trust worthy insider in the Trump inner circle.  Perhaps this was all a show to keep her job, thinking that she can  more good in her job than outside.  But until proven otherwise, I will treat anything that Dr. Brix says with a bit of suspicion.  That doesn’t mean that anything she say is false.  It just means we need independent verification before we can believe what she says.

Sadly a scientific colleague may have fallen off the arête, and I don’t have a rope to throw to her.

COVID-19, Uncategorized

Covid-19: Lessons  from Isaac Newton.

Leave a comment

 

The Bubonic plague broke out in England in 1665.  Cambridge University sent its students home.  Sound familiar? One of those students was Isaac Newton.

Isaac Newton was admitted to Trinity College at Cambridge University in June of 1661.  He  started his master degree and, bang, he has to leave because of the plague.  Waiting out the plague, Newton spent 18 months at Woolsthrope.  In those 18 months Isaac Newton laid the groundwork for some of his greatest works. 

I am thinking about Newton as we enter the phase of “social distancing” with the Covid-19 pandemic.  Did Newton write to his friends, all disbursed from Cambridge?  Today I can call someone on my cell phone, message them on Facebook, send an email, or video chat on Zoom or Skype.   It was pointed out to me on Facebook that we are really not called to practice “social distancing” but physical separation.  Avoiding someone on Facebook will not prevent Covid-19, even if defriending improves mental health.  In Newton’s day physical separation was largely social separation.  Today we are blessed with many ways of staying in touch.  So don’t disappear, stay in touch.

Newton didn’t sit around bemoaning his separation from school.  Newton was productive and engaged, laying the groundwork for what would become his theory gravity, his version of calculus, and his theories of optics. 

Returning  to Cambridge in 1667, Newton receives his master’s degree, is elected a fellow of Trinity College, becomes a professor, and is elected to the Royal society of London, all in about 5 years.  

Can we follow Isaac Newton’s example?  Try and use the time in preparation so that when we emerge from this period, great things can happen.    Unlike Newton’s 18 months away from school,  physical separation doesn’t have to be social separation.  Let’s also pray that our leaders are smart enough to get it over with in a few months, rather than 18 months Newton spent away from school.

Science and Religion

Being a Scientist and a Christian: Lessons from Religious Dual Belonging.

Leave a comment

Below is an annotated version of the talk I gave at the American Scientific Affiliation meeting on July 28, 2018 at Gordon College in Wenham Ma.  The American Scientific Affiliation is an organization concerned with the dialog between science and Christianity.  To be a member you need to have and undergraduate degree in science or a related discipline and be willing to affirm either the Apostle’s or Nicene Creed.

Loader Loading...
EAD Logo Taking too long?

Reload Reload document
| Open Open in new tab

Download [233.83 KB]

Politics

Thoughts on Preventing and Responding to School Shooting

Leave a comment

My prayers and heart go out to the families and friends of the victims of the latest mass shootings.  I have been struggling with an appropriate constructive response to this tragedy.  Nothing we do can bring back all the lives that have been lost in all the mass shootings.   Now the youth are leading the way in the fight to prevent such tragedies in the future, this is a hopeful and wonderful response as it is their future.   It is always with the youth that our hope for the future finds it best expression.  As I get older I see my role shifting to enabling the next generation.  One way this can happen is to provide encouragement.  To the youth I say, thank you, stay the course, keep heart, and remain dedicated to the task, especially when it seems your task seems hopeless, it isn’t.  Another way of helping is to provide our best thoughts and insight for their consideration, an effort to pass down the best we have to offer, not as a mandate, not as an agenda or assignment, but as something for them to ponder.  It should be our hope that they will take where we start and move beyond it, creating something better than we could create.  This post is my best current thought on the matter.

People are searching for a single legislative solution to the problem.  Legislation is clearly needed.  However, it seems unlikely to me that any single change will result in the elimination of mass shootings in the United States.  Rather I believe that there needs to be a collection of changes and legislation to at least minimize the possibility of mass shootings.  These changes need to include: prevention, planning, preparation, training, practice, execution,  evaluation, and modification.

