discoveryinstitute--2020-04-26--COVID-19: When 900 Bytes Shut Down the World

In the podcast “ COVID-19 : How 900 bytes changed the world , ” Walter Bradley Center director Robert J .
Marks and Dr. Daniel Andrés Díaz-Pachón explore a dreadful truth : “ Human biology is so finely tuned that less than a kilobyte of information can stop the world ” , for example when embodied in an easily spread virus like COVID-19 .
Along the way they look at what we know about DNA and the nature of information .
Díaz-Pachón is a Research Assistant Professor in the Division of Biostatistics at the University of Miami and a Senior @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Robert J .
Marks ( right ) : Daniel , everybody knows about DNA , which is the carrier of the genetic information for life .
Let me review it very quickly : There ’ s four nucleotides , A , C , G , and T. They ’ re also referred to as base pairs .
If you stretched out DNA , it ’ s about six feet long [ approximately two metres ] .
It has over three billion nucleotides in it .
You would think that the more complicated the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would have .
But the marbled lungfish has a genome that contains 133 billion base pairs , compared to only 3 billion for a human being .
Robert J .
Marks : Now , each base pair is equivalent to two bits of information .
A byte is 8 bits and a kilobyte is 1000 bytes .
The term “ bit ” was first used in a 1948 paper by Claude Shannon ; it ’ s the foundation of Shannon information theory .
Dr. Diaz , you point out that a small amount @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and that ’ s the case with the COVID-19 virus .
Would you elaborate on that a little bit ?
Daniel Andrés Díaz-Pachón ( left ) : A nuclear bomb can be made to explode just by giving an Enter on a keyboard or something like that .
That ’ s a lot of energy moved through a small amount of information .
That ’ s really an extreme example but a second example is how a small bit of knowledge can produce high value for people who acquire it .
For instance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to change its interest rates and for some reason that information is known to a few people outside , they can produce or move a lot of money with just that small amount of information .
They can get rich , basically , in one day .
Robert J .
Marks : Well , that ’ s the reason that the SEC is monitoring inside information !
There ’ s been a number of congressmen that have been targeted and fingered for performing information that they get from classified meetings .
You talk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the United States carries around—well , he has a secret service guy that carries it around—the so-called nuclear football .
He just has to enter a little bit of information to start a thermonuclear strike against whoever he wants to .
Robert J .
Marks : But how does a small information change relate to the coronavirus ?
Daniel Andrés Díaz-Pachón : There are only 30,000 base pairs of information in the RNA that coronavirus has .
That is equivalent to 60,000 bits or 7.5 kilobytes .
Robert J .
Marks : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have 3 billion base pairs and the coronavirus has only 30,000 base pairs .
So they ’ re very small .
Daniel Andrés Díaz-Pachón : When we compare the thirty thousand base pairs , which is 60,000 bits , that ’ s a very small amount of information compared with most things we do in a computer .
Comparing it to regular chat conversation , if you use What ’ s App ?
, 7.5 kilobytes is just the size of a sticker ( a small image that is sent in the conversation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ J .
Marks : Yes , I did something before our broadcast .
I wanted to get an image which was about 10 kilobytes and I ended up with a 10 bit × 10 bit square of totally black pixels .
And that , compressed by a .jpeg algorithm , was only 10 kilobytes .
Ten kilobytes is nothing !
10:11 | The different kinds of coronaviruses Robert J .
Marks : There ’ s a bunch of coronaviruses and this one deviates from another coronavirus by just a little bit .
Daniel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ type of mutation found for other coronaviruses coming from bats in China has been about 88 % similarity so what mutated was about 12 % .
And that 12 % corresponds to about 0.9 kilobytes or 7.2 kilobits .
Robert J .
Marks : Okay , we can talk about that as 900 bytes actually .
Which is really nothing if you think of a 10 × 10 black square , like a sticker at WhatsApp .
Now , this 900 bytes of information , as everybody knows , shut down the world @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are other interesting side effects to this 900 bytes that has launched the great epidemic , this pandemic , across the world .
What are some of those ?
Daniel Andrés Díaz-Pachón : Again , it ’ s interesting to see how a small amount of information can move the whole world , can move energy and matter .
A colleague and I went to look at EPA information about what the most polluted cities in the US , Los Angeles and New York City .
And we found , actually , that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ particular time in which the population has been locked down is the first time showing a healthy air quality in those cities .
That ’ s quite amazing , I think .
These cities have had strong policies trying to enforce changes .
You can see how these policies have affected the quality of the air in the past two decades .
But nothing compares to what has happened in the past two months .
It is amazing .
Robert J .
Marks : There ’ s additional impact besides this , some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Daniel Andrés Díaz-Pachón : There is a rise in unemployment claims that we have not seen in the history of the US .
If you look at the data from the Department of Labor , here in the country it is skyrocketing right now .
And that is , again , only produced by this 7.2 kilobytes , which is really , really amazing… Robert J .
Marks : We read about the fine-tuning of the universe but there ’ s really fine-tuning of the biology of the ecosystem , economics , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a little bit scary .
So what is your takeaway from all of this ?
Daniel Andrés Díaz-Pachón : I really think that information is more fundamental to nature than matter and energy and what we are seeing here is how this small amount of information can produce a big change .
Not only in a small area ; it ’ s the whole world that is paralyzed… There is a primacy of information , as some physicists have said in the past .
It ’ s the idea that information come before @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stuff of the universe .
That does not prove that information is generating matter or energy but what it shows is how a small amount of information can produce a big change in a lot of things that we know .
Note : The phrase “ it from bit ” was coined by theoretical physicist John Archibald Wheeler ( 1911–2008 ) to express the idea that “ quantum information is the foundation of all reality , ” according to his biographer , physicist Kip S. Thorne Further reading on information in life forms @ @ @ @ @ @ @ computers in efficiency Human thinking takes vastly less computational effort to arrive at the same conclusions .
( Eric Holloway ) See also : COVID-19 : Getting to the bottom of what happened in China .
China knowing violated the terms of a World Health Organization ( WHO ) disclosure agreement .
It is widely recognized that medical professionals and journalists in China are being silenced if they publish any information about COVID-19 that contradicts the ruling Chinese Communist Party ’ s official narrative .
But now mainland Chinese scientists must ensure that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ party line .
If we sift carefully , however , we can uncover real information .
• 01:09 | Introducing Dr. Daniel Andrés Díaz-Pachón , Research Assistant Professor in the Division of Biostatistics at the University of Miami and Senior Researcher at the Evolutionary Informatics Lab • 10:11 | The different kinds of coronaviruses • Daniel Andrés Díaz-Pachón at the University of Miami

