discoveryinstitute--2020-05-01--Is Contact Tracing a Simple Answer to COVID Lockdowns?

High tech contact tracing , says Karl D. Stephan ( right ) , is a geek ’ s dream : A contact-tracing app is designed to follow you around like a 24-hour detective , noticing everybody you ’ ve been within Bluetooth range of .
Bluetooth is a short-range communications system that virtually all mobile phones have , and its typical range is about six feet ( two meters ) , which is conveniently just the same as the social-distancing space we are supposed to be keeping to avoid Covid-19 nowadays .
If anyone you ’ ve been near subsequently @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is communicated via the app to everyone who has come within proximity to that infected person in the last week or two , and they know to quarantine themselves and get tested too .
Karl D. Stephan , “ Is there a contact-tracing app in your future ?
” at MercatorNet It would also track your physical location so that people without cell phones can be warned .
But does it make any difference ?
Countries such as South Korea which have implemented extensive contact tracing by non-automated means have found that it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on movement , such as the US and many other countries are enduring right now .
So worldwide , a number of countries are developing contact-tracing apps .
The BBC reports that Australia and Denmark hope to roll theirs out within two weeks , and Germany won ’ t be far behind .
Karl D. Stephan , “ Is there a contact-tracing app in your future ?
” at MercatorNet So , ironically , people would be less restricted ( at least for now ) if the government always knew where they were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
Somewhere in between ?
All crises end eventually .
And our needs change .
The ways we surrender our privacy for safety can come back to haunt us as entrenched systems .
Consider censorship in wartime .
Policies that protect us during a crisis , if not officially dropped , may linger because they serve other needs or purposes .
Many public figures , for example , would have been happier in recent years without a legal # MeToo movement .
But , as it happens , no preceding crisis had justified @ @ @ @ @ @ @ public figures had to get used to # MeToo .
Invasive tracking apps can be credited with protecting people from COVID-19 while allowing them to work and shop .
But once the crisis and panic are over , we need to look at the ways in which legal invasions of privacy have simply crept up on us .
Consider these , for example : • Big corporations like Google give in to the temptation to grab vast troves of health data that come their way to use in various projects .
One ad @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shocked at the indifference to invasions of privacy .
• It ’ s worse in places where neither corporations nor governments have much to fear .
Consider Google ’ s involvement with censorship in China , over which a senior Google scientist quit in 2018 ( “ contravenes widely accepted principles of international law and human rights ” ) .
Or China ’ s AI aid package for Africa , which includes mass surveillance technology .
Mass surveillance is already spooky in China and it includes surveillance of journalists via a compulsory app @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the persecution of Chinese Christians and Muslims .
A totalitarian state is an information society only in the sense that the government has all the information , without any obligation to share .
• But the problem is often close to home .
We rely on systems to protect our privacy and keep us anonymous .
But our anonymity may be an illusion .
Anonymized data can easily be “ deanonymized.
” In a classic study , credit card shoppers could be identified from only four pieces of other data with 90 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so much online that a few leaked pieces may not be hard to find .
“ White hat ” hackers ( who hack the data in order to find ways to prevent the bad guys from doing so ) say that current systems are disturbingly easy to break into .
Our phones relay data about us to people we know nothing about and sell information about us .
Surprisingly , perhaps , in the age of the helicopter parent , many parents post a great deal of information about their kids online .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ diary raises the risks of identity theft .
If a demand for privacy grows , perhaps in the wake of a scandal , we may realize we have given away way too much already .
The conventional science fiction fear of a superintelligent AI taking over the planet and ridding it of pesky humans distracts our attention from a much more realistic threat : Artificial intelligence ( AI ) makes both government and corporate surveillance much easier , cheaper , and more useful — whether it is in average citizens ’ interests or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this will be the decade when we address the implications of that fact .