Prevention: Every mass shooting event that is prevented is one less event to which we need to respond.  Prevention means: maximizing the chance that someone who wants to commit an act of indiscriminate violence is identified and confronted, once identified making sure they are denied access to the guns or other items necessary to carry out the plan, and making sure they get  the support necessary to resolve the issues.  Prevention means dealing with the issues in the schools and society at large that trigger the desire to commit an act of indiscriminate violence.  But prevention alone is unlikely to be 100% effective.  We still have car accidents, murders, and act of violence.  People will get angry, guns are likely to remain available in spite of any regulations, background checks etc.  Prevention needs to include training those who come into contact with the at risk individual to identify individuals likely to consider acts of violence.  Prevention will include procedures for collection of data, the dissemination of data, and the ability to act on the data.  Prevention will include preventing at risk individuals from getting access to items they need to carry out their plans. Part of this should involve deciding what items the public can purchase and what items they cannot.  Everything should be on the table.

Planning:  Prevention is unlikely to be 100% effective.  We plan for fires with fire departments, medical emergencies with ambulances and hospitals, and snow with snowplows.  Similarly we need to plan, in advance, for our response when someone with intent to kill indiscriminately gets access to the tools to carry out their desires.

Preparation:  No amount of planning will be effective unless we prepare for the execution of the plan.  For just one example, if teachers are to sequester the students in a classroom, then their needs to be an effective way of locking the door from the inside quickly, in such a way that the shooter cannot enter but the police can.  The door needs to be strong enough that bullets cannot enter the classroom ….

Training: Those involved in the response need to be trained in their expected roles and actions.  No amount of planning and preparation will be effective if those involved do not know what is expected of them and know the procedures necessary to carry out the expectations.  These responses need to be automatic which leads us to:

Practice:  In an emergency situation we often run on instinct.  That instinct can be effective or ineffective.  Practice can make the response automatic so that the right thing is done during the confusion of the actual event.  Without practice and preparation the response may become ineffective.  Practice also involves some sort of  the simulation of the event.

Execution:  When the time comes, the plan needs to be successfully implemented.

Evaluation:  After the incident the response needs to be evaluated.  Even if the execution of the plan was successful an evaluation still needs to be performed.  There are some of the questions that need to be asked:  What worked, what didn’t work, were there barriers to execution, was the preparation adequate, what changes would make the response more effective, what could have been done to prevent the incident in the first place.  These questions allow for the accumulation of best practices, issues that need addressing, and modifications that might make the entire sequence more effective.

Modification:  Evaluations will not lead to improvement unless the evaluations leads to modifications of the system.  When it becomes apparent that modifications would be effective, they need to be implemented.   After implementation the entire process needs to be gone through again.

As I listen to people talk about the problem of gun violence in schools it seems most speakers put the emphasis on one or two of these items.  I have come to the conclusion that dealing effectively with the problem will involve addressing each of these areas.  We do this in other areas where failure involves catastrophic consequences.  We need to take shootings in school with the same seriousness, or even more seriousness, than other potentially catastrophic events; at the national, state, and regional levels.   Taking it seriously involves; study, legislation, funding, and the desire and will of all those who can have an impact on the schools.

Again my prayers and heart go out to all those who grieve,  My encouragement goes out to the young people who are working so hard to make a difference.   Perhaps the biggest thing each of us can do is to vote out of office all those who do not take this problems seriously enough to look for and implement solutions that are effective on multiple levels.

2/22/2018

Edited for grammar and clarity 2/24/2018

Climate Cange denial, Climate Change, Misrepresenting Science

James Taylor (2013): misrepresenting peer reviewed article

Leave a comment

SOHO.net has provided a link to an opinion piece by James Taylor that appeared in Forbes magazine (2013) that misrepresents the work of Lefsrud and Meyer “Science or Science Fiction? Professionals Discursive Construction of Climate Change” published in Organization Studies, (2012) in an attempt to show that climate change is  a minority option among scientists.  The thesis stated in the original Forbes article:

“It is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus.”

“Don’t look now, but maybe a scientific consensus exists concerning global warming after all. Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.”

The 36% quoted above is from the article by Lefsrud and Meyer but is highly misleading.  The intent of the original article was to understand the framing of climate change to understand ‘defensive institutional work’.

“By linking notions of the science or science fiction of climate change to the assessment of the adequacy of global and local policies and of potential organizational responses, we contribute to the understanding of ‘defensive institutional work’ by professionals within petroleum companies, related industries, government regulators, and their professional association.”