In the podcast “COVID-19: How 900 bytes changed the world,” Walter Bradley Center director Robert J. Marks and Dr. Daniel Andrés Díaz-Pachón explore a dreadful truth: “Human biology is so finely tuned that less than a kilobyte of information can stop the world”, for example when embodied in an easily spread virus like COVID-19. Along the way they look at what we know about DNA and the nature of information. Díaz-Pachón is a Research Assistant Professor in the Division of Biostatistics at the University of Miami and a Senior Researcher at the Evolutionary Informatics Lab.
A partial transcript follows.
02:46 | A review of DNA
Robert J. Marks (right): Daniel, everybody knows about DNA, which is the carrier of the genetic information for life. Let me review it very quickly: There’s four nucleotides, A, C, G, and T. They’re also referred to as base pairs. If you stretched out DNA, it’s about six feet long [approximately two metres]. It has over three billion nucleotides in it.
You would think that the more complicated the life form, the more nucleotides it would have. But the marbled lungfish has a genome that contains 133 billion base pairs, compared to only 3 billion for a human being.
Note: A, C, G, and T are the four types of bases found in a DNA molecule: adenine (A), cytosine (C), guanine (G), and thymine (T). A DNA molecule consists of two strands wound around each other, with each strand held together by bonds between the bases. Adenine pairs with thymine, and cytosine pairs with guanine. The sequence of bases in a portion of a DNA molecule, called a gene, carries the instructions needed to assemble a protein. – National Human Genome Research Institute
Robert J. Marks: Now, each base pair is equivalent to two bits of information. A byte is 8 bits and a kilobyte is 1000 bytes. The term “bit” was first used in a 1948 paper by Claude Shannon; it’s the foundation of Shannon information theory.
Dr. Diaz, you point out that a small amount of information can make a big change and that’s the case with the COVID-19 virus. Would you elaborate on that a little bit?
04:03 | A small amount of information can make a big change
Daniel Andrés Díaz-Pachón (left): A nuclear bomb can be made to explode just by giving an Enter on a keyboard or something like that. That’s a lot of energy moved through a small amount of information. That’s really an extreme example but a second example is how a small bit of knowledge can produce high value for people who acquire it. For instance, if the central bank is going to change its interest rates and for some reason that information is known to a few people outside, they can produce or move a lot of money with just that small amount of information. They can get rich, basically, in one day.
Robert J. Marks: Well, that’s the reason that the SEC is monitoring inside information! There’s been a number of congressmen that have been targeted and fingered for performing information that they get from classified meetings.
You talk about the nuclear response. The President of the United States carries around—well, he has a secret service guy that carries it around—the so-called nuclear football. He just has to enter a little bit of information to start a thermonuclear strike against whoever he wants to.
08:03 | Coronavirus and information change
Robert J. Marks: But how does a small information change relate to the coronavirus?
Daniel Andrés Díaz-Pachón: There are only 30,000 base pairs of information in the RNA that coronavirus has. That is equivalent to 60,000 bits or 7.5 kilobytes.
Robert J. Marks: So you’re saying that humans have 3 billion base pairs and the coronavirus has only 30,000 base pairs. So they’re very small.
Daniel Andrés Díaz-Pachón: When we compare the thirty thousand base pairs, which is 60,000 bits, that’s a very small amount of information compared with most things we do in a computer. Comparing it to regular chat conversation, if you use What’s App?, 7.5 kilobytes is just the size of a sticker (a small image that is sent in the conversation [pictured below]).
Robert J. Marks: Yes, I did something before our broadcast. I wanted to get an image which was about 10 kilobytes and I ended up with a 10 [pixel] × 10 [pixel] square of totally black pixels. And that, compressed by a .jpeg algorithm, was only 10 kilobytes. Ten kilobytes is nothing!
10:11 | The different kinds of coronaviruses
Robert J. Marks: There’s a bunch of coronaviruses and this one deviates from another coronavirus by just a little bit.
Daniel Andrés Díaz-Pachón: Yes. The easiest type of mutation found for other coronaviruses coming from bats in China has been about 88% similarity so what mutated was about 12%. And that 12% corresponds to about 0.9 kilobytes or 7.2 kilobits.
Robert J. Marks: Okay, we can talk about that as 900 bytes actually. Which is really nothing if you think of a 10 × 10 black square, like a sticker at WhatsApp. Now, this 900 bytes of information, as everybody knows, shut down the world economically. But you mentioned that there are other interesting side effects to this 900 bytes that has launched the great epidemic, this pandemic, across the world. What are some of those?
Note: First described in detail in the 1960s, the coronavirus gets its name from a distinctive corona or ‘crown’ of sugary-proteins that projects from the envelope surrounding the particle. Encoding the virus’s make-up is the longest genome of any RNA-based virus – a single strand of nucleic acid roughly 26,000 to 32,000 bases long. ScienceAlert
11:05 | Effects on air quality
Daniel Andrés Díaz-Pachón: Again, it’s interesting to see how a small amount of information can move the whole world, can move energy and matter. A colleague and I went to look at EPA information about what the most polluted cities in the US, Los Angeles and New York City. And we found, actually, that for the past forty years, this particular time in which the population has been locked down is the first time showing a healthy air quality in those cities. That’s quite amazing, I think. These cities have had strong policies trying to enforce changes. You can see how these policies have affected the quality of the air in the past two decades. But nothing compares to what has happened in the past two months. It is amazing.
12:43 | Other impacts of coronavirus
Robert J. Marks: There’s additional impact besides this, some of which I think we already know.
Daniel Andrés Díaz-Pachón: There is a rise in unemployment claims that we have not seen in the history of the US. If you look at the data from the Department of Labor, here in the country it is skyrocketing right now. And that is, again, only produced by this 7.2 kilobytes, which is really, really amazing…
15:05 | The fundamental importance of information
Robert J. Marks: We read about the fine-tuning of the universe but there’s really fine-tuning of the biology of the ecosystem, economics, etc., as well. That is a little bit scary. So what is your takeaway from all of this?
Daniel Andrés Díaz-Pachón: I really think that information is more fundamental to nature than matter and energy and what we are seeing here is how this small amount of information can produce a big change. Not only in a small area; it’s the whole world that is paralyzed…
There is a primacy of information, as some physicists have said in the past. It’s the idea that information come before matter and that it is the primary stuff of the universe. That does not prove that information is generating matter or energy but what it shows is how a small amount of information can produce a big change in a lot of things that we know.
Note: The phrase “it from bit” was coined by theoretical physicist John Archibald Wheeler (1911–2008) to express the idea that “quantum information is the foundation of all reality,” according to his biographer, physicist Kip S. Thorne
Further reading on information in life forms: The brain exceeds the most powerful computers in efficiency Human thinking takes vastly less computational effort to arrive at the same conclusions. (Eric Holloway)
See also: COVID-19: Getting to the bottom of what happened in China. China knowing violated the terms of a World Health Organization (WHO) disclosure agreement. It is widely recognized that medical professionals and journalists in China are being silenced if they publish any information about COVID-19 that contradicts the ruling Chinese Communist Party’s official narrative. But now mainland Chinese scientists must ensure that their research publications also toe the CCP party line. If we sift carefully, however, we can uncover real information.
Show Notes
01:09 | Introducing Dr. Daniel Andrés Díaz-Pachón, Research Assistant Professor in the Division of Biostatistics at the University of Miami and Senior Researcher at the Evolutionary Informatics Lab
| Introducing Dr. Daniel Andrés Díaz-Pachón, Research Assistant Professor in the Division of Biostatistics at the University of Miami and Senior Researcher at the Evolutionary Informatics Lab 02:46 | A review of DNA
| A review of DNA 04:03 | A small amount of information can make a big change
| A small amount of information can make a big change 08:03 | Coronavirus and information change
| Coronavirus and information change 10:11 | The different kinds of coronaviruses
| The different kinds of coronaviruses 11:05 | Effects on air quality
| Effects on air quality 12:43 | Other impacts of coronavirus
| Other impacts of coronavirus 15:05 | The fundamental importance of information
Additional Resources


discoveryinstitute--2020-04-25--To Hell with Main Street?

To Hell with Main Street?

In times of trouble , Americans rally around a common cause .
After Pearl Harbor , we liberated much of the world ; during the Cold War , we sent a man to the moon .
There was a shared sensibility that Americans were unified in pursuit of the highest ideals .
But after some shocks , this sense of unity proves short-lived — and shortsighted .
After the tragedy of 9/11 , a bipartisan coalition of political leaders led the nation into a disastrous war in Iraq and Afghanistan .
After the Great Recession , the Bush and Obama @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tea Party patriots and Occupy Wall Street demonstrators alike , orchestrated a historic bailout of the banks and automakers — while millions of American families paid the price .
We are currently in the middle of a similar ordeal .
Playing into the public ’ s fear of a deadly pandemic , a bipartisan alliance of political leaders , disease modelers , and media figures has quickly rallied the public to the cause of restrictive shutdown orders and multitrillion-dollar bailouts , convincing voters to cede their authority to a ruling class of “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ officials.
” But as the shock subsides and the details of our new policies become clear , this bipartisan euphoria will vanish — and the public will wonder how it was duped again .
For all of the talk about “ helping families ” and providing “ small business relief , ” these new initiatives are poised not only to increase the power of the largest institutions — government , banks , and big corporations — but to do so at the expense of working families and small businesses .
Unless policymakers quickly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ America ’ s founding ideals of self-governance and small-scale financial independence .
Bailouts , Shutdowns , and the Death of Main Street Although much of the rhetoric surrounding the CARES Act has focused on “ small business , ” in reality the legislation has turned out primarily to benefit the largest businesses , which immediately secured $ 862 billion in direct assistance and tax cuts .
Meanwhile , small businesses were left to fight over $ 349 billion in Paycheck Protection Program funding , which has been quickly depleted .
Even for this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as Ruth ’ s Chris and Potbelly were able to leverage their banking and finance connections to quickly process applications , leaving millions of small businesses , contractors , and freelancers behind .
The public quarantine orders have followed the same logic .
In my small town in Washington State , the Safeway , Home Depot , and Target stores are open , but all of the small businesses that surround them are closed .
In practice , the largest businesses have been able to rapidly deploy their lobbyists to state capitols , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as “ essential.
” The smallest firms — nail salons , music stores , flooring companies—do not have the power , organization , or political infrastructure even to make their demands heard .
They ’ ve been subordinated to the opaque science of “ public health experts ” and left to die .
Part of the problem is that the bureaucrats have no skin in the game .
In Washington State , for example , unemployment has spiked to 28 percent in construction , 30 percent in accommodation and food services , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and recreation .
Meanwhile , new unemployment claims in the government sector have remained steady at less than 1 percent — lower than any industry statewide .
For entrepreneurs and private sector workers who have watched their companies collapse , it is a bloodbath ; for much of the public bureaucracy , it is a work-from-home vacation with little risk and little responsibility .
Although the destruction of small business is a travesty , it is not a surprise .
As James Burnham predicted during World War II in The Managerial Revolution @ @ @ @ @ @ @ control by a caste of “ administrators , experts , directing engineers , production executives , propaganda specialists , ” and “ technocrats , ” who together wield authority over small proprietors , capitalists , and politicians alike .
The managerial class resents and fears any major opposition .
In the Trump era , it has scrambled to fight back against populists amplified by technology .
Now , the coronavirus has handed the managerial class a golden opportunity to regain control .
The disease hastens the decline of the old American ideal of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Americans mythologized the family farmer ; he now survives predominantly in pickup truck commercials .
The small proprietor was supposed to be the replacement , but he , too , now seems on the verge of extinction .
The virus will destroy millions of small businesses in the coming months .
The largest firms and financial institutions , abetted by a political class that has abandoned the old ideals , will absorb their market share and move on—to the self-entitled relief of those who manage big money and big organizations .
The corporations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the state appears uninterested taking them over directly .
So , we are left with Burnham ’ s third way : rule by the managerial class .
Political leaders across the country , eager to offload their responsibilities , have insisted that their policies will be governed by “ public health experts , ” “ data , ” and “ science.
” In New York , where the coronavirus has spread the furthest , the governor has announced that the management consulting firm McKinsey will create the plan to re-open the state — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ managerial class .
Burnham argued that neither capitalism nor socialism would ultimately prevail .
As we survey this moment of the pandemic , there are signs he may be right .
The Reassertion of Politics and the American Ideal But for how long ?
As Matthew J. Peterson has suggested , now is a time for statesmanship and the reassertion of politics .
“ Science can not make political decisions .
Data can not make political decisions .
The precautionary principle can not make political decisions , ” Peterson writes .
“ They @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a balancing of options and their respective tradeoffs… Expertise can inform this kind of decision-making , but it can ’ t of itself resolve anything.
” Paradoxically , for all of his faults , President Trump might be the one political figure able to re-establish what Peterson calls “ the authority of the American people and the American nation-state.
” Rejecting the consensus of the managerial class , the president quickly closed the border with China , cut funding to the “ experts ” at the World Health Organization , and has insisted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ own political authority .
The question now is on behalf of whom .
Here , we must be less optimistic .
Although citizens and small proprietors have started to flood state capitols chanting “ let us work , let us work , ” it might already be too late .
The $ 2 trillion bailout package has been spent and any further assistance will follow its same imperatives .
Some political leaders and public health officials are now suggesting that lockdowns might continue into the summer , which will destroy countless more “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ irony is that in his promise to “ Make American Great Again , ” President Trump specifically appealed to the old ideals of citizen rule and small-scale financial independence .
Unless he is able to assert control , carefully re-open the country , and ensure that the next round of CARES Act funding provides fast relief to every small business — every trucker , plumber , repair man , and hair stylist — he will be falling short of these ideals .
It ’ s time to reassert the authority of the American @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to hell with the managerial class .

