It is Not About the President Any More, It is Time for His Apologists to Explain Themselves

In a morning tweet, President Trump addressed the situation in Michigan, where a small group of protesters — some of them armed and wearing flak jackets — entered the State Capital and demanded the end to the state’s lockdown and stay at home orders. In his tweet, the President called on Governor Gretchen Whitmer to negotiate with the protestors:

“The Governor should give a little, and put out the fire. These are very good people, but they are angry. They want their lives back again, safely. See them, talk to them, make a deal.”

The protestors carried signs referring to Whitmer as a “bitch” and a “tyrant” chanted “Heil, Whitmer” giving Nazi salutes. It is unclear how the President had the personal knowledge of the protesters to refer to them as “very good people” (Charlottesville deja vu?), but state senators acknowledged feeling threatened by the presence of the heavily armed mostly men as the protesters got in front of the state police, screaming and making a show of blowing in their faces. Some of the senators admitted wearing bulletproof vests for protection.

Governor Whitmer Declined the President’s Suggestion

Governor Whitmer declined the President’s suggestion and did not meet with the protesters, who did not appear to be requesting such a meeting but rather simply demanded a halt to the lockdown. Of note, Michigan has not seen any material decline in cases or deaths as of yet.

It is worth noting here that the “fire” that the President mentioned in his tweet has been deliberately fanned by his prior tweets, suggesting that the protesters “Liberate Michigan” and supporting a movement that, ironically, is calling on the state to specifically violate the President’s own guidelines for addressing the virus.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/openingamerica/

Accept a Joker-like Duality

It has been long ago evident that the President is uninterested in calming the waters of a troubled nation, preferring to foment division and confrontation. Whether the motivation is political, strategic, or if he’s just bored with being restricted to the White House is irrelevant at this point; it is inescapable that he has no personal commitment to the programs that he has issued, the agencies of his government, or to the support of the Governors who he recently placed in charge of its execution. He has demanded that we accept a Joker-like duality between his role as head of our government and his preference as a provocateur. It is trite to reference his history as a reality TV host in describing the chaos that he seems to revel in, but in the end, it is also inescapable. He is creating painful controversy intentionally, and shamelessly.

What remains is to ask this question of his remaining apologists: how do you justify supporting a President who issues specific and detailed instructions for the safety and progress of the Nation, then calls on fringe elements of the population to actively disobey those instructions, then calls on a Governor to abrogate his own instructions in response to their protests, and yield her authority?

What is your justification this time?

It is no longer about President Trump. He has been crystal clear — he has no interest in the constraints of governance, preferring the role of ringmaster in a circus of his own creation. To complain about his actions is to criticize the tiger for his stripes. The issue is not him — it is the portion of the country, and of the government, that allows him to believe that he has an appreciative audience. Without that conceit, the President would be powerless and could be easily restrained.

So, the question is for his applauding minions: what, precisely, is the attraction? Did you disagree with him when he waved his “Opening Up America Again” program from his podium, and now cheer his almost immediate repudiation of it? Did you believe that he was just kidding when he instructed the nations’ governors to follow his “executive order”? Or, like your leader, do you believe that all of this — the deaths, the trauma, the collapse of the economy, the world-wide disaster — is just some bizarre theater, just an elaborate show that exists to entertain you, and to shine a light on his starring role?

What possible explanation can there be for you not to condemn, in the same loud voices that the protesters use to demand the repeal of your President’s edicts, the duplicity and confounding inconsistencies? Is your objective anarchy, and the dissolution of the Nation? Surely, it can’t be for the good of the country — there is far too much evidence now that the only outcome is the reverse. Or do the actions and applications of the President’s power ultimately not matter, and you are simply swayed by the aura of celebrity that you have bestowed on him, convinced that the next episode will bring the magical resolution of a sitcom?

It’s past time to ask the President to explain his actions. It is now time to demand that those who do not see simple and transparent contradictions such as this one today as incredibly destructive explain themselves, justify their willingness to support the continuous disregard for the Nation’s sanctity and well being.

Or are you, too, just bored and looking for a good show to applaud?

The Tara Reade Conundrum, How Do We Proceed?

The Democratic Party, which has, over the past few years built and hardened a core image reflecting and amplifying the Me Too movement, is faced with a challenge that it may not know how to handle; an increasingly virulent accusation that its nominee committed a sexual assault on a staffer some 27 years ago. Joe Biden, through his campaign and surrogates, denies the claim; Tara Reade, the accuser, continues to press her allegation and develop a supporting narrative. Mr. Biden has not publicly addressed the situation at this time.

The question that we need to ask is this: what now? How do we, the partisan public being exposed to all of this, proceed?

The issue poses a number of perplexing challenges. For the media, the usual questions that journalists need to resolve in order to proceed with this sort of story have been murky at best. For allies of Mr. Biden, the juxtaposition of support for a man who has been nominated as their standard-bearer with the prominent mantra of “Women Must Be Believed” is complicated. For the Biden presidential campaign, the situation presents a host of losing choices with no clear path to a positive result. Even the Republican party has some challenges — how do you attack Joe Biden on a subject that your own candidate is highly vulnerable — but history indicates that potential accusations of hypocrisy won’t cause hesitation regardless.

So, let’s unpack this thing and see what we can learn from the existing perspectives.

From a journalistic standpoint, the evaluation of whether or not to publish an accusation is a difficult one, without a perfect answer. Ideally, you’d like to see a pattern that confirms the accusation; no such pattern exists here, at least not that has come to light. You’d like to see a consistency in the accusation; again, not present here, since the initial claims were tangibly different. You’d like to see some contemporaneous evidence… here, while it seemed not to exist previously, it has appeared to emerge to some degree. There is only the barest of threads to consider publication, and in previous eras, it would never have been considered.

The media must (and unquestionably will) continue their investigation, hopefully without coming to a conclusion of convenience. They have an obligation to account for the reality that the attention given to their investigation itself could lead to false accusations and attempts at exploitation; they have to remain rigorous and stick to their processes. They must avoid any premature conclusions, and provide information without judgment. Sadly, that’s not the recent history of the media; the reverse has been by far the more common, and portions of the media will undoubtedly succumb again.

Reasonable Direction

From a campaign perspective, there appears to be only one reasonable direction to take. They must send out Mr. Biden to address it directly, respectfully but openly. They need to create as much transparency as they can reasonably do, without pandering to their opposition by supporting fishing expeditions. They achieve no benefit by giving the media and the opposition a clear shot at their back as they continue to avoid the matter; they must face it head-on, and deal with the result. If there truly is no fire behind the smoke, they need to trust that the outcome will represent that.

Joe Biden has been a public figure for 50 years, from his selection for the New Castle County Council in 1970, to his election to the Senate in 1972. He’s run for office constantly, seven times for the Senate, three times for President, ultimately emerging as Vice President without any suggestion of this issue. The vetting that occurred, particularly prior to his selection as VP, was exhaustive, invasive, and numerous. The opposition research has been equally aggressive, also without result. That this emerges today, essentially for the first time, is problematic… but must be held in that perspective.

From the candidates’ advocates’ point of view, the challenge is almost greater. They have to rest their support — assuming that their own beliefs lead them to continued involvement — on process and clarity. The process is to state that, while they believe that the victim gets the benefit of the doubt, there are reasonable requirements that must be met to affixing the attack to the accused, and as of yet, those aren’t present. They have to leave open the possibility of future revelations because to preclude them would be to make a sham of everything that they’ve held others to. They have to express respect for the accuser, and support for investigation… and then, they need to hold their breaths and count on the extended history that they know.