The survey was of members of APEGA (Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta), heavily weighted by people in the petroleum industry.  This is acknowleged in the article by Lefsrud and Meyer.

“The petroleum industry in Alberta is an instrumental case (Stake, 1995; per Greenwood & Suddaby, 2006) to examine the debate of climate change expertise given the economic centrality of the oil industry, the oil sands as a controversial energy source, and the dominance of professionals that gives them a privileged position as influencers of government and industry policy. “

“There are 540 multinational integrated, midsized, and junior oil and gas companies in Canada (nearly all headquartered in Calgary, Alberta) with operations worldwide. ”

If you want to understand nuances of climate change interpretation, what better place to look than inside the petroleum industry!  This survey is more a survey of scientists and engineers in the petroleum industry (in Alberta) than any representation of scientists as whole, or climate change scientists in particular.  In addition the survey was not designed to get a yes/no response on climate change but to understand more nuanced positions, and not a binary result (does or does not believe in climate change caused by humans).  Consequently the responses to the survey  were assigned to one of 5 categories. (See table 4 in the report)  Using this report to represent the whole scientific community is at best misleading.

The category with the largest response was “agree with Kyoto” (36.3%).  The Kyoto protocols were meant to help us combat climate change.  This is the figure used for the binary distinction in the Forbes  article “Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, “ as we look at the other categories we see that this is factually untrue.  What is not stated in the Forbes article was that this is the category with the largest response!

The category with the next largest response was “Nature is overwhelming” (24%).  According to Lefsrud and Meyer this category believed that global warming was occurring naturally (24%). This is the “Nature only group.”

The Fatalists has the next largest response (17.4%).   “‘Fatalists’, a surprisingly large group (17%), diagnose climate change as both human- and naturally caused.”  And “Fatalists are not convinced that involvement will make a difference and, thus, following Gamson (1992), they do not develop the sense of agency.”  Notice that this group saw climate change as both human and naturally caused.  Since they believe it is both human and nature caused, placing them into the category of nature only is at best misleading.  They are a skeptical group, and see little impact on their personal life, etc..  (see the paper for more details).   This position is between the binary divisions that the Forbes article would like to impose on the survey.

9.7% of the responses fall into the economic responsibility group who “… diagnose climate change as being natural or human caused. More than any other group, they underscore that the ‘real’ cause of climate change is unknown as nature is forever changing and uncontrollable. ”   This another group that has a skeptical position (“real cause of climate change is unknown”)  They  do not see a personal impact and focus on economic impacts.

4.7% of the responses regulation activists, “Advocates of this frame diagnose climate change as being both human- and naturally caused, posing a moderate public risk, with only slight impact on their personal life. ” again, skeptics not deniers.

7.9% of the responses were disguised responses (this was an internet poll) … assigning them to the binary category “that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem,” is at best misleading.

Notice that not personally seeing an effect (in Alberta Canada) has been translated to “future global warming will not be a very serious problem.”  These are not the same statements!  The climate change research has focused primarily on long term effects, of which we are just now starting to witness.  The effects are most pronounced near the shorelines and in areas that will be most affected by global warming.  The scientists in Alberta Canada may not be as affected during their lifetimes as people elsewhere on the Globe!

Table 4 is also breaks down the responses by additional categories of respondents.  Of those employed in the oil and gas industry 29.8% of the responses were in the “nature is overwhelming” category , 27.6% were in the “Comply with Kyoto”, and the rest being in the other categories.  So even within the oil and gas industry in Alberta these two categories are about equal!  The geoscientists were the most split with 40% in the “nature is overwhelming category” and 24.1% in the “Comply with Kyoto” category.   The definition of Geoscientists given by the APEGA is

“(i) reporting, advising, evaluating, interpreting, processing, geoscientific surveying, exploring, classifying reserves or examining related to any activity

(A) that relates to the earth sciences or the environment,

(B) that is aimed at the discovery or development of oil, natural gas, coal, metallic or non-metallic minerals, precious stones, other natural resources or water or that is aimed at the investigation of surface or subsurface conditions of the earth, and

(C) that requires, in that reporting, advising, evaluating, interpreting, processing, geoscientific surveying, exploring, classifying reserves or examining, the professional application of the principles of mathematics, chemistry, physics or biology through the application of the principles of geoscience, or

(ii) teaching geoscience at a university”

The definition above, and the large presence of the Petroleum industry in Alberta, perhaps makes this group this group professionally dependent on the petroleum Industry.  It seems as least possible that scientists with a strong conviction that we need to limit our use of petroleum products would try to avoid a career in the petroleum industry, which has strong roots in Alberta.   From this perspective it might be surprising that almost 1 out of 4 geoscientists in APEGA responded in the “Comply with Kyoto category.”