In times of trouble, Americans rally around a common cause. After Pearl Harbor, we liberated much of the world; during the Cold War, we sent a man to the moon. There was a shared sensibility that Americans were unified in pursuit of the highest ideals.
But after some shocks, this sense of unity proves short-lived — and shortsighted. After the tragedy of 9/11, a bipartisan coalition of political leaders led the nation into a disastrous war in Iraq and Afghanistan. After the Great Recession, the Bush and Obama administrations, brushing aside the concerns of Tea Party patriots and Occupy Wall Street demonstrators alike, orchestrated a historic bailout of the banks and automakers — while millions of American families paid the price.
We are currently in the middle of a similar ordeal. Playing into the public’s fear of a deadly pandemic, a bipartisan alliance of political leaders, disease modelers, and media figures has quickly rallied the public to the cause of restrictive shutdown orders and multitrillion-dollar bailouts, convincing voters to cede their authority to a ruling class of “data-driven experts” and “public health officials.” But as the shock subsides and the details of our new policies become clear, this bipartisan euphoria will vanish—and the public will wonder how it was duped again.


discoveryinstitute--2020-04-29--ISI Webinar on Science, Scientism, and Society

Intercollegiate Studies Institute ( ISI ) is pleased to invite you to join its upcoming webinar on Science , Scientism , and Society featuring experts from Discovery Institute .
Specially designed for college students , the webinar is also open to high school students , teachers , and the general public .
This online event will explore the role of science and scientism in some of the most important questions facing our society today .
From artificial intelligence to mandatory stay-at-home orders and everything in-between , what role should scientists — and their modern approach to scientific investigation — play @ @ @ @ @ @ @ make on such controversial issues ?
Can science , as a tool of understanding , be used to both advance , and sometimes harm , human flourishing ?
John West , Associate Director of the Center for Science & Culture and author of multiple books on the subject , will explore this theme in the writing of C.S .
Lewis , making special application to this age of COVID-19 .
Robert Marks , Director of the Walter Bradley Center for Natural & Artificial Intelligence , will present a critical look at the threats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ presentation entitled “ AI : Menace or Savior ?
” And finally , physicist Brian Miller , Research Coordinator for the Center for Science & Culture , will discuss the hopeful and compelling evidence that science provides for a purposeful universe .
Together , these presentations will equip college students — and all attendees — to engage in some of the most critical discussions taking place in our society today .
This online event is free , but space is limited .
Follow the registration button to reserve your spot , and mark @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , 12:00 PM PDT .

Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI) is pleased to invite you to join its upcoming webinar on Science, Scientism, and Society featuring experts from Discovery Institute. Specially designed for college students, the webinar is also open to high school students, teachers, and the general public. This online event will explore the role of science and scientism in some of the most important questions facing our society today. From artificial intelligence to mandatory stay-at-home orders and everything in-between, what role should scientists — and their modern approach to scientific investigation — play in the critical decisions that we must make on such controversial issues? Can science, as a tool of understanding, be used to both advance, and sometimes harm, human flourishing?
John West, Associate Director of the Center for Science & Culture and author of multiple books on the subject, will explore this theme in the writing of C.S. Lewis, making special application to this age of COVID-19. Robert Marks, Director of the Walter Bradley Center for Natural & Artificial Intelligence, will present a critical look at the threats and merits of artificial intelligence in his presentation entitled “AI: Menace or Savior?” And finally, physicist Brian Miller, Research Coordinator for the Center for Science & Culture, will discuss the hopeful and compelling evidence that science provides for a purposeful universe. Together, these presentations will equip college students — and all attendees — to engage in some of the most critical discussions taking place in our society today.


discoveryinstitute--2020-04-30--Can AI Save Us from COVID-19? An Expert Is Skeptical

Alex Engler , author of a Brookings Institution report , “ A guide to healthy skepticism of artificial intelligence and coronavirus , ” wrote recently at tech mag Wired that we need more realistic expectations than “ AI will save the day ” : As the world confronts the outbreak of coronavirus , many have lauded AI as our omniscient secret weapon .
Although corporate press releases and some media coverage sing its praises , AI will play only a marginal role in our fight against Covid-19 .
While there are undoubtedly ways in which it will be helpful—and even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ moment , technologies like data reporting , telemedicine , and conventional diagnostic tools are far more impactful .
So how can you avoid falling for the AI hype ?
In a recent Brookings Institution report , I identified the necessary heuristics for a healthy skepticism of AI claims around Covid-19 .
Let ’ s start with the most important rule : always look to the subject matter experts .
If they are applying AI , fantastic !
If not , be wary of AI applications from software companies that don ’ t employ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on its context , which takes expertise to understand .
Does data from China apply to the United States ?
How long might exponential growth continue ?
By how much will our interventions reduce transmission ?
All models , even AI models , make assumptions about questions like these .
If the modelers don ’ t understand those assumptions , their models are more likely to be harmful than helpful .
Alex Engler , “ Artificial Intelligence Won ’ t Save Us From Coronavirus ” at Wired He offers several specific cautions , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ claims for a high accuracy rate from AI systems in the current environment and 2 ) In general , real-life circumstances usually degrade AI performance because no one can predict all the little problems that will arise .
He ’ s positive about AI in principle but counsels , “ its advantages need to be hedged in a realistic understanding of its limitations.
” It ’ s a system , not a supermachine .
Yesterday , Walter Bradley Center director Robert J .
Marks pointed to a similar problem with claims for Big @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fight against COVID-19 : On March 16 , 2020 , the White House asked AI experts to mine 29,000 scholarly papers for data that might provide useful information to help fight the coronavirus pandemic ( COVID-19 ) .
The collective tome was assembled with the help of Microsoft and Alphabet , the parent company of Google .
It ’ s unclear whether the AI powerhouses Microsoft and Deep Mind , another Alphabet company , tried cracking the problem themselves .
Deep Mind was the developer of AlphaGo , the AI computer program that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Media lauded the success of AlphaGo as a potential solution to half the world ’ s problems .
A Deep Mind slogan is “ What if solving one problem could unlock solutions to thousands more ?
” Think of the good will generated for Deep Mind if the company had successfully examined the 29,000 papers and found useful coronavirus information !
The same for Microsoft .
Having first access , both companies may have tried and failed .
It could be that , after Microsoft and Deep Mind failed , the decision was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the rest of the world a chance .
Robert J .
Marks , “ Coronavirus : Is data mining failing its first really big test ?
” at Mind Matters News Like Engler , Marks stresses that someday AI methods like data mining may be really helpful .
But first we need to be sure of the relationship between AI ’ s capabilities and the problems we are thing to solve .
A technology writer recently listed the problems the use of AI faces , I find that AI has not yet been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ AI is hampered by a lack of data , and by too much noisy and outlier data .
Overcoming these constraints will require a careful balance between data privacy and public health concerns , and more rigorous human-AI interaction .
It is unlikely that these will be addressed in time to be of much help during the present pandemic .
Instead , AI may “ help with the next pandemic ” .
In the meantime , gathering diagnostic data on who is infectious will be essential to save lives and limiting the economic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , “ Artificial Intelligence against COVID-19 : An Early Review ” at Towards Data Science ( April 1 , 2020 ) An Organizational Behaviour prof reminds us of the fundamental difference between human learning and machine learning : ndeed , the COVID-19 crisis will likely expose some of the key shortfalls of AI .
Machine learning , the current form of AI , works by identifying patterns in historical training data .
When used wisely , AI has the potential to exceed humans not only through speed but also by detecting patterns in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
However , AI systems need a lot of data , with relevant examples in that data , in order to find these patterns .
Machine learning also implicitly assumes that conditions today are the same as the conditions represented in the training data .
In other words , AI systems implicitly assume that what has worked in the past will still work in the future .
Matista Hollister , “ AI can help with the COVID-19 crisis – but the right human input is key ” at World Economic Forum Don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , she says , but also notes , Humans have an advantage over AI , though .
We are able to learn lessons from one setting and apply them to novel situations , drawing on our abstract knowledge to make best guesses on what might work or what might happen .
AI systems , in contrast , have to learn from scratch whenever the setting or task changes even slightly .
The COVID-19 crisis , therefore , will highlight something that has always been true about AI : it is a tool , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any situation is determined by the humans who design it and use it .
In the current crisis , human action and innovation will be particularly critical in leveraging the power of what AI can do .
Matista Hollister , “ AI can help with the COVID-19 crisis – but the right human input is key ” at World Economic Forum On that view , perhaps the most valuable thing we can do with AI right now is to define more rigorously what we would like it to do the next time a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for preparedness .
Further reading : Coronavirus : Is data mining failing its first really big test ?
Computers scanning thousands of paper don ’ t seem to be providing answers for COVID-19 .
If Alphabet ’ s Deep Mind or Microsoft had successfully data mined the 29,000 papers and found useful coronavirus information , that would be pretty impressive .
But they appear to be giving others a chance to try instead , raising issues once again about the value of data mining in medicine .
( Robert J .
Marks )