Various Movements, and Constituencies

There is one cautionary element that should be noted: the party, the various movements, and constituencies that it encompasses, must guard against the knee jerk reaction to the singular accusations that seem inevitable in this exposed media times, at the risk of gutting the already thin ranks of potential leaders prematurely, and making public service toxic as a pursuit. Throw out the bums, but create some level of specific resilience where warranted.

Which brings us back to the issue of our own perspective, our own way of moving forward…

The only meaningful posture that can be suggested here is that it is too early to presume anything. The argument against accepting the accusation at face value are fairly straightforward and somewhat compelling — there are no related accusations over a 50-year public career; this specific claim has morphed over time (admittedly not uncommon for victims of sexual abuse); a vast and comprehensive history of vetting has failed to reveal this, or any similar case, in decades of opposition research and attack. The argument for the accuser is equally simple, though at present not quite as compelling: there is no evident value to the accuser of bringing this charge; there are at least the suggestions of contemporaneous sharing of the event; and, sadly, we have far too much recent history of well regarded, even iconic personalities disappointing us and violating our trust.

The Drumbeat of Painful Revelations

It is the final point — the drumbeat of painful revelations — that rules the day, and forces caution. A generation ago and forever before that, we made a terrible error in dismissing the claims of true victims, enhancing their pain and loss; the price we must pay for those failings is the holding of our collective breaths, the shift away from an assumption of innocence until proven guilty that would have previously been called an American truism.

The fuse of antagonistic investigation has been lit, and it will burn to the point of either an explosion, or fizzling out; we have no alternative but to proceed in support of our personal objectives while watching as it moves down to its base and waiting cautiously for the outcome. To become stationary, potentially for a resolution that might never come, is to guarantee a specific and negative outcome.

That discomfort, even pain, is the least that we have earned as a culture and a nation through our history.

Dear Mitch McConnell: Be Very Careful What You Wish For!

After almost 50 years in and around politics, you’d imagine that Mitch McConnell knew enough not to pick a fight that he’s likely to lose. As a rule, you don’t stay in power as long as he has if you make a practice of getting the short end… but in his latest provocative statements, it sure looks like he’s pushing a big rock up a tall hill.

In recent days, we’ve seen the usual confrontation between Republican and Democratic interests take a slightly new angle — the segregation of states with Democratic governors and states with Republican governors for the purpose of policy arguments. This distinction began with Mitch McConnell’s negative reaction to efforts by the Democratic caucus to arrange for financial support for state and local governments and has since been echoed by President Trump in a couple of tweets. A deeper dive, however, demonstrates that both leaders may wish to rethink the strategy, and soon.

Let’s look at the country if this designation were to stick. The new split — considering Blue and Red based on the party of the Governors — cuts the country somewhat in half. Currently, 26 states have Republican Governors, while 24 have Democrats at the helm; population splits are 178,725,465 for Blue states versus 149,576,079 for Red states. A first warning shot for presidential politics — aside from the greater population, the electoral college count for these new Blue states is 291 against 247 in Red states, a losing proposition.

More relevant to this conversation is the stated idea of the states being poorly run, and needing assistance because of that. Here, the numbers are striking: the Blue states pay $2.033 trillion into the treasury, while the Red states produce only $1.404 trillion in revenues. The extra $600 billion dollars is massive; in a very real sense, the Blue states are paying for much of the Red states’ government programs.

This is better illustrated by what is called the Balance of Payments, which measures the amounts that the government takes in against the amount that the government spends in each state. Two states — Maryland (Red) and Virginia (Blue) are irrelevant to the equation since so much of the Federal operations are located in those two states, so let’s look at the remaining 48. The 25 Red states take $322 billion more than they send in… the 23 Blue states take only $135 billion. Over the past five years, the Blue states have taken almost $1 trillion dollars less on a net basis than the Red states have.

The argument that Blue states are more poorly run than Red states is a difficult case, to begin with, based on their tax revenue production, based on their respective drains to the Treasury, or based on any of a broad number of other indicators… and if we have no such excuse, then we have to look at the damage that has been done by the virus. Here, the numbers are stark and important:

Blue States: Cases — 731,000 Deaths — 41,070

Red States: Cases — 264,000 Deaths — 10,631

By itself, NY has tangibly more cases (295,000) and deaths (17,638) than all of the Red states combined. Clearly, the virus has particularly impacted the Blue states, which tend to be coastal and prone to international exposure, then the Red states, which are somewhat more centrally located and have less of a focus on urban densities.

If the case is made that the nature of the Blue states is not the nation’s problem, then there needs to be a reckoning regarding the economy’s dependence on those dense Blues for its prosperity… consider that NY, the state that is probably most in need of help at this time, pays in $35 billion more than it gets back, by far the largest negative balance of any state… were the government to provide $100 billion in aid, it would barely be making up for the funds it has profited from NY over the past three years. The state in line for the second most aid, New Jersey, is also the state with the second most negative balance of payments, some $21 billion.

An interesting factoid for Mr. McConnell to consider: the spread between the Blue and Red states in terms of the balance of revenues versus expenses would be even greater except for one state: McConnell’s own Kentucky, categorized now as a Blue state because of Democratic Governor Andy Beshear. Almost 30% of the Blue state’s total $135 billion balance of payments is due to Kentucky’s $40 billion shortfall. Mr. McConnell has done some special work for his home state, getting Uncle Sam to send them about $75 billion, while contributing only $35 billion in revenues, one of the worst balances of the fifty states.

To top it all off, the effect of McConnell’s bankruptcy suggestion would be to damage the security, pensions and health insurance of today’s most popular group — the first responders across the country — as states, drained by the battle with the virus, would be forced to make difficult cuts in the services that they provide.

McConnell and President Trump

McConnell (and President Trump’s) new approach to divisiveness specifically punishes the part of the country that keeps the federal books afloat, has suffered far and away the most from the pandemic, has highly popular and visible Governors (see Cuomo, Andrew for reference), who would use the money largely to pay heroes and sustain hospitals, and, while he’s at it, would shine a bright light on the barrels of pork that McConnell’s been stacking up in Kentucky warehouses for the past two decades. It would alienate a winning tally of electoral college votes, and put him crossways with the very popular Governor Beshear going into a difficult election.

Given all of that, it sounds a lot more like a rookie mistake than a veteran strategy.

A Call to Action In Honor of Dr. Lorna Breen

In a tragedy within a crisis, Dr. Lorna Breen — medical director in the ER at NY Presbyterian Hospital — took her own life this past Sunday, after describing to her family the traumatic scenes that she had witnessed Having previously survived her own encounter with the virus, she had returned to her work saving others. She was 49.

There is a canary-in-the-coal-mine aspect to this horrible loss; we must prepare today for the psychological toll being exacted on these heroic professionals, from doctors and nurses to EMT’s and first responders who have been our front line in an unexpected and chaotic war. We have failed some of them already by not providing them with the equipment and protection that they needed and, at a minimum, deserved to have in unrestricted abundance… we must not fail them a second time by being late or inadequate in our provision of whatever help or support they need now, tomorrow and whenever they can finally put the worst of this behind them to deal with their experiences.

The keys here are two things: communication and proactivity. We need to communicate aggressively and clearly to all of the first responders that help is there, and will be there whenever they feel that they need it. They need to know that we have prioritized that help and that their internal challenges are not unexpected or a source of weakness, but rather the inevitable price of their labors, and support part of the process. Robust and specific programs must be put in place that provides safe harbors for judgment-free treatment without cost. The programs must be professionally developed, maintained, and followed up on, with open exchanges of information and outcomes to deal effectively with an unprecedented impact.