To summarize:  if you poll a group of people, heavily weighted by people working in the petroleum industry you find that you still have a minority in the “nature is overwhelming” category, at least in Alberta Canada.  Apparently Climate change is making its imprint on those scientists working directly in the petroleum industry.  This poll was not intended as a poll of the broader category of scientists (and the authors make no such claim).  It was a poll attempting to understand the more nuanced positions about climate change.  To use this poll as a way of trying to prove that the majority of scientists disagreed with climate change is a gross misrepresentation of the article.

The article itself is worth reading, especially if you are interested in exploring a more nuanced view of how people grapple with the issues presented by climate change.

Forbes, and by extension Soho.net, either did not understand the article, or seem to have misrepresented the article for their own purposes.

For some other takes on this study see:

Think Progress (especially the end where the authors of the study comment)

Science Blogs: Denialism

Climate Watch

Uncategorized

Should we put our hope in science?

Leave a comment

At the 2017 New York City March for Science.

“Science is hope” read one of the signs at the 2017 NY city march for science. It was also a chant during part of the march. I understand the sentiment… perhaps; just perhaps, some scientist might find a painless path through the future that avoids trashing the planet. This is very unlikely. If it were to come to pass, then most likely the effect would be to simply delay the day of reckoning. “Science is hope” raises the questions where should we place our hope for the future?

Science is a form of knowledge, and technology is the craft that draws on the knowledge of science. Both can be practiced without wisdom. Both science and technology are useful tools that can help us with the problems we face today and in the future. But science and technology can also be used in a way that destroys the planet. The internal combustion engine is an example of an invention that has radically altered our culture. It has brought both great benefits and great harm. Science without wisdom is as likely to destroy the planet as save it.

Today we need wisdom. More science and better technology can help, so long as we have the wisdom to use them well. You can earn multiple PhD’s in many disciplines, and still not find wisdom. You can study philosophy, literature, religion, etc. and still not find wisdom. All too often our cleverness is a way of delaying the enviable, avoiding the agony of the hard decision that requires wisdom, at least for now. Wisdom is not found in a textbook, in an equation or in a logical argument.  Where then is wisdom found?

“Science is hope” passes from the realm of science towards the frontiers of faith. “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen” (to quote the King James).  “Science is hope” places faith in science.  Put more concretely, it is the hope that scientists will “find a way”, suggesting that we need to give enough funding, with better education, better laboratories, etc. to increase the chances of a “solution.”   I too want increased science funding, better educational opportunities, and better equipped laboratories. But I am under no illusion that this will solve our problems.

Such an eschatological hope pinned on science passes from the realm of science into the realm of eschatology, of things hoped for, of what ought to be. At the very least such eschatological thinking lies at the edges, if not the heart, of religion.  To put ones faith in science is to put ones faith in both human ingenuity and to have faith in the wisdom of humans to make the correct use of that knowledge and craft. There is precious little historical evidence to back up such a hope.

One common thread among many religions is the rejection of putting our faith and hope in human effort.  The alternative is to kick humankind off the pedestal of the demigods, and to seek out that which is truly divine. Wisdom is not simply harmonizing knowledge and heart, but also includes a divine spark. The path to that spark starts with humility.  It allows us to see the image of God in the face of those we oppress and marginalize, if not directly, then by our participation in a culture that does.  Perhaps, if we can come to acknowledge that we have put ourselves in a position from which there are no painless solutions, we can start to have the humility to seek the wisdom necessary to find a way forward.  Part of the way forward is coming to understand our role in the problem and seeing reconciliation and forgiveness.

Perhaps the best thing we can do is to pray for wisdom, not the wisdom found within human efforts, but the wisdom that comes from seeking out the divine.

A dialog between Science, economics and Religion