Alex Engler
Alex Engler, author of a Brookings Institution report, “A guide to healthy skepticism of artificial intelligence and coronavirus,” wrote recently at tech mag Wired that we need more realistic expectations than “AI will save the day”:
As the world confronts the outbreak of coronavirus, many have lauded AI as our omniscient secret weapon. Although corporate press releases and some media coverage sing its praises, AI will play only a marginal role in our fight against Covid-19. While there are undoubtedly ways in which it will be helpful—and even more so in future pandemics—at the current moment, technologies like data reporting, telemedicine, and conventional diagnostic tools are far more impactful. So how can you avoid falling for the AI hype? In a recent Brookings Institution report, I identified the necessary heuristics for a healthy skepticism of AI claims around Covid-19. Let’s start with the most important rule: always look to the subject matter experts. If they are applying AI, fantastic! If not, be wary of AI applications from software companies that don’t employ those experts. Data is always dependent on its context, which takes expertise to understand. Does data from China apply to the United States? How long might exponential growth continue? By how much will our interventions reduce transmission? All models, even AI models, make assumptions about questions like these. If the modelers don’t understand those assumptions, their models are more likely to be harmful than helpful. Alex Engler, “Artificial Intelligence Won’t Save Us From Coronavirus ” at Wired
He offers several specific cautions, including: 1) Be wary of claims for a high accuracy rate from AI systems in the current environment and 2) In general, real-life circumstances usually degrade AI performance because no one can predict all the little problems that will arise. He’s positive about AI in principle but counsels, “its advantages need to be hedged in a realistic understanding of its limitations.” It’s a system, not a supermachine.
Yesterday, Walter Bradley Center director Robert J. Marks pointed to a similar problem with claims for Big Data (data mining) in the fight against COVID-19:
On March 16, 2020, the White House asked AI experts to mine 29,000 scholarly papers for data that might provide useful information to help fight the coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19). The collective tome was assembled with the help of Microsoft and Alphabet, the parent company of Google. It’s unclear whether the AI powerhouses Microsoft and Deep Mind, another Alphabet company, tried cracking the problem themselves. Deep Mind was the developer of AlphaGo, the AI computer program that defeated the world champion in GO. Media lauded the success of AlphaGo as a potential solution to half the world’s problems. A Deep Mind slogan is “What if solving one problem could unlock solutions to thousands more?” Think of the good will generated for Deep Mind if the company had successfully examined the 29,000 papers and found useful coronavirus information! The same for Microsoft. Having first access, both companies may have tried and failed. It could be that, after Microsoft and Deep Mind failed, the decision was made to pass the buck to give the rest of the world a chance. Robert J. Marks, “Coronavirus: Is data mining failing its first really big test?” at Mind Matters News
Like Engler, Marks stresses that someday AI methods like data mining may be really helpful. But first we need to be sure of the relationship between AI’s capabilities and the problems we are thing to solve.
A technology writer recently listed the problems the use of AI faces,
I find that AI has not yet been impactful against COVID-19. Its use of AI is hampered by a lack of data, and by too much noisy and outlier data. Overcoming these constraints will require a careful balance between data privacy and public health concerns, and more rigorous human-AI interaction. It is unlikely that these will be addressed in time to be of much help during the present pandemic. Instead, AI may “help with the next pandemic”. In the meantime, gathering diagnostic data on who is infectious will be essential to save lives and limiting the economic havoc due to containment. Wim Naudé, “Artificial Intelligence against COVID-19: An Early Review” at Towards Data Science (April 1, 2020)
An Organizational Behaviour prof reminds us of the fundamental difference between human learning and machine learning:
ndeed, the COVID-19 crisis will likely expose some of the key shortfalls of AI. Machine learning, the current form of AI, works by identifying patterns in historical training data. When used wisely, AI has the potential to exceed humans not only through speed but also by detecting patterns in that training data that humans have overlooked. However, AI systems need a lot of data, with relevant examples in that data, in order to find these patterns. Machine learning also implicitly assumes that conditions today are the same as the conditions represented in the training data. In other words, AI systems implicitly assume that what has worked in the past will still work in the future. Matista Hollister, “AI can help with the COVID-19 crisis – but the right human input is key” at World Economic Forum
Don’t humans do that too? Yes, she says, but also notes,
Humans have an advantage over AI, though. We are able to learn lessons from one setting and apply them to novel situations, drawing on our abstract knowledge to make best guesses on what might work or what might happen. AI systems, in contrast, have to learn from scratch whenever the setting or task changes even slightly. The COVID-19 crisis, therefore, will highlight something that has always been true about AI: it is a tool, and the value of its use in any situation is determined by the humans who design it and use it. In the current crisis, human action and innovation will be particularly critical in leveraging the power of what AI can do. Matista Hollister, “AI can help with the COVID-19 crisis – but the right human input is key” at World Economic Forum
On that view, perhaps the most valuable thing we can do with AI right now is to define more rigorously what we would like it to do the next time a disaster on this scale happens and aim for preparedness.
Further reading: Coronavirus: Is data mining failing its first really big test? Computers scanning thousands of paper don’t seem to be providing answers for COVID-19. If Alphabet’s Deep Mind or Microsoft had successfully data mined the 29,000 papers and found useful coronavirus information, that would be pretty impressive. But they appear to be giving others a chance to try instead, raising issues once again about the value of data mining in medicine. (Robert J. Marks)


discoveryinstitute--2020-04-29--Coronavirus: Is Data Mining Failing Its First Really Big Test?

On March 16 , 2020 , the White House asked AI experts to mine 29,000 scholarly papers for data that might provide useful information to help fight the coronavirus pandemic ( COVID-19 ) .
The collective tome was assembled with the help of Microsoft and Alphabet , the parent company of Google .
It ’ s unclear whether the AI powerhouses Microsoft and Deep Mind , another Alphabet company , tried cracking the problem themselves .
Deep Mind was the developer of AlphaGo , the AI computer program that defeated the world champion in GO .
Media lauded the success @ @ @ @ @ @ @ half the world ’ s problems .
A Deep Mind slogan is “ What if solving one problem could unlock solutions to thousands more ?
” Think of the good will generated for Deep Mind if the company had successfully examined the 29,000 papers and found useful coronavirus information !
The same for Microsoft .
Having first access , both companies may have tried and failed .
It could be that , after Microsoft and Deep Mind failed , the decision was made to pass the buck to give the rest of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on my part .
But over a month has passed since public release and I see no report of any attempts , let alone success .
Possibly , and most likely , there are no smoking guns in the papers for anyone to find .
Data mining has had its successes and failures .
The most celebrated data mining program is IBM Watson , which beat the world champions in the quiz show JEOPARDY .
At its disposal , IBM Watson had Wikipedia and more .
Watson ’ s key strength was its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , you or I could answer most of the prompts just as well as Watson if time were not a factor and we had access to the Google search engine .
Watson was subsequently lauded as a solution to many data mining problems .
Indeed , the search engine Yippy.com is powered by IBM Watson .
I like the page .
I find Yippy.com often gives deeper , more informative , and less biased responses than a Google search .
Medical care would be enhanced if physicians and surgeons could use IBM Watson @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cases .
Fueled in part by the pressure on academics to publish , the volume of medical literature is currently riding an exponential curve .
In 2016 , I wrote a series of papers [ 1-6 ] that included a plot of the number of papers published on Medline each year .
Medline lists all papers in life sciences , including biomedicine , from select journals .
Because all medical journals are not included , the count is conservative .
As seen in the figure below , the stack of Medline papers rivals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the plot [ 3 ] .
No one can keep up with this volume of literature .
But this should not be a problem for today ’ s computers .
IBM Watson is said to read two million pages per minute .
Yet IBM Watson failed miserably at assisting doctors in mining medical literature and was fired by MD Anderson Cancer Center .
The failure ranked # 1 in Mind Matters News ’ s Top Ten Hype Stories of 2018 .
The problems IBM Watson encountered still prevail with mining information about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ researchers seeking COVID-19 answers face hurdles , ” noting that “ Reading and comprehending articles on coronavirus proves to be difficult for machine learning.
” Hopefully , the effectiveness of the mining of medical literature will improve .
I see no reason why data mining might not some day help physicians .
But the current quest to shoot for the moon seems to be a staircase being built one step at a time .
Note : The cartoon above is from xkcd and is Creative Commons .
• Robert J .
Marks II @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about Peer Review ( and probably more ) , ” TheBestSchools.org ( May 2016 ) [ Cache ] • Robert J .
Marks II “ Peer Review Pt .
1 : The Way It Was , ” TheBestSchools.org ( May 2016 ) [ Cache ] • Robert J .
Marks II “ Peer Review Pt .
3 : Towers of Mostly Babble , ” TheBestSchools.org ( May 2016 ) .
[ Cache , Figure 1 , Figure 2 , and Figure 3 ] • Robert J .
Marks II “ Peer Review Pt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Scholarly Paper , ” TheBestSchools.org ( May 2016 ) [ Cache ] • Robert J .
Marks II “ Peer Review Pt .
5 : Artificial Unintelligence : will journals accept papers written by a computer ?
, ” TheBestSchools.org ( May 2016 ) [ Cache ]