Equally important, we must be proactive rather than reactive. Throughout this pandemic, we have been behind the curve, attempting to catch up to the circumstances rather than get ahead of them… that has been a predominant failing, costing lives and treasure in unconscionable quantities, and cannot be the case here. The time to develop and install these programs is yesterday, so there needs to be an all-out effort to put them in place, locally sited and nationally coordinated, without delay.

We do not need to count the future Dr. Breen’s before we know what’s needed… we already can be assured that any stalling in dedicating the resources and efforts will cost us more precious lives of heroes. If our mourning for her loss is sincere, we can only prove it by our actions, and by making her tragic loss as unique as possible.

When Offered Two Bad Choices, Let's Take Neither

We are currently faced with a pandemic that is capable of killing millions of people, and at the same time, confronted with a collapsed economy that has driven tens of millions out of work, creating the types of food insecurity and sacrifice not seen since the thirties. Our national conversation in response to those twin catastrophes is to offer a take it or leave it a choice: lockdown or infection.

Why? It’s an obviously false choice… neither works, so both must be declined. Let’s consider an alternative approach, one that I’ve heard too little of so far.

First, let’s get rid of the stupid arguments about the virus — it’s real, it has the potential to kill millions, and we don’t yet know how to prevent it or cure it. If you are prone to arguing whether these statements are true or not, then I have a hospital that I’d like you to volunteer at… and we’ll chat again in a few hours.

Most of the population already understands this reality, and want to avoid the disease however they have to. Nobody is enjoying the isolation or unemployment, so the motivation to resolve this is universal. We also understand that certain populations among us — the elderly, the immune-compromised, among others — are so susceptible to severe complications that we have a national mandate to protect them from the disease, and from those among us who are selfishly flaunting their relative health, and inviting the virus to hitch a ride on them.

So, we have to do whatever it takes to repel the disease and to minimize the stress that it causes for our hospitals and first responders, and reduce the exposure of our most vulnerable. Got it.

We have over 26 million people out of work, a number that feels a lot more like the opening bid than the final tally. Our industries, our small and medium-sized businesses, our gig economy are all teetering on collapse. The markets are vacillating, the oil patch is convulsing, the state and local governments are looking into their wallets and dodging the moths that come out. Without responding to the economic dangers, we could easily see a depression that is characterized by widespread hunger and a collapsed health care system, as tens of millions of suddenly uninsured ex-workers flood emergency rooms, or die in their homes unnecessarily.

So, we have to do whatever it takes to support the economy and to minimize the stress that it causes for our institutions, our hospitals and first responders, our business class and our workers while making sure that basic necessities remain available and flowing. Got it.

If we have to reject both outcomes, what do we have left? Let’s assume that the real solutions — vaccines, even cures, are another year to a year and a half off, and that’s a best-case scenario. We need to find a plan that gets us from here to there without feeding the virus or starving the people. To create and execute that plan, we need to stop playing one side against the other and push both sides in the same direction.

Dr Scientist: we need to move the populace out of their homes and into the workplace. You say that you know how the disease is communicated, through droplets expelled from infected persons. The current plan is to test and isolate everyone who is infected, and to trace their movements for more isolation… a plan that, in order to execute, creates any number of thorny issues from a culture accepting a level of non-privacy that it likely won’t, to an army of detectives coordinating intricate spiderwebs without the time and opportunity to plan out and create the logistics and tools necessary.

Let’s take an alternative vision: Dr Scientist, what can you imagine as protective gear for public safety? Instead of masks, does a face shield, where we preclude those poisonous droplets from finding eyes and ears as well as mouths and noses help? What would the perfect shield look like? What materials, what cleaning protocols, what level of reuse? Are there a type of glove that would make you feel more secure, Dr Scientist? Do you want disposable garments or simply external outfits that can be easily removed without spreading infection? Tell us what we need to travel safely in this dangerous world, and don’t worry about the cost.

I understand — and fully agree — that technically the best answer is continued isolation until the cures and treatments are safe and available. Unfortunately, that’s not an option, so please focus on what is workable. We won’t hold you accountable for what happens, just for your work.

Ms Businessman, we have a plan: we need enormous amounts, perhaps hundreds of millions, perhaps more, of the equipment that Dr Scientist has sketched on that blackboard over there. We need them yesterday, or more to the point… we need them as quickly as you’d like your economy back. We need them designed, manufactured, distributed and replaced as needed. We need them in every size, every shape, and we need the designs and manufacturing plans fully shared and open, so that every fabricator is providing the same item with the same way, and improvements to the design are universal. We can discuss the fashion options in the second iteration.

How will this be paid for? Let’s agree on a budget — say, $1,000 per person per full outfitting. Let’s tool up for about 100 million people, give or take… at that quantity, we should have a pretty solid volume discount, no? That would come out to $100 billion, or basically a rounding error in the trillions of dollars that we’re looking at, with no real end in sight. You say you need $2,500 to do it right? Still not an issue… tho frankly, I’d like to see the books, please.

While we’re at it, Dr. Scientist, please continue — and accelerate — your efforts to refine decontamination protocols that are most effective. Let Ms Businessman have those specifications, complete with application priorities and frequency schedule. Oh, and Dr Scientist, let’s set up a special detail to get the first responders something special. This stuff about them taking handouts to protect themselves is insulting not only to them but to this great nation… the idea that we can’t protect the men and women who protect us is unacceptable.

Ms. Businessman, get in gear. Under the (borrowed) powers of the Presidency, I’m instructing you to convert your factories to this great and noble enterprise… and by the way, I suspect that there’ll be an interesting opportunity to move a bunch of this stuff around the world, so long as you don’t ever tell me that you can’t meet this country’s needs first.

Ah, that brings us to the congressmen and women. I have a package for you — it’s a timetable for when we will be able to safely outfit and clean sufficiently to open most of the economy back up. Your job, along with your buddies in the Senate, is to create solutions for that period of time. Industries will be fine after a transitional period as a couple of hundred million people open their doors and head back out… work with the Fed to arrange the necessary loans to facilitate their retrofitting and recovery, but please don’t buy them a fancy market multiple or price. They’ll grow that back soon enough on their own.

Let’s focus on creating simpler and more effective mechanisms for moving funds out of the government’s hands and into the populations; centralize the effort in bringing the forces necessary to bear to move food and water, critical services and support to the endangered. It’s not forever — we’ve got a timeframe for opening in a fuller way, so the majority of the jobs will come back if you don’t dawdle.

Empower the military — your great logistics arm — to mobilize an integration of public, private and governmental functionality that operates without turf warfare or politicization. Just get the job done as they more than anyone in this nation know how to do it. Create an operating hierarchy (heck, you threw together that Space Force thing pretty much overnight) and coordinate resources across the country, but under the auspices of the Governors, since you’d pretty much have to anyways.

I know.

That exercise was incredibly over-simplistic. There are a dozen issues that it ignores. Obviously, it’s a massive, unprecedented problem that’s made more complicated by the wasteful infighting, egotism and partisanship of our current government… but that’s not the point. The point is for us to change the approach, from an either/or battle to everyone sitting on the same side of the table, dealing with the realities and accepting the compromises necessary to be as successful as we possibly can against an existential threat. We have no choice, we simply must.