On March 16, 2020, the White House asked AI experts to mine 29,000 scholarly papers for data that might provide useful information to help fight the coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19). The collective tome was assembled with the help of Microsoft and Alphabet, the parent company of Google.
It’s unclear whether the AI powerhouses Microsoft and Deep Mind, another Alphabet company, tried cracking the problem themselves. Deep Mind was the developer of AlphaGo, the AI computer program that defeated the world champion in GO. Media lauded the success of AlphaGo as a potential solution to half the world’s problems.
A Deep Mind slogan is “What if solving one problem could unlock solutions to thousands more?” Think of the good will generated for Deep Mind if the company had successfully examined the 29,000 papers and found useful coronavirus information! The same for Microsoft. Having first access, both companies may have tried and failed. It could be that, after Microsoft and Deep Mind failed, the decision was made to pass the buck to give the rest of the world a chance.
That is conjecture on my part. But over a month has passed since public release and I see no report of any attempts, let alone success. Possibly, and most likely, there are no smoking guns in the papers for anyone to find.
Data mining has had its successes and failures. The most celebrated data mining program is IBM Watson, which beat the world champions in the quiz show JEOPARDY. At its disposal, IBM Watson had Wikipedia and more. Watson’s key strength was its speed. For the game of JEOPARDY, you or I could answer most of the prompts just as well as Watson if time were not a factor and we had access to the Google search engine.
Watson was subsequently lauded as a solution to many data mining problems. Indeed, the search engine Yippy.com is powered by IBM Watson. I like the page. I find Yippy.com often gives deeper, more informative, and less biased responses than a Google search.
Medical care would be enhanced if physicians and surgeons could use IBM Watson to search for information relevant to specific cases. Fueled in part by the pressure on academics to publish, the volume of medical literature is currently riding an exponential curve. In 2016, I wrote a series of papers [1-6] that included a plot of the number of papers published on Medline each year. Medline lists all papers in life sciences, including biomedicine, from select journals. Because all medical journals are not included, the count is conservative. As seen in the figure below, the stack of Medline papers rivals the height of the Empire State Building in the plot [3]. No one can keep up with this volume of literature. But this should not be a problem for today’s computers. IBM Watson is said to read two million pages per minute.
Yet IBM Watson failed miserably at assisting doctors in mining medical literature and was fired by MD Anderson Cancer Center. The failure ranked #1 in Mind Matters News’s Top Ten Hype Stories of 2018.
The problems IBM Watson encountered still prevail with mining information about Covid-19. Roll Call headlines “AI researchers seeking COVID-19 answers face hurdles,” noting that “Reading and comprehending articles on coronavirus proves to be difficult for machine learning.” Hopefully, the effectiveness of the mining of medical literature will improve.
I see no reason why data mining might not some day help physicians. But the current quest to shoot for the moon seems to be a staircase being built one step at a time.
Note: The cartoon above is from xkcd and is Creative Commons.
REFERENCES


discoveryinstitute--2020-04-30--The Scramble to Redeem The S-Blob

The Scramble to Redeem The S-Blob

My own medical profession , as I have described at Evolution News before , is at the forefront in a struggle against a plague .
Heroic doctors and nurses risk their lives daily .
Somewhere far back behind the front line , meanwhile , there is a policy-making Blob .
In the context of foreign policy , cynics refer to The Blob .
The Blob is the foreign policy of experts and hangers-on , and it takes on a life of its own .
The scientific profession has a Blob as well , consisting of myriad scientific experts in government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and other pilot fish .
The Science Blob ( hereafter “ The S-Blob ” ) is in a panic .
The COVID-19 pandemic has cast a very unwelcome spotlight on The S-Blob , and more than anything else , Blobs hate light .
This pandemic is unmasking the incompetence of the scientific establishment , particularly the failure of the massive public health bureaucracy .
The West is facing hundreds of thousands of deaths and economic and societal collapse because scientists who are trained and paid to protect us from pandemics failed to protect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wall Street Journal and others report , U.S. intelligence is investigating whether COVID-19 originated from scientific incompetence in a Wuhan research lab .
Denials aside , it spread to the local populace with historic loss of life , and was spread to the world by a Chinese scientific and political establishment that covered up the emerging pandemic and allowed international flights to leave Wuhan while restricting flights within China .
The World Health Organization covered up the local epidemic long enough to permit it to become a pandemic .
The American Centers for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Americans were at risk and apparently made no effort to seal our borders until months after the epidemic in China began and spread to Europe .
American public health officials since then have thrown our nation into a virtual depression ( with unemployment levels not seen since the 1930s ) and have shown astonishing incompetence .
Our response to this entirely preventable pandemic was hindered by a lack of rudimentary credible science ( e.g.
, quickly changing statements about whether masks are to be recommended ) .
Never in this century has the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on display .
The Root of the Problem Blobs are slow .
They feed voraciously ( on your money ) and excrete voraciously ( e.g.
, evolutionary biology ) .
Blobs need tenders to protect them , and the S-Blob depends heavily on its Internet tenders .
Yale neuroscientist Steven Novella is one such tender .
Novella has made a career out of making excuses for the S-Blob .
Novella is , as you might imagine , in a frenzy as of late .
As we all face death and economic and societal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gets to the root of the problem , in his view , and lays out the blame : This is difficult to quantify , but what is happening is that we are allowing to thrive a multi-billion dollar industry funneling money to charlatans , quacks , con-artists , pseudoscientists… Do you think they are just taking their money and staying quiet ?
No .
They are using some of those billions to lobby… and funnel taxpayer money into promoting their snake oil .
This multi-billion dollar industry is also engaged in a massive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disinformation campaign , for their “ brand ” … They have spent decades misinforming the public about the relative significance of various health risks and benefits , the nature of disease , and the trustworthiness of scientists and experts… So we have allowed a system to fester in our society that… infiltrates scientific and professional institutions with pseudoscience and rank nonsense , forces government expenditure on fake medicine… Part of our pandemic preparedness has to be scientific hygiene – we need to keep pseudoscience out of our medical institutions .
Lest you misunderstand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The S-Blob .
He ’ s talking about what he sees as the real root of our national crisis… Reiki : With this COVID pandemic , Novella ’ s multi-year quest to protect the public from Reiki , an alternative medicine technique , is finally coming to fruition , just when we need it .
The S-Blob is increasingly under justifiable scrutiny for the most catastrophic scientific fiasco of the 21st century .
Its defenders are spewing chaff like there ’ s no tomorrow .
They will assiduously protect the homefolk from homeopaths @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lots , lone surfers , and all the usual suspects .
This pandemic will keep the likes of Novella busy for the foreseeable future — there ’ s a lot of Blob-butt to cover .
A S-Blob tender ’ s job is never done , as long as there are excuses to peddle and accountability to shirk .
Photo : COVID-19 test kit , by U.S. Centers for Disease Control / Public domain .

My own medical profession, as I have described at Evolution News before, is at the forefront in a struggle against a plague. Heroic doctors and nurses risk their lives daily. Somewhere far back behind the front line, meanwhile, there is a policy-making Blob.
In the context of foreign policy, cynics refer to The Blob. The Blob is the foreign policy of experts and hangers-on, and it takes on a life of its own.
The Science Blob
The scientific profession has a Blob as well, consisting of myriad scientific experts in government and academia, with their accompanying bureaucrats and other pilot fish. The Science Blob (hereafter “The S-Blob”) is in a panic. The COVID-19 pandemic has cast a very unwelcome spotlight on The S-Blob, and more than anything else, Blobs hate light. This pandemic is unmasking the incompetence of the scientific establishment, particularly the failure of the massive public health bureaucracy. The West is facing hundreds of thousands of deaths and economic and societal collapse because scientists who are trained and paid to protect us from pandemics failed to protect us from this pandemic.
As the Wall Street Journal and others report, U.S. intelligence is investigating whether COVID-19 originated from scientific incompetence in a Wuhan research lab. Denials aside, it spread to the local populace with historic loss of life, and was spread to the world by a Chinese scientific and political establishment that covered up the emerging pandemic and allowed international flights to leave Wuhan while restricting flights within China. The World Health Organization covered up the local epidemic long enough to permit it to become a pandemic. The American Centers for Disease Control ignored the clear evidence that Americans were at risk and apparently made no effort to seal our borders until months after the epidemic in China began and spread to Europe. American public health officials since then have thrown our nation into a virtual depression (with unemployment levels not seen since the 1930s) and have shown astonishing incompetence. Our response to this entirely preventable pandemic was hindered by a lack of rudimentary credible science (e.g., quickly changing statements about whether masks are to be recommended). Never in this century has the nature of the S-Blob been so starkly on display.
The Root of the Problem
Blobs are slow. They feed voraciously (on your money) and excrete voraciously (e.g., evolutionary biology). Blobs need tenders to protect them, and the S-Blob depends heavily on its Internet tenders. Yale neuroscientist Steven Novella is one such tender. Novella has made a career out of making excuses for the S-Blob. Novella is, as you might imagine, in a frenzy as of late. As we all face death and economic and societal ruin thanks to the S-Blob, Novella gets to the root of the problem, in his view, and lays out the blame:
This is difficult to quantify, but what is happening is that we are allowing to thrive a multi-billion dollar industry funneling money to charlatans, quacks, con-artists, pseudoscientists… Do you think they are just taking their money and staying quiet? No. They are using some of those billions to lobby… and funnel taxpayer money into promoting their snake oil. This multi-billion dollar industry is also engaged in a massive advertising campaign, which amounts to a disinformation campaign, for their “brand”… They have spent decades misinforming the public about the relative significance of various health risks and benefits, the nature of disease, and the trustworthiness of scientists and experts… So we have allowed a system to fester in our society that… infiltrates scientific and professional institutions with pseudoscience and rank nonsense, forces government expenditure on fake medicine… Part of our pandemic preparedness has to be scientific hygiene – we need to keep pseudoscience out of our medical institutions.
Lest you misunderstand, Novella isn’t talking about The S-Blob. He’s talking about what he sees as the real root of our national crisis… Reiki:
…The implication is we should just let people use their Reiki or magic potions if it makes them feel like they are doing something, as long as the treatment is not directly physically harmful. As you can see, I have been addressing it for years, including the fact that I will have to address it for years…
With this COVID pandemic, Novella’s multi-year quest to protect the public from Reiki, an alternative medicine technique, is finally coming to fruition, just when we need it.
Protecting the Homefolk
The S-Blob is increasingly under justifiable scrutiny for the most catastrophic scientific fiasco of the 21st century. Its defenders are spewing chaff like there’s no tomorrow. They will assiduously protect the homefolk from homeopaths, Orthodox Jews, Christians in parking lots, lone surfers, and all the usual suspects. This pandemic will keep the likes of Novella busy for the foreseeable future — there’s a lot of Blob-butt to cover. A S-Blob tender’s job is never done, as long as there are excuses to peddle and accountability to shirk.
Photo: COVID-19 test kit, by U.S. Centers for Disease Control / Public domain.


discoveryinstitute--2020-05-05--Top Consumer Trends COVID-19 Will Change Long Term

Recently , in a discussion with Alison Angus , head of Euromonitor ’ s lifestyle research , the Wall Street Journal identified some key trends that , having received a huge boost during the COVID-19 pandemic , will probably afterward : Robotic , no-contact delivery is also catching on .
Meanwhile , recycling has taken an unpredicted hit : Privacy concerns , of course , have also given way before safety concerns .
But even if consumers must be persuaded to care about recycling once more , they will probably soon want their privacy back .
Here are some predictions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ already big will get bigger According to a report at Statista , Amazon had 112 million Prime members in the United States in 2019 , up from 95 million in 2018 .
They spent an average of $ 1,400 , about 230 % more than non-Prime members .
Now , throw in the COVID-19 pandemic and nationwide commitment to social distancing over the next few weeks .
It ’ s the perfect storm for the rest of retail .
Jon Markman , “ Coronavirus Quarantine Could Change Consumer Habits … For Good ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) Markman doubts that Amazon ’ s recent move to stock only essential items at its warehouses during the pandemic will hurt the firm much because it was still stocking and delivering sought-after essentials like staple household goods and medical supplies to consumers sheltering in place , a classic captive market .
Costco , he says , had lost a bit recently ( stock down 3.2 % this year ) though its shares held up “ better than most.
” But , as shoppers started stocking up ahead of pandemic lockdowns , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ good free publicity ! )
.
Both Amazon and Costco benefit from offering attractive discounts to loyal members , he notes .
The big business model , tested by the pandemic , seemed to work , while many smaller retailers have cut back or shut down to ride out the storm .
The pandemic lockdowns may also have changed shopping habits in another way : Consumers who had previously avoided online shopping or memberships may have been motivated to give them a try .
If it works out better for them than they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Which accelerates the trend toward a small number of colossal companies .
The largest cohort of consumers is now Gen Z ( or iGen ) , people born roughly between 1996 and 2020 who have been “ raised on the internet and social media ” ( Business Insider ) .
Gen Z , while suffering anxiety and depression , has seen the crisis as an opportunity to plan for the future according to a recent survey by Amplify Solutions , which specializes in the youth market : However , what ’ s especially @ @ @ @ @ @ @ respondents indicated that they ’ re using this time for personal or professional development .
Gen Z has always been future-focused .
Many of them were raised through the last recession and understand the importance of being competitive in the job market .
This crisis has only exacerbated these concerns .
With so much time on their hands , Gen Z is seeking out ways to develop practical new skills that will make them more attractive to future employers .
This will be a huge opportunity for traditional e-learning companies and new players @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Covid-19 Is Changing Gen Z Consumer Habits .
Here Are 5 Things Marketers Need to Know ” at AdWeek We might start reading more about falling enrolments in degree courses that rack up huge debt for minimal employment chances .
Not long ago , travelers worried mainly about endemic diseases , misfortunes , and inconveniences and took precautions accordingly .
But COVID-19 appeared without warning And it created chaos , cancellations , strandings , lockdowns abroad , and other miseries for masses of average travelers , not just for the foolhardy few @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people to vacation close to home as well as shop online , at least for the next few years .
Look for many airlines and tourism destinations to suffer as well .
On a more hopeful note so far as the economy is concerned , as Mark P. Mills points out at City Journal , the mass unemployment of people who can not work remotely today will likely drive new technological developments that make it possible to do so during a future lockdown : Teleconferencing is only marginally useful for many critical industries @ @ @ @ @ @ @ run machines , deliver food , and distribute medical supplies .
Robots can do some of that , but the reality is that tele-operation and tele-medicine are far easier—and less expensive—than full automation .
But for hands-on tasks , remote-controlled systems require not only hyperreal virtual vision but also tactile feedback .
The latter is possible with the technology of haptics , which is undergoing a quiet revolution .
Remotely operating a robotic hand is far more effective if one is wearing a ( comfortable ) glove that lets you feel what the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ evolved more from advances in materials sciences than from communications tech per se .
Engineers now talk in terms of the “ tactile Internet.
” Early uses for such technologies have always targeted places considered dangerous for humans ; in a pandemic , that means everywhere .
Mark P. Mills , “ Silicon vs .
Viruses : Thoughts on fighting the next epidemic ” at City Journal These types of advances have been pioneered to help people suffering from paralysis .
( See “ Through AI , a paralyzed man has regained the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recent paralysis of the economy provides an incentive to further their development and generalize their use .
Further reading on post-COVID-19 changes : Five ways COVID-19 is changing education for good : Parents , students , and teachers worldwide have been finding ways to use the internet in creative ways they would never have considered before .
Recently , a Harvard prof chose to launch an attack on homeschoolers , portraying them as driven by narrow religious concerns .
Given how many parents COVID-19 has forced to homeschool , the attack was , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it usefully focused attention on the ways education needs to change in an online world .
Post-COVID , five ways your job could change .
This is a good time to be a creative thinker and innovator .
Many COVID-driven innovations will likely endure , whether it ’ s vets doing telehealth , trolls harassing Zoom users , or cybercriminals targeting remote workers , the new opportunities and risks will stay with us .
Five possibly unexpected ways the post-COVID office will change .
We ’ ll all know more about working at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