If the question isn’t whether to open up the doors, but how to make Dr Scientist less twitchy as he sees them open… if the question isn’t how to fund the economic chasm, but how to give Ms Businessman the marching orders for our industrial power to make the economy able to function with reasonable safety… If the question isn’t a tug of war between local and federal powers, but a unified effort led by a Manhattan Project that incorporates all of our vast powers behind a singular objective… if all of those questions are attacked and converted to powerful initiatives and a united, save this country energy… then just maybe we’ll heal a whole lot more than this invading pandemic. It all begins with a premise, a repudiation of fragmentation and division, and an armistice of the hostilities between Americans.

And before you argue that the President, or the Congress, or whoever your favourite boogyman is these days isn’t capable of this, remember: it’s not about them. The more elements of our society that stop feeding the scuffles and point to a coherent solution; the more members of our government who adopt a solve-it mentality instead of a win/loss calculus; the more handlers of the economy who refuse to accept doomed solutions and insist on the full engagement of our power; the more leaders who stand up and actually lead for once; the less that any person, even a president, can stand in the way of our ultimate success. It is only in our acquiescence to our worst elements, to our least representatives, that the constraints of an individual or collective power can force their failing on the rest of us.

It is, as always, up to us.

Donald trump's Disinfectant and UV light on the Coronavirus

The various media are consumed with commentary and response concerning the public musings of our President on the possible efficacy of disinfectants and UV light on the Coronavirus, utterances that have caused companies, states, and agencies to release attention-grabbing memos asking the populace not to drink Clorox, or inject Lysol. Such is the power of the bully pulpit, that a stray comment or two can move a nation. It is a power that the current resident of the oval office has never fully comprehended, occasionally to his (and to the country’s) detriment.

It is also, to a large degree, a misdirection of where our attention surely needs to be.

There were three keys to the exchange: first, to whom and how he expressed his ideas, second, the history of such expressions previously, and third, the resulting impact of the media responses. These are the critical points to be made and understood, and I’ll attempt to outline them below.

Contrary to the President’s later statements, the comments were clearly not made to a reporter, or to the camera. They were not sarcastic. The President turned his body, and specifically directed the comments at the scientists off to the side, addressed what appear to be previous conversations, and appeared to offer a directive that might or might not have been subsequently followed upon. Here’s the transcript of the relevant segment:

President Trump: “So I asked Bill a question some of you are thinking of if you're into that world, which I find to be pretty interesting. So, supposing we hit the body with a tremendous, whether its ultraviolet or just very powerful light, and I think you said, that hasn't been checked but you're gonna test it. And then I said, supposing it brought the light inside the body, which you can either do either through the skin or some other way, and I think you said you're gonna test that too, sounds interesting.

Acting Undersecretary Bryan: “We’ll get it to the right folks who could.”

President Trump: “And I then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in one minute and is there a way you can do something like that by injection inside, or almost a cleaning. Because you see it gets in the lungs, and it does a tremendous number on the lungs. So it'd be interesting to check that. So you're going to have to use medical doctors, but it sounds interesting to me, so we'll see.”

“Bill” is William Bryan, the acting Under Secretary of Homeland Security for Science and Technology. A full version of the transcript can be found here: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-vice-president-pence-members-coronavirus-task-force-press-briefing-31/

Mr. Bryan had just provided a simplified, but still somewhat interesting report on the research being done under his auspices. The thrust of his research appeared to be that the virus — when located on hard surfaces or suspended in the air — was significantly affected by certain disinfectants and environmental conditions such as sunlight, heat, and humidity. President Trump riffed on those findings and mused as to whether there were direct applications on patients.

You and I musing on such matters on our couch wouldn’t warrant a memory of the event, let alone a national outcry. That is not what happened here, but it still isn’t the critical part. The most important statement in the whole exchange was when Mr. Bryan stated that he would get the President’s idea “… to the right people who could” test those theories.

Fast Track Treatments and Vaccines

The scientific and medical communities of this country are in a race against time. Professionals who are used to protracted programs and multiple layers of testing their results are being pressed to work around the clock and to fast track critical options for treatments and vaccines. And yet, time and again, the President imposes his views and opinions on that community, distracting efforts and confusing the popular understanding of their actual work. That the President has some ideas about light and disinfectants isn’t particularly important; that his ideas take scientists and funds away from critical research at this time is highly relevant, and deeply concerning. We have a very recent example of the damage that can be done:

For a week or two, there was an emphasis on hydroxychloroquine as a potential “game-changer” in the treatment of Covid-19 patients. It was a fixture at every briefing, culminating in his oft-repeated statement of “Try it… What have you got to lose?” As the results of further testing have indicated that there was little or no efficacy in the drug (in point of fact, fatalities in a limited test group increased among patients using it) the subject was dropped, and no longer featured in the briefings. Embarrassing, perhaps, but not directly harmful… until you consider the history and actual events.

The Purpose Behind Hydroxychloroquine and Chloroquine

Prior to the rush on hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine as treatments, scientists considered it one of many drugs worth investigating. Some early trials suggested positive outcomes, and there was sufficient reason to allocate precious time to evaluate it. With the public endorsement of the President, massive energies were diverted to that one possibility, stunting alternative investigations in ways that were counter-productive. A reasonably good article outlining those issues is here: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01165-3

The federal government then went about accumulating some 29,000,000 doses of the drug (according to the President’s own statements, not confirmed), preparing to aggressively distribute it even though there were no credible results in hand. Compromises to the usual regulatory chains were casually made in the interest of supporting the President’s timetables, and whole sections of the chain of command were involved in the process. (see https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/04/internal-documents-reveal-team-trumps-chloroquine-master-plan for some single-source background). Ultimately, the back and forth led to the controversial ouster of Dr. Rick Bright, head of BARDA, and a significant player in the search for a vaccine.

The distraction of a Presidential edict cost precious time resources human and financial, and perhaps most importantly it significantly compromised the confidence that the public has in the work being done by experts to combat the virus. In a world where substantial sacrifice and patience are being daily requested of the nation, the squandering of that confidence can have serious — and potentially lethal — effects.

Which brings us to the other point: what has the result of the latest uproar been? It appears that the President, embarrassed and upset, is going to limit or cancel the daily briefings about the progress being made regarding the virus. The briefings — before being coopted by the President — were a useful forum for providing the public with reports and recommendations from the scientific and medical communities; it was where the nation found a voice that is trusted in Dr. Fauci and took solace from a belief that there were special and talented professionals at the helm. If those briefings are compromised, one of the nation’s only direct contacts with the massive effort being made on their behalf will be severed, or minimized, directly leading to a loss of trust and security at a time when both are in drastically low supply.

Injecting Disinfectant

The media has surely taken the comments made by the President to a level beyond their merit in characterizing that he suggested actions (injecting disinfectant, for instance) as opposed to investigation and analysis. The resulting mockery and derision seem, therefore, excessive and perhaps even undeserved… and, as noted above, represent the distraction of a passing squirrel. As a distraction, the impact of the coverage will expire quickly, and the media will move on.

I do want to be clear: the President of the United States, musing at a podium on national television, as to the positive effects of cleaning products and internal lighting programs is a careless mistake, one that could potentially cause people to make dangerously bad decisions. The reactions of governmental authorities to disclaim misuse of poisonous products were absolutely necessary for those few who might have erred.

But what is the real issue, the truly dangerous factor being grossly underreported, is the President’s continuing and frequent interference in (and diversion of) critical efforts and resources, keeping them away from sound scientific research, and pushing them into the shifting pursuits of amateur opinions. By focusing their attention on the superficial and the glib, the media is missing the critical point: this is not just an easy joke, a source for obvious criticism… but rather masks a serious impediment to the health and progress of life-saving work. We must train our attention not only on the sloppy words of the President, but on the actions and impacts that result from his position and his insistence on relevancy in an area where such involvement can have, and likely already has had drastic consequences.