Recently, in a discussion with Alison Angus, head of Euromonitor’s lifestyle research, the Wall Street Journal identified some key trends that, having received a huge boost during the COVID-19 pandemic, will probably linger with us afterward:
Euromonitor earlier this year noted that consumers were buying more AI-enabled home appliances and virtual assistants, like Amazon.com Inc.’s Alexa. But now, such devices have a new draw, says Ms. Angus. “Voice-control technology limits the need to touch surfaces so much, so that’s why they are appealing,” she says. Ellen Byron, “Home as Refuge, Fewer Reusables, Less Privacy: The Consumer Trends Emerging From Coronavirus Lockdowns ” at Wall Street Journal (April 27, 2020)
Robotic, no-contact delivery is also catching on. Meanwhile, recycling has taken an unpredicted hit:
“Clean comes before green,” she says. Recovery of this trend will take time, but it will come back, Euromonitor predicts, adding that sustainability still ranks high on consumers’ agendas. Companies will need to educate consumers about the safety of reusable products and clearly instruct them on how to clean them, Ms. Angus says. Ellen Byron, “Home as Refuge, Fewer Reusables, Less Privacy: The Consumer Trends Emerging From Coronavirus Lockdowns ” at Wall Street Journal (April 27, 2020)
Privacy concerns, of course, have also given way before safety concerns. But even if consumers must be persuaded to care about recycling once more, they will probably soon want their privacy back.
Here are some predictions from other sources:
What’s already big will get bigger
According to a report at Statista, Amazon had 112 million Prime members in the United States in 2019, up from 95 million in 2018. They spent an average of $1,400, about 230% more than non-Prime members. Now, throw in the COVID-19 pandemic and nationwide commitment to social distancing over the next few weeks. It’s the perfect storm for the rest of retail. Jon Markman, “Coronavirus Quarantine Could Change Consumer Habits … For Good” at Forbes (March 28, 2020)
Markman doubts that Amazon’s recent move to stock only essential items at its warehouses during the pandemic will hurt the firm much because it was still stocking and delivering sought-after essentials like staple household goods and medical supplies to consumers sheltering in place, a classic captive market.
Costco, he says, had lost a bit recently (stock down 3.2% this year) though its shares held up “better than most.” But, as shoppers started stocking up ahead of pandemic lockdowns, the bulk buying opportunities generated long lineups (good free publicity!).
Both Amazon and Costco benefit from offering attractive discounts to loyal members, he notes. The big business model, tested by the pandemic, seemed to work, while many smaller retailers have cut back or shut down to ride out the storm.
The pandemic lockdowns may also have changed shopping habits in another way: Consumers who had previously avoided online shopping or memberships may have been motivated to give them a try. If it works out better for them than they expected, they will probably continue. Which accelerates the trend toward a small number of colossal companies.
Young people are making hard-headed decisions, going forward
The largest cohort of consumers is now Gen Z (or iGen), people born roughly between 1996 and 2020 who have been “raised on the internet and social media” (Business Insider). Gen Z, while suffering anxiety and depression, has seen the crisis as an opportunity to plan for the future according to a recent survey by Amplify Solutions, which specializes in the youth market:
However, what’s especially notable is that 76% of survey respondents indicated that they’re using this time for personal or professional development. Gen Z has always been future-focused. Many of them were raised through the last recession and understand the importance of being competitive in the job market. This crisis has only exacerbated these concerns. With so much time on their hands, Gen Z is seeking out ways to develop practical new skills that will make them more attractive to future employers. This will be a huge opportunity for traditional e-learning companies and new players in online courses. Nick Gardner, “Covid-19 Is Changing Gen Z Consumer Habits. Here Are 5 Things Marketers Need to Know” at AdWeek
We might start reading more about falling enrolments in degree courses that rack up huge debt for minimal employment chances.
Worldwide, consumers are scaling back travel plans
A global business research firm recently surveyed consumer sentiment across 40 countries :
Consumers globally do not intend to undertake international travel soon, while consumers in several countries—with the exception of Germany and France—plan to restrict domestic travel as well. Most consumers expect to shop less frequently in physical stores for items other than grocery, simultaneously shifting that spending online. Shruti Bhargava et al., “A global view of how consumer behavior is changing amid COVID-19 ” at McKinsey (April 2020)
Not long ago, travelers worried mainly about endemic diseases, misfortunes, and inconveniences and took precautions accordingly. But COVID-19 appeared without warning And it created chaos, cancellations, strandings, lockdowns abroad, and other miseries for masses of average travelers, not just for the foolhardy few who ignore warnings. Look for more people to vacation close to home as well as shop online, at least for the next few years. Look for many airlines and tourism destinations to suffer as well.
On a more hopeful note so far as the economy is concerned, as Mark P. Mills points out at City Journal, the mass unemployment of people who cannot work remotely today will likely drive new technological developments that make it possible to do so during a future lockdown:
Teleconferencing is only marginally useful for many critical industries and infrastructures. We still need to run machines, deliver food, and distribute medical supplies. Robots can do some of that, but the reality is that tele-operation and tele-medicine are far easier—and less expensive—than full automation. But for hands-on tasks, remote-controlled systems require not only hyperreal virtual vision but also tactile feedback. The latter is possible with the technology of haptics, which is undergoing a quiet revolution. Remotely operating a robotic hand is far more effective if one is wearing a (comfortable) glove that lets you feel what the robot is touching. Such technologies have evolved more from advances in materials sciences than from communications tech per se. Engineers now talk in terms of the “tactile Internet.” Early uses for such technologies have always targeted places considered dangerous for humans; in a pandemic, that means everywhere. Mark P. Mills, “Silicon vs. Viruses: Thoughts on fighting the next epidemic” at City Journal
These types of advances have been pioneered to help people suffering from paralysis. (See “Through AI, a paralyzed man has regained the sense of touch”). The recent paralysis of the economy provides an incentive to further their development and generalize their use.
Further reading on post-COVID-19 changes:
Five ways COVID-19 is changing education for good: Parents, students, and teachers worldwide have been finding ways to use the internet in creative ways they would never have considered before. Recently, a Harvard prof chose to launch an attack on homeschoolers, portraying them as driven by narrow religious concerns. Given how many parents COVID-19 has forced to homeschool, the attack was, at best, poorly timed. But it usefully focused attention on the ways education needs to change in an online world.
Post-COVID, five ways your job could change. This is a good time to be a creative thinker and innovator. Many COVID-driven innovations will likely endure, whether it’s vets doing telehealth, trolls harassing Zoom users, or cybercriminals targeting remote workers, the new opportunities and risks will stay with us.
and
Five possibly unexpected ways the post-COVID office will change. We’ll all know more about working at home than we ever thought we would.


The Bioethicist Pandemic

The increasing outsourcing of health-care policy to medical bureaucrats during the COVID-19 crisis illustrates the dangerous temptation to remove control over policy from democratic deliberation in favor of a technocracy , i.e.
, rule by “ experts.
” In health care , such a system would be particularly perilous since the experts placed in charge of policy would be “ bioethicists ” whose predominant views disparage the sanctity of human life .
How does one become a “ bioethicist ” ?
While many universities offer degrees in bioethics , there are no precise qualifications .
Indeed , practitioners are not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and , for that matter , barbers .
The most prominent bioethicists are university professors with degrees in philosophy , medicine , and/or law , but even that isn ’ t a given .
For example , because my opinions about bioethical issues are frequently published , I am often called a bioethicist — not a term I choose for myself — even though I took no bioethics courses in school .
Here Is the Terrifying Problem The most influential of our would-be health-care overlords hold immoral and amoral values not shared @ @ @ @ @ @ @ impacted by their policy prescriptions .
For example , most mainstream practitioners reject the belief that human beings have unique value and — unless they have a modifier such as “ Catholic ” or “ pro-life ” in front of their identifier — embrace a utilitarian “ quality of life ” approach to medical decision-making , according to which some of us are judged to have greater worth than others based on discriminatory criteria such as cognitive capacity , state of health , and age .
This ideology leads the field ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In 1997 , bioethics professor John Hardwig argued in favor of what is known in the field as the “ duty to die.
” Hardwig ’ s advocacy was not published in an obscure corner of the Internet of little consequence .
Rather , it was presented with all due respect in the Hastings Center Report , the world ’ s most prestigious bioethics journal .
That fact alone means that the “ duty to die ” has long been deemed respectable in the field .
Hardwig argues that to “ have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or eighty without being ready to die is itself a moral failing , the sign of a life out of touch with life ’ s basic realities.
” Why ?
“ A duty to die is more likely when continuing to live will impose significant burdens — emotional burdens , extensive caregiving , destruction of life plans , and yes , financial hardship — on your family and loved ones .
This is the fundamental insight underlying a duty to die.
” Back in 1997 , Hardwig ’ s denigration of people he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ view in bioethics .
But over the years , as the field gained increasing influence , its premier practitioners grew more pronouncedly ideological in the Hardwig manner — arguing often and repeatedly for reducing the moral status of the most vulnerable among us , in some cases even going so far as to redefine helpless human beings as mere natural resources ripe for the harvest .
Here are just a few examples : • Paying women to gestate and abort : Bioethicist Jacob Appel argued in the Huffington Post that pregnant women who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gestate longer before terminating so that fetal organs could be harvested and used in transplant medicine .
That would increase the number of abortions , he admitted , but he said a market in fetal organs could “ bring solace to women who have already decided upon abortion , but desire that some additional social good come from the procedure.
” • Forcing caregivers to starve dementia patients : Prominent bioethicist Thaddeus Mason Pope ( and others ) want dementia patients to be allowed to instruct future caregivers to deny them spoon-feeding when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , they want caregivers to be legally bound to starve their patients to death .
This would apply even if the patient willingly eats .
In other words , starvation as the new “ death with dignity.
” • Experimenting on cognitively disabled “ non-persons ” : Writing in the Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal , bioethics bigwig Thomas Beauchamp opined that some cognitively disabled human beings should not be viewed as “ persons , ” meaning that could “ be treated in the same way we treat relevantly similar nonhumans .
For @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as human research subjects and sources of organs.
” • Transplanting organs of unconscious humans into animals : Several authors argued in the Journal of Medical Ethics — based at Oxford University , so it is not a tinfoil-hat Internet site — that unconscious patients should be able to be used in xenotransplantation experiments — e.g.
, removing the human ’ s organs and replacing them with those of animals ( usually pigs ) .
They write sickeningly , “ As the autonomic and vegetative functions of PVS [ permanent vegetative status ] @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , their use would allow the opportunity to fully test the long-term consequences of a solid organ xenotransplantation.
” • Harvesting hearts as a form of euthanasia : An advocacy article published in the Journal of Heart and Lung Transplantation argued that patients who wish to be euthanized be killed by having their hearts removed for transplantation .
The authors write that “ ‘ living donation ’ is the correct term to use , even though this is normally used for people who donate their kidney , and do not die as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : Stripping a beating heart out of a patient ’ s body will be 100 percent fatal .
One would think that in the midst of an unprecedented pandemic bioethicists would place their dehumanizing advocacy efforts at least on temporary hold .
No such luck .
The Journal of Medical Ethics just published a piece explicitly aimed at COVID-19 patients by the internationally prominent bioethicists and Oxford professors Julian Savulescu and Dominic Wilkinson .
First , the authors want a license to permit seriously ill COVID-19 patients to be consensually experimented upon — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ From , “ Extreme Altruism in a Pandemic ” : That might seem reasonable — assuming the tests would be aimed at saving their lives .
But the bioethicists want to include potentially lethal experimentation in the license that would not benefit the patient : The authors then boldly plunge even deeper into the utilitarian swamp to urge “ organ donation euthanasia ” of COVID-19 patients in places where hastening death by doctors is legal : Savulescu and Wilkinson also want to allow experimentation on nursing home patients — even if they are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of medical resources if the patient becomes ill , the authors would restrict the experimentation to patients who had “ completed a living will indicating that they would not wish for invasive medical treatments in the event of becoming seriously unwell , ” meaning nursing home patients could be intentionally infected with coronavirus and then , if they became seriously ill , simply allowed to die .
Meanwhile , back at the Hastings Center Report , bioethicist Larry R. Churchill — who is himself age 75 — advocates a type of duty to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ On Being an Elder in a Pandemic ” : Here ’ s Churchill ’ s awful idea .
Elderly patients — in other words , those most at risk from the current plague — have the moral duty to go to the back of the line for receiving life-saving medical treatment and , when available , vaccines .
If that causes them to die when they might otherwise have lived , that ’ s okay , because it illuminates “ the integrity of elderhood.
” Enough .
My point in writing this isn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dehumanizing and invidiously discriminatory proposals — believe me , I have just scratched the surface — that have been made over the years by luminaries in the bioethics movement .
Rather , it is a warning of how profoundly the “ do no harm ” principle of the Hippocratic Oath has been corroded by the so-called experts — meaning that if we yield control of our health-care public policies to a bioethical technocracy , these are the immoral values likely to be imposed on all of us .
For our own safety and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the elderly , people with physical and developmental disabilities , and the seriously ill — we must societally isolate from the bioethicist pandemic .