I'll Have a Cup of Information, Please Make it Lukewarm.

In a world where the most extreme positions often generate the most awareness, the “mainstream media” — defined for these purposes as the three foundational networks (CBS, NBC and ABC) — are recording viewership levels not seen in a generation. During the week of April 13, the evening news for the networks attracted about 30 million viewers, maintaining the numbers that have followed them largely since the virus became the focus of the nation.

To be certain, cable news has experienced its own rise in popularity but is nowhere near the networks in terms of viewership. The most viewed cable show — Fox News Special Report with Bret Baier — comes in around 5.75 million, while the big three commentary channels, Fox, MSNBC and CNN, chime in with about 10 million combined, an increase of about 4 million in the last month. A portion of the increase in those cable news shows reflects their coverage of the daily Coronavirus press briefings, a decided attraction for many of the new viewers.

The leading network news show (ABC’s World News Tonight with David Muir) will often exceed the viewership of the three cable news shows combined. Of particular interest, the “prime demographic” of 25-54 has fully engaged in the network embrace. All of these numbers — network and cable — are fairly steady since the WHO first declared the pandemic over five weeks ago, with no recent loss of momentum.

Surprised? Is it unexpected that the old fashioned evening news, largely devoid of extreme opinion and controversy, is by leaps and bounds the dominant source of information in a period where information is so critical? Perhaps it shouldn’t be.

First of all, the networks have always been more popular than the cable stations, holding more viewers in every period. Where they have been far behind being in their impact on the national conversation — the last times we spoke about a network anchor making news, those anchors lost their jobs. Cable hosts who make the news are heroes of their genre, carrying a banner for the portion of America whose views they represent and amplify. And that’s the point…

In our hearts, as much as we enjoy the affirmation of our deeply held biases, we know that our chosen voices are pushing the boundaries of what they share. We know that, while they are telling us truths (we really do believe that, by the way) those truths are slanted in our direction, just two-thirds of the whole story. We know that what we are watching will be an hour of information and commentary that confirms us, rather than ask us to make a decision or interpret, and while we agree with their agenda, we know that one exists.

In a world where real information is — actually, truly — life and death, a very important part of us wants the story without too much embellishment, quickly and easily understood. Network news, consolidated into thirty familiar minutes with short segments and few guests, fits the moment and serves the needs. Oh, we surely will check in on our cable shows; after all, we need to know that what we’re feeling/fearing/wishing for is right in uncertain times, and that’s readily available there… but at the end of the day, we also want to know, we need to know, what all the real numbers are, regardless of whether we like them or wish they were otherwise.

So, why is so much of the conversation about the cable hosts and their positions? Why do we feel as if they are larger than life, critical contributors to the national discourse?

There are several reasons. First of all, no surprise, controversy always sells, and when we can wrap that controversy around a personality, it’s a home run. There is a significant part of us that wants to be moved passionately, regardless of whether it is positively or negatively. Ask a Fox viewer about Rachel Madow, or an MSNBC fan about Sean Hannity, and step back… there is nothing measured about the response. Then ask the same person to share the last story that their antagonist reported that really got their goat, and take notes… since they’ve never actually watched the subject of their scorn, the likely answer will be a generic position rather than a specific story.

The second reason is the echo chamber. Cable commentators provide the sharp contrast quotes and angled stories that can then be commented on by a thousand “reporters”; it’s easy to grab a story of a lightning rod show and embellish or amplify it, far easier than digging up an original idea and fleshing it out. In a world where the unprecedented available resources for research and analysis are omnipresent, it remains true that the majority of these reporters appear too lazy to do even that work.

There are numerous things about virtually all of the current media to be criticized, and I’m first in line to do so. The absence of critical analysis, the parroting of provided talking points, the scarcity of quality investigative reporting, the lack of meaningful debate or contrast are all legitimate criticisms among many. The demise of the news industry, coopted by the profit motive, dispersed among a thousand fragmented internet portals and drowned out by a cacophony of overly loud commentators cum standard bearers has had profound effects on our politics and our lives. Understood.

That said, it is instructive that during the impeachment hearings and subsequent Senate trial, the flocking to the networks was notably absent. Even cable’s ratings were only slightly elevated, and erratically so. Why? My suspicion is that we knew all along that (a) the end result would be nothing, and (b) because of that, the outcome wasn’t important to us. We rooted for our team, but when we went to bed we didn’t stay up late worrying.

The virus is different. It has stolen from our family, our neighbourhood, our list of familiars. It has taken our jobs, our habits, our freedoms and given nothing back. Unlike the impeachment, it dominates our real lives; there is no cartoon heroes and villains, no morality play, just the deadly seriousness of a true, implacable crisis that we have to deal with every time we get out of bed. And so, we’re not as interested in entertainment, not as committed to the affirmation of our beliefs… we need to know, and as imperfect as the news media is, we gravitate to the closest thing to clean, the simple truth that we can find.

Because, deep in our hearts, we know that what is easier times we quote, what we claim to follow, isn’t that simple. What I think will be interesting is whether — when this plague finally retreats — whether the coloured shades of cable news will be the same again… or whether the awareness that there is a critical value in real information rather than infotainment will spawn a cadre of truly sincere newshounds, a movement not to the middle of the ideological spectrum, but a massive jump off of it entirely.

If that occurs, then that will truly be news.

Covid-19 Case Count and Real Death Rate- Life and Death Statistics

It is a common thread in our world today: the media, the government, various agencies share numbers with the public absent of context or rational analysis, and the public dutifully accepts the numbers (and the actions that they lead to) without demanding an explanation.

The Covid-19 pandemic has been a painful lesson in the superficiality of our present media. As an illustration, let’s take a deeper look at the two most common statistics that are shared publicly: cases and deaths. These numbers are more important than most statistics since they are the basis for so much critical policy and conduct.

Coronavirus Case Counts

As of this morning (April 25, 2020), the reported number of cases is about 870,000 across the U.S., while the reported deaths stand at about 50,000. In the most simplistic analysis, this suggests that the fatality rate is about 5.75% — meaning that about 6 out of every 100 cases results in the patient dying. Were this number to be factual, the disease would have proven to be enormously more lethal than any previous estimates, and the risks to the general population far worse. On the other hand, if the case number were accurate, is it possible that we are vastly over-reporting the death total, implying that the virus is far less of a problem than we are assuming? What seems abundantly clear is that the two numbers are flawed, and some more analysis is required.

Of the two numbers, the fatality total appears to be closer to some relevancy, so we’ll begin with the case number. We can assume some immediate adjustments, starting with the title of that number. The case number quoted is more accurately described as the number of test cases that have been determined to be positive, rather than the number of infected citizens. Since testing has been fairly minimized to date (estimates are in the 4.7 million tests), we can assume that there are some quantity of people who have the disease that we have not included in the case number; given that a significant percentage of people who have the virus are asymptomatic, the potential number of infected is considerably higher.

How much higher? We cannot yet tell, but we can make some reasonable assumptions. The two numbers — tested and infected — seemingly provide us with a starting point. Contrasting tested against infected, we find that about 18.5% of the tests taken have come back positive. In a country of some 325 million, that percentage would imply that over 60 million Americans have the virus… a truly difficult number to reconcile, and one that would have severe implications. It would also imply that the virus had a mortality rate of about 8/100 of 1%, considerably lower than the common flu. Based on that, we can safely assume that the 60 million is false, and that reality lies between the reported number (870,000) and the implied number (60,000,000), a pretty wide range.

Demonstrated Symptom

Fortunately, we do have some information that might be of help. Up to the present day, we have largely tested only those with demonstrated symptoms, or direct and proven contact with infected sources. Therefore, if we can determine the percentage of people who have the virus, but are asymptomatic, then we can make some more appropriate estimations. Different agencies, along with the WHO, have suggested that about 50% of those infected demonstrate no symptoms at the time of testing… since for the most part, those infected people would not be tested, we might assume that the number of actual cases is closer to double, or about 1.75 million people. That number is probably a little closer but still lacks a useful accuracy, since entire segments of the country have not been tested yet, and with the preponderance of testing occurring in areas having breakout infections, suggesting higher percentages there.

Perhaps we can go back to the mortality rate for some insight. We have 50,000 reported deaths due to the virus; these numbers may well be underreported, based on inconsistencies in defining what constitutes a virus-related death, and the lack of testing for many suspicious deaths. That said, original statements by the WHO, and supported by experiences in other countries, suggested a mortality rate of between 1% and 2% for Covid-19 in the general population, with much higher indications for various subsets. Let’s pretend that we have a confirmation of the mid-point there (we absolutely do not), and ask what that tells us: if the 50,000 represents 1.5% of infections, then we would assume about 3.3 million actual cases. This number — about 4 times the reported cases — appears closer, and in line with recent revelations in NY and elsewhere as antibody testing has begun to be applied.

(One note about the fatality statistics: we are discovering (inexcusably belatedly) that one of the insidious aspects of the disease is its impact on the elderly, specifically those in concentrated housing situations. For that population, we are just now computing odds of mortality that are truly stunning — perhaps as much as 30-40%. It is also a population that likely has been drastically underreported, as few of the deceased were tested for the virus before they passed. We may well find that, had we understood the critical nature of the impact earlier, we would have prioritized protection for those populations and had a different, far improved outcome.)

This is the reason for the pervasive insistence by scientists and medical professionals that a massive effort to test the greater population is essential to control and treatment. To date, we have tested less than 1.5% of the domestic population; that number is poor enough to deprive us of critical understandings of the nature of the virus. The number of cases — and potentially the number of people who have some level of immunity — is irreplaceably important to understand the risks of opening up the economy, and for preparing our medical resources for continued capacities.

In addition, we still have a very low understanding of the actual impact of the disease. We have found that a significant percentage of asymptomatic positive tests develop their symptoms later, sometimes much later… we are learning that the virus has neurological impacts that we do not understand, and that may have implications for future health concerns… we have seen a high degree of strokes and blood clots in patients, without fully understanding why. Each of these (and other) considerations could dramatically alter our policies and preparations, both medically and financially; extraordinary increases in testing and informed analysis over time are critical to our national response.

All of this brings us back to the commonly accepted and reported statistics. We can demonstrate effectively that those numbers are false; that they present an inaccurate picture of the virus and its impact on the country. So long as the media and the public accept them as meaningful, the important debates about treatment, about budgeting resources, about policies and about appropriate cautions are all distorted and will continue to lead to poor decisions, decisions that will, in turn, deprive us of our ability to effectively combat the pandemic going forward. As a people (and as a media that is responsible for informing us) we must demand more and better information, presented in a relevant context… many of our lives may well depend on it.

McConnell Plays the Villian Badly

Faced with the obvious — that cities and states will need financial help to bail out of this crisis just as much or more than any other group — speaker McConnell goes public stating that he’ll stand in the way of any federal funds going to help them out. The reason? The deficit, a $25+ Trillion-dollar obligation that he’s just casually added several more trillions to without so much as a blink. Scant days ago, McConnell had no qualms about passing a $2 trillion dollar bill, with $500 billion to bail out large corporations without any oversight or limits… today, McConnell is so worried about the deficit that he’d prefer to see states and cities go bankrupt, particularly because so many of the largest needs are — to quote his press release — “The Blue States”, meaning that their governors are Democrats.

Let’s understand this in context, by using New York (one of those “blue” states) as a prime example.

As the global epicenter of the virus, New York State has experienced more cases — 263,460 — than any other country in the world (Spain with 213,024 is next). This is despite some of the strongest mitigation programs in the country, and a hospital system that is regarded as one of the nation’s finest. Recent studies suggest that the actual number of cases could be far higher, based on broader recent testing… with the unanswered question of what those additional cases might mean to future medical care.

To respond to the ravages of the pandemic, New York shut down one of the most important business cities in the world, and one of the world’s top destinations for travelers, shoppers, and tourists. New York City has a GMP (gross metropolitan product) of about $1.5 trillion, by a wide margin the most productive city in the U.S. As a result, NY State paid $35.6 billion more to the federal government than it received, the highest amount of any state and one of only 7 states with a negative balance. By contrast, McConnell’s own Kentucky ranks third from the bottom, getting 241% more in return than it contributes.

The idea of bankrupting NYS as a result of the demands of the pandemic is beyond reprehensible, it’s stupid and cruel. The penalties incurred by a bankruptcy (were it legal, which it doesn’t appear to be) would be felt directly by the state and city employees — NY State has some 632,000 employees between state and local governments, a total that is primarily made up of teachers, firefighters, police, medical workers, etc Their pensions would be at risk, as would their health insurance, and there would be significant layoffs… pretty much the last thing that the nation needs during a deep recession, and in light of the 26 million already unemployed. Does McConnell really want to disrupt the employment and pensions of these first responders? Their reward for their astonishing heroics is that the federal government would turn their backs on them in the middle of their efforts? For your next act, let’s cut the pensions of our soldiers as they return from a war…

Then let’s consider the cost to the state and city municipal bonds. NY holds an AA+ rating, among the highest in the country, and the primary reason that their borrowing costs are less than 4% of their revenues. A bankruptcy would destroy NY’s credit rating for years, throwing hundreds of billions of dollars of bonds, many of which are in the hands of individuals across the country, into disarray. The losses to those individuals would be in the billions, another painful notch during a collapsing economy. Forced to pay multiples of their current interest rates, NY would find its budget devastated for years, significantly impacting that engine that feeds so much of the country…

… and that’s NY. Across the country, state and local employees constitute 16.2 million employees, including some 8,800,000 teachers, over 1,400,000 medical professionals, over 700,000 police officers, about 350,000 firefighters… well, you get the idea. All of them would immediately enter a period of uncertainty and vulnerability.

The easy thing to assume is that he’s not being serious; he’s putting up a straw man to have something in his pocket for the next round of negotiations with Congress. Give me something that I want, and I’ll go ahead and allow the states to breathe again. That might be his thinking, but it’s not likely to work… more likely, the first question asked of the President at his next news conference would be “Is it really your intention to lay off hundreds of thousands of first responders right now?” Any leverage that the speaker thought he’d gained would be ended just about as quickly as he could answer the next call from the White House.

The stupid political games are one thing — have at them, and enjoy. Just as you play, remember this: first responders, the unquestioned heroes of this generation, are the employees of those states that you want to threaten. A nation that dearly loves and respects their contributions and sacrifices will have something very loud, and very unpleasant, to say if you mess with them.

This Way Treason Lies, The Indefensible Malpractice of a Failed Leader

The Nation is on the precipice of a traumatic period, one more fraught with danger and unknown outcome than any since the second world war. We are faced with two demons, each related to the other, but each competing for our focus. The first is the Covid-19 pandemic that held — and still may hold — the capacity to take millions of lives; the second, a collapsed economy caused by a necessary reaction to our belated response to that first threat. Having given the pandemic our undivided attention, we have so far contained the loss of life to the tens of thousands… but the cost of that prioritization has been the collapse of a previously sound economy, and the disenfranchisement of tens of millions of our citizens.