Center on Human Exceptionalism
The mission of Discovery Institute’s Center on Human Exceptionalism is to affirm and uphold the intrinsic nature of human dignity, liberty, and equality. In resistance to a growing movement against unique human personhood, we aim to revitalize a commitment to the traditional Western view of human rights and human responsibilities — summed up by the term “human exceptionalism.” Read more


discoveryinstitute--2020-05-05--From Pfizer, Scientism and Self-Congratulation

In the race to defeat the coronavirus , good fortune to Pfizer Inc. , among others .
The drug giant said last week “ it will begin testing of its experimental vaccine in the U.S. as early as next week.
” But this new ad from Pfizer goes over the top in its self-congratulation : At a time when things are most uncertain , we turn to the most certain thing there is : Science .
Science can overcome diseases , create cures , and yes , beat pandemics .
Because when it ’ s faced with a new opponent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It revs up , asking questions till it finds what it ’ s looking for .
That ’ s the power of science .
Well actually , that ’ s the power of creative ingenuity in general , a capacity unique to human beings , that is put to use in a range of fields .
Those fields include art , music , philosophy , history , religion , politics , entertainment , natural science , and yes , medical science .
The idea of the ad , that science stands alone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is , ” comes from putting on ideological blinders .
It ’ s what we call scientism .
That is one very timely focus of the upcoming free webinar with Discovery Institute scientists and scholars on Saturday , May 16 .
John West , joined by Brian Miller and Robert J .
Marks , will discuss “ Science and Scientism in the Age of COVID-19 : Wisdom from C. S. Lewis.
” Find more information about the event here .
Registration is required .
Amidst a controversial national lockdown , economic ruin , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ origin in a Chinese lab , the coronavirus has reminded us of a number of things .
One is the limitations of science , and the need for independent criticism of it .
That kind of criticism has emerged as Discovery Institute ’ s contribution in the discussion of the virus .
• At Evolution News , Wesley Smith points to the limits of the technocratic elite , the bureaucratic bioethicists with their “ immoral and amoral values , ” to whom we increasingly assign the task of establishing health policy .
• @ @ @ @ @ @ @ New York ’ s viral frontline , argues that it was our trusting too much in scientists that got us into the present crisis in the first place : “ As this pandemic shows , we need to question scientific experts , constantly and rigorously .
We need scientific controversy , not ‘ consensus.
’ ” • Our colleague Douglas Axe strikes a similarly skeptical note about the lockdown , arguing that “ Our Heroic Efforts to Stop the Coronavirus Could Be Great Pain for Little Gain.
” Our culture is at war @ @ @ @ @ @ @ advocates a blind , worshipful fealty , and complains when others fail to get in line to worship .
It has its sacred totems — the lockdown , extreme social distancing , the mask .
Resistance to these things comes from worries about economic depression , social control , and misplaced piety .
As National Review ’ s Rich Lowry wrote recently , “ Social Distancing Isn ’ t a Religion.
” His implication was that some people treat it as if it were a religion .
Another side in the dispute is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can contribute , but it also recognizes the problems with many statements made in the name of science .
It understands the peril in an overly awestruck attitude , and the potential for abuse of science ’ s authority .
What science needs now isn ’ t applause from itself or adoration from the rest of us .
Neither is in the interest of the public , which is supposed to be served by Pfizer .

In the race to defeat the coronavirus, good fortune to Pfizer Inc., among others. The drug giant said last week “it will begin testing of its experimental vaccine in the U.S. as early as next week.” But this new ad from Pfizer goes over the top in its self-congratulation:
They say:
At a time when things are most uncertain, we turn to the most certain thing there is: Science. Science can overcome diseases, create cures, and yes, beat pandemics. Because when it’s faced with a new opponent, it doesn’t back down. It revs up, asking questions till it finds what it’s looking for. That’s the power of science.
Well actually, that’s the power of creative ingenuity in general, a capacity unique to human beings, that is put to use in a range of fields. Those fields include art, music, philosophy, history, religion, politics, entertainment, natural science, and yes, medical science. The idea of the ad, that science stands alone as “the most certain thing there is,” comes from putting on ideological blinders. It’s what we call scientism. That is one very timely focus of the upcoming free webinar with Discovery Institute scientists and scholars on Saturday, May 16. John West, joined by Brian Miller and Robert J. Marks, will discuss “Science and Scientism in the Age of COVID-19: Wisdom from C. S. Lewis.” Find more information about the event here. Registration is required.
Lessons from a Virus
Amidst a controversial national lockdown, economic ruin, and mounting intelligence evidence pointing to an origin in a Chinese lab, the coronavirus has reminded us of a number of things. One is the limitations of science, and the need for independent criticism of it.
That kind of criticism has emerged as Discovery Institute’s contribution in the discussion of the virus.
At Evolution News, Wesley Smith points to the limits of the technocratic elite, the bureaucratic bioethicists with their “immoral and amoral values,” to whom we increasingly assign the task of establishing health policy.
Michael Egnor, himself a physician at New York’s viral frontline, argues that it was our trusting too much in scientists that got us into the present crisis in the first place: “As this pandemic shows, we need to question scientific experts, constantly and rigorously. We need scientific controversy, not ‘consensus.’”
Our colleague Douglas Axe strikes a similarly skeptical note about the lockdown, arguing that “Our Heroic Efforts to Stop the Coronavirus Could Be Great Pain for Little Gain.”
Our culture is at war with itself over science. One side advocates a blind, worshipful fealty, and complains when others fail to get in line to worship. It has its sacred totems — the lockdown, extreme social distancing, the mask. Resistance to these things comes from worries about economic depression, social control, and misplaced piety. As National Review’s Rich Lowry wrote recently, “Social Distancing Isn’t a Religion.” His implication was that some people treat it as if it were a religion.
Another side in the dispute is more rational. It appreciates what science can contribute, but it also recognizes the problems with many statements made in the name of science. It understands the peril in an overly awestruck attitude, and the potential for abuse of science’s authority. What science needs now isn’t applause from itself or adoration from the rest of us. Neither is in the interest of the public, which is supposed to be served by Pfizer.