The navigation of this treacherous period will be among the most difficult challenges of our lives. The virus remains omnipresent; having likely affected well less than 1% of the population, we remain a fertile target for continued and expanded outbreaks. The collapse of the economy has dislodged upwards of 22 million workers with unprecedented suddenness, leading to an increasing inability of millions to maintain their solvency and for whole industries to fail en masse. The details underpinning both of these calamities are horrific and pervasive, with the potential for traumatic damage from either or both.

The Capacity of a Leader

This is a moment that measures the character and capacity of a leader. The complexity of the challenges requires a bringing together of every human asset, of every potential strength from each corner of our country. Solutions demand creative contributions from the sciences, from finance, from strategic planning and from communication, a collaboration of the entirety of America to address a common threat. It is a time for leadership to rise, and to orchestrate an armistice from the afflictions of division.

it is this very moment that has revealed the smallness of President Trump, and his undeniable inability to rise and lead. He has, irrevocably, demonstrated that he lacks the capacity to occupy the office that he was elected to, and the nation is in dire trouble because of his inadequacy.

We can enumerate dozens, if not hundreds of individual failings that lead to this conclusion; let’s use one, a seemingly petty one that could easily have traumatic consequences.

On Wednesday afternoon, after a number of internecine squabbles and contradictory pronouncements, President Trump stood at a White House podium and revealed a plan for the next phase of the battle. Only 16 pages, it laid out a phased and measured program for the reopening of some commercial elements, and the gradual softening of confinement protocols. The guide followed closely the most recent suggestions of the scientific, health, and medical communities, and combined with a pronouncement that the Governors of the States would have the ultimate say in its execution, finally provided the country with a picture of what the immediate future might represent.

Simultaneously, in several state capitals, some relatively minor protests were gaining the attention of the media. The protestors were clad in Trump campaign gear and claimed to be representing an ideology in synch with the President. They demanded as Trump had himself in slightly earlier incarnations, an immediate end to the mediation programs that we’re serving to combat the Covid-19 disease, and a full restoration of all businesses and personal freedoms. Loud and visual despite their small size, these protests managed to become the focus of the evening news, and a source of distraction to the local governments.

The juxtaposition of these protests who claimed to march under Trump’s banner, and their demand for redress that specifically countered the President’s own just presented program, seemed an easy invitation to clarify and unify. The press dutifully asked the President for his response to the protesters, and then waited for the obvious answer: Trump would mollify the angry elements by pointing to the actions being promoted by his administration, assure them that he heard their frustration and that he would continue to work to provide the best possible outcome and promise to bring more money to bear in addressing their needs. In so doing, he would join the protestors with the rest of the country, inviting them to support and take part in the solution.

Trump chose another path. He rejected the obvious, and remarked merely that the protestors “apparently liked and supported me” before shifting to another topic. No reaching out, no unifying statement, simply a moment of gratitude that they carried his name onto the evening reports. This was shameful, but not yet treasonous… that would come the next day.

The following day, Trump used Twitter to inflame the situation, writing that his supporters should “LIBERATE VIRGINIA” '“LIBERATE MICHIGAN” and “LIBERATE MINNESOTA” three of several states that had seen protests the prior day. This specific phrasing, mirroring the language of the protestors who were demanding that Trump’s own program be abandoned, had the expected result of energizing the movement and confirming the support of their titular leader. When asked about the tweets later in the day, Trump muttered that the restrictions enforced (again, as dictated in his own program) were “too hard”, and diverted the conversation to Virginia’s recent legislation regarding gun control, stating (inaccurately) that Virginia was seeking to deprive the protesters of their 2nd amendment rights, another inflammatory statement designed to energize the assaults on the State Capital.

The United States Incentivized a group of Protesters

It is critical in understanding the context in which the President of the United States intentionally incentivized a group of protesters to elevate their protests. We have, as mentioned earlier, millions of people who have lost their jobs, are struggling to feed their families, and are distrustful of their government’s promises to make them somewhat whole. We have tens of thousands of businesses attempting to participate in stimulus programs designed to maintain their payrolls, but unable to access the promised funds before they ran out. We have seen thousands of people lined up for hours waiting for food banks to provide them with groceries, people who never had held out their hands before, and who were self-sufficient scant weeks ago… while they wait for charity, they are watching large corporations exploit loopholes in the small business programs to retract hundreds of millions of those precious funds.

The recipe for riots, for anarchy and chaos, could not be clearer, and the circumstances are likely to get far worse before they improve. It is in this environment that our President decided to throw a few matches into the gasoline, and to do his best to start and fan partisan fires.

The risks of violence, rioting, and conflict are great. A massive slice of our population has been put into untenable positions, and we live in such aggressively partisan times that perceived enemies are everywhere. The President’s determination to intentionally motivate division rather than unification, to incite rather than to calm and assure, was political malpractice of the highest order. That he deliberately acted to provoke those most volatile actors into conflict was a strike against our nation; there is no better definition of Treason than the use of high office against the common good. That this is a frequent practice for this President merely confirms intent and premeditation; the court of our public opinion must find him guilty, and press our representatives to find ways of controlling the damage that he can cause until he can be removed in November… the well-being of our nation, and untold lives and treasure, may well depend on that restraint.

Non-Critical Thinking, False Equivalencies and the Media

The current pandemic is, by every measure, one of historic proportions and peril. A virus that is remarkably contagious yet carries a lethal punch, Covid-19 has demonstrated its destructive capabilities in a remarkably brief time, transforming the world and dominating every facet of society… and yet, some in the media wish to downplay its potency and to argue that we — as a nation and as an economy — have created far more damage in our reaction to it than the virus would itself.

This provides us with a critical example of non-critical thinking, the irrelevancy of facts, and the need to understand motivations as they create false context.

Over several blog posts and articles, I’ve addressed the dangers inherent in giving power to isolated facts. I’ve demonstrated how facts can be used to support opposing sides of the same argument; how underlying context can be manipulated to distort an argument. There is a current example that can serve as an excellent example of this mechanism while allowing a reflection on the motivations of the perpetrators.

Pandemic is not Particularly Dangerous

In some parts of the conservative media, a narrative has been promoted to varying degrees for some time: that the pandemic is not particularly dangerous, and that the financial trauma and individual hardships that we are enduring are a vast, protracted overreaction. There is a reasonable discussion to be had, where one side argues that the economic collapse that seems indicated was a greater tragedy than the loss of many American lives… the other side could counter that preventing a massive loss of life was worth the temporary sacrifice of economic security. Instead, these media representatives have determined to use an obviously false equivalency, comparing the deaths incurred from the virus to those of other impacts such as the more common strains of the flu, or heart disease, or traffic accidents, and in so doing they demonstrate a willingness to suggest a false conclusion through intentional deceit. They use accurate facts to create that falsehood, so as to redirect the discussion to a place where they can hold the appearance of a conclusion, knowing full well that in a more equitable context they would have no such opportunity.

Let’s take on the most popular variant: a contrast with the flu. It has often been stated that in 2017, the more common strains that we together consider “the flu” caused the loss of 61,000 American lives. Contrasted against the present projections of 60,000 lives, there appears to be an equivalency: “…how can we justify ruining our economy over a disease that has such a common outcome?” The argument contends “… we don’t shut down our economy, hide in our homes for weeks, and deprive our citizenry of their freedoms for the flu!”

The key to understanding this argument is to first understand the absolute lack of consistency in the two contexts. In its most simple form, we have the obvious: that we lost 61,000 lives to the flu (a high watermark, but that’s unimportant) despite taking no other measures to reduce its damage. In the Covid-19 context, we are projected to lose 60,000 lives if, and only if, we continue to take the draconian steps of mitigation, including the societal distancing, the extreme confinement, and the closing of schools and businesses. The more relevant equation might be if we use the projections for the Covid-19 virus had we behaved exactly as we did in 2017, going about our business as if the virus did not exist… those models are readily available and have been generally consistent for many weeks across multiple sourcing. The deaths without mitigation? Estimates range from a low of 1.5 million to numbers in the several million. So, in order to fairly compare the figures, we have to accept that the present figure of the Covid-19 pandemic is a minor derivative of millions of deaths, and only so constricted by all of the dramatically altered behavior that is the source of the complaint.

Compare the Figures

To compare the figures as is being done — 61,000 versus 60,000 — is similar to comparing the amount of rain that falls in a bucket, where one bucket is out in an open field, and the other is under a shelter. If those two buckets yielded the same amount of rainwater, it would be fair to assume that you had measured one drizzle and one monsoon.

The falseness of this comparison is too obvious to assume that it has escaped the notice of these pundits and their superiors; there has to be some other explanation for the intentional deception. It is here that we find the true value of critical thinking — the isolation of motivation from the argument, and the exposure of the role that it plays in the falsehood. For these media figures, their commentary is clearly intended to bring their audience to a shared conclusion: that the mediation programs should be ended (or at least substantially compromised) and the economy allowed to return quickly to its previous status. This objective could not be achieved if the contrast was 61,000 versus a million or more lives… in order to achieve a consensus, the false equivalency and aligned deception is required.

In the convoluted media world that we live in, there is little or no accountability for falsehood or error. Various stations and other media create false narratives both frequently and with impunity, selling their chosen position to an audience that is predisposed to accept it at face value. This practice exists across the ideological spectrum, but among certain figures, it has become the standard rather than the exception. Therefore, vigilance is a requirement, and critical thought essential, for any person wishing to truly understand their world, their chosen representation, and their lives… and when we discover repeated practitioners of intentional disinformation, it is fair to brand them as untrustworthy and to reject them as potential sources of important information.

The Existential Danger of the Moment, and the Urgent Demand for Leadership

The media over the past two days has reflected angry protests in several State capitals, with an emphasis on Ohio and Michigan, but with substantial episodes in North Carolina, Kentucky, and elsewhere. The protests have a central theme, and a premise: the belief that the lockdowns instituted by various state governments are predatory and unconstitutional, and that the protesters are representing the wishes and ideology of President Trump.

The fervor of the participants is palpable, and the media has had its fill of colorful pictures and high volume interviews. One issue for me is that both of the primary foundations of the protests are fundamentally and demonstrably inaccurate, but neither the government nor the media have bothered to emphasize that point. This collective failure to correct and defuse false ideas and perspectives holds the seeds of an existential threat to the country and must be immediately addressed.

The first part — the rights of the State government to impose significant restrictions in response to a declared emergency — have been repeatedly supported in the courts and in legal opinions. The population may disapprove or wish another form of action, but the reality is what it is, and there’s little serious debate being offered. The far more important point is the second one, where the protesters are rallying under the MAGA / Trump flag.

I found the juxtaposition of the images on television to be compelling. On one hand, we see a highly visual rally of Trump flags, posters, banners, and chants demanding that the States re-open their businesses and functions immediately… literally at the same time, President Trump is at the podium, promoting his administration’s guidelines for the safe opening of States, a set of standards that clearly demonstrate that none of the States under siege are particularly close to being ready to open up. The irony of that simultaneous display was impossible to ignore… the protesters were claiming to represent the very leadership figure that was officially declaring their objective to be wrong.

There is nothing new in a group of people fervently investing their perception of an individual erroneously onto a figure clearly different than that image. Many progressives felt deeply betrayed by Barrack Obama’s fairly moderate leanings, despite a relatively clear and substantial body of work by his campaign to outline his positions… they assumed that a young, black and articulate Obama would champion their causes, and they reacted harshly when he governed much as he had said that he would. Similarly, supporters of President Trump are confident in their misunderstanding of his actual dictates and feel empowered to forcibly represent their perceptions instead of the realities.

The dangers of this moment are extreme and critical to understanding. While the disillusionment of the progressive movement was largely intellectual and oriented towards policy nuances, the current circumstances in America — epic unemployment, visuals of unprecedented food bank lines evoking widespread panic and deprivation, and extraordinary restrictions on commonly accepted personal freedoms — offer the realistic possibility of massive internal conflict and violent confrontation. It is not hard to imagine that elements in society would come to a determination that they were in direct peril, and that future protests could be fueled by the desperation that would obscure reason and logic.

The moment calls for a leadership that is deeply aware and responsive to these dangers, and that can proclaim a unifying message for a country being forced to sacrifice for a common cause. There is an undeniable reality underlying those sacrifices: a near-unanimous understanding that without aggressive mitigation, the pandemic’s destruction could have been on a magnitude far exceeding the already significant losses of life incurred. The current administration — and the President himself — clearly (if somewhat belatedly) appear to understand that risk, and in the guidelines issued today cautioned strongly against any rapid or unsupported changes in the current practices. In point of fact, the President himself noted that States not following the guidelines’ cautions and precepts would be subject to significant penalties by the government. Despite the lack of ambiguity, the protesters appear to be operating under the guise of representing President Trump and his wishes for them.

This is a perilous and fraught time. The sacrifices and deprivations of many millions of people across the country are not going to abate soon, and that pressure will create ever more flashpoint opportunities. The issues are complicated and the stakes enormous — mistake in the release of pressure on suppressing the pandemic, and potentially open a gateway to massive infection and death; allow the economic issues to persist or accelerate, and risk a depression-style collapse that could tear apart the country. All potential paths to survival require a focus of leadership on the clarity of purpose, and unification of the nation’s direction and efforts; partisan divisions in a period of such great stress will inevitably lead to a loss of control, and potentially a country at war with itself.

It has been said that you don’t go to war with what you want, but rather with what you have. Neither the leader nor the environment that he has created to lead from is anything close to what the country needs right now… but since it is what it is, there need to be other voices stepping up, other parts or members of the government or populace taking the necessary role of promoting the unity of purpose and objective. Simultaneously, the President’s advisors and team need — at a minimum — to immediately convince him of the need for exerting his influence and aligning his followers to an understanding of and support for his own stated objectives.

Flames of Extremism

I do not profess to know where that initiative of leadership can or will evolve from, but the need for it is painfully obvious and urgent. The media cannot be counted on to bring logic and calm to bear; rather, it will inevitably fan the flames of extremism and will amplify the unrest and frustration that it finds. The administration has been so completely co-opted by the President’s persona that any charismatic alternatives have been suppressed. The actions of the federal government, specifically in pushing leadership and control of the response down to the level of the states, rather than presiding over an accountable centralized effort, lessen the impact of future efforts to gain command. The Democratic alternative — Joe Biden — has no platform from which to speak authoritatively, and no broad megaphone to use in the absence of a primary season or public presence; regardless, he is not the sort of figure that could raise his voice against a strong tide without (and perhaps even with) the gravitas and trappings of high office.

My personal inability to find a leadership solution does not mitigate the desperate need for one to emerge… it merely increases the danger that one might not, and the resultant damage that may yet come as a result of that failure.