High tech contact tracing, says Karl D. Stephan (right), is a geek’s dream:
A contact-tracing app is designed to follow you around like a 24-hour detective, noticing everybody you’ve been within Bluetooth range of. Bluetooth is a short-range communications system that virtually all mobile phones have, and its typical range is about six feet (two meters), which is conveniently just the same as the social-distancing space we are supposed to be keeping to avoid Covid-19 nowadays. If anyone you’ve been near subsequently tests positive for Covid-19, this fact is communicated via the app to everyone who has come within proximity to that infected person in the last week or two, and they know to quarantine themselves and get tested too. Karl D. Stephan, “Is there a contact-tracing app in your future? ” at MercatorNet
It would also track your physical location so that people without cell phones can be warned. But does it make any difference?
Countries such as South Korea which have implemented extensive contact tracing by non-automated means have found that it greatly reduced the need for blanket restrictions on movement, such as the US and many other countries are enduring right now. So worldwide, a number of countries are developing contact-tracing apps. The BBC reports that Australia and Denmark hope to roll theirs out within two weeks, and Germany won’t be far behind. Karl D. Stephan, “Is there a contact-tracing app in your future? ” at MercatorNet
So, ironically, people would be less restricted (at least for now) if the government always knew where they were and with whom. But going forward?
I’m no prophet, and I can’t tell whether contact-tracing apps will get very far (Singapore has had less than 25% participation in their voluntary rollout, which makes it almost useless), or will become the de-facto passport to ordinary life again. Probably what will happen is somewhere in between. Karl D. Stephan, “Is there a contact-tracing app in your future? ” at MercatorNet
Somewhere in between? All crises end eventually. And our needs change. The ways we surrender our privacy for safety can come back to haunt us as entrenched systems.
Consider censorship in wartime. Policies that protect us during a crisis, if not officially dropped, may linger because they serve other needs or purposes. Many public figures, for example, would have been happier in recent years without a legal #MeToo movement. But, as it happens, no preceding crisis had justified the introduction of censorship. So the public figures had to get used to #MeToo.
Invasive tracking apps can be credited with protecting people from COVID-19 while allowing them to work and shop. But once the crisis and panic are over, we need to look at the ways in which legal invasions of privacy have simply crept up on us. Consider these, for example:
Big corporations like Google give in to the temptation to grab vast troves of health data that come their way to use in various projects. One ad executive quit the industry because he was shocked at the indifference to invasions of privacy.
It’s worse in places where neither corporations nor governments have much to fear. Consider Google’s involvement with censorship in China, over which a senior Google scientist quit in 2018 (“contravenes widely accepted principles of international law and human rights”). Or China’s AI aid package for Africa, which includes mass surveillance technology.
Mass surveillance is already spooky in China and it includes surveillance of journalists via a compulsory app. Constant high tech surveillance figures largely in the persecution of Chinese Christians and Muslims. A totalitarian state is an information society only in the sense that the government has all the information, without any obligation to share.
But the problem is often close to home. We rely on systems to protect our privacy and keep us anonymous. But our anonymity may be an illusion. Anonymized data can easily be “deanonymized.” In a classic study, credit card shoppers could be identified from only four pieces of other data with 90% accuracy. We talk about ourselves so much online that a few leaked pieces may not be hard to find. “White hat” hackers (who hack the data in order to find ways to prevent the bad guys from doing so) say that current systems are disturbingly easy to break into. Our phones relay data about us to people we know nothing about and sell information about us.
Surprisingly, perhaps, in the age of the helicopter parent, many parents post a great deal of information about their kids online. They may not realize that an online diary raises the risks of identity theft. If a demand for privacy grows, perhaps in the wake of a scandal, we may realize we have given away way too much already.
The conventional science fiction fear of a superintelligent AI taking over the planet and ridding it of pesky humans distracts our attention from a much more realistic threat: Artificial intelligence (AI) makes both government and corporate surveillance much easier, cheaper, and more useful — whether it is in average citizens’ interests or not. If we are lucky, this will be the decade when we address the implications of that fact.


discoveryinstitute--2020-05-06--The Human Face of Poverty

The Human Face of Poverty

Please join us Thursday , May 28 at 12pm PST for an online lecture featuring Chris Arnade , author of @ @ @ @ @ Back Row America .
Discovery Institute ’ s Christopher F. Rufo will interview Arnade about @ @ @ @ @ , his long road trips through America ’ s “ forgotten cities , ” and @ @ @ @ @ policy .
Ten years ago , Arnade left a successful Wall Street career to document @ @ @ @ @ Bronx .
His countless interviews and photographs led to close friendships with homeless addicts , @ @ @ @ @ spent in drug dens .
What he found in “ Back Row America ” was @ @ @ @ @ have long been forgotten and overlooked .
His book is an attempt to cast light @ @ @ @ @ Back Row America — and to hold the elites in “ Front Row America ” @ @ @ @ @ this human crisis .

Please join us Thursday, May 28, at noon PDT for an online lecture featuring Chris Arnade, author of Dignity: Seeking Respect in Back Row America. Discovery Institute’s Christopher F. Rufo will interview Arnade about the dynamics of American poverty, his long road trips through America’s “forgotten cities,” and the political dimension of anti-poverty policy.
Ten years ago, Arnade left a successful Wall Street career to document poverty and addiction in the Bronx. His countless interviews and photographs led to close friendships with homeless addicts, marginalized Americans, and hours spent in drug dens. What he found in “Back Row America” was a class of people who have long been forgotten and overlooked.
His book is an attempt to cast light on the inherent dignity of Back Row America — and to hold the elites in “Front Row America” accountable for their complicity in this human crisis.


discoveryinstitute--2020-05-07--Stephen Meyer with Eric Metaxas on the Mystery of Life’s Origin

Dr. Stephen C. Meyer , author of Darwin ’ s Doubt , Signature in the Cell , and other heady @ @ @ @ @ in the bunker to reveal more about the mysteries of life — our own and @ @ @ @ @

Dr. Stephen C. Meyer, author of Darwin’s Doubt, Signature in the Cell, and other heady scientific tomes, joins Eric in the bunker to reveal more about the mysteries of life — our own and that of our planet.


discoveryinstitute--2020-05-04--Preparing to Reopen Schools

Preparing to Reopen Schools

The American Enterprise Institute just released its Blueprint for Back to School report , recommending that state and federal leaders be prepared for another atypical school year by offering regulatory flexibility regarding seat time , graduation requirements , and procurement rules to permit schools to remain operational in unprecedented circumstances .
They note that a number of public health officials , including the “ habitually cautious ” Dr. Anthony Fauci , head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases , expect that schools will likely be able to reopen this fall .
The authors conclude that since reopening @ @ @ @ @ @ @ novel challenges ” leaders must “ begin planning immediately.
” The blueprint was coauthored by AEI visiting fellow John Bailey , a former policy aide in the George W. Bush White House , and Frederick Hess , director of education policy studies .
The study was built upon these guiding principles : • While governors have the authority to close and open schools , these decisions are best made by consulting with those closest to the problem , including school leaders , health officials , and community leaders .
• Schools are responsible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , including the distinctive needs of students from low-income backgrounds , students with disabilities , and English language learners .
• Schools are obliged to find ways to serve all students , even during times of disruption when remote learning requires students to connect from home .
• Given that school systems can not reasonably have been expected to plan for the current situation , state and federal officials must help provide the resources schools need to help weather the crisis .
The blueprint provides crucial insights that can guide policymakers , education @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in their planning to reopen schools .
Two issues that go beyond the current crisis deserve special emphasis .
The first issue is teacher certification requirements .
The blueprint proposes that if vulnerable teachers are not able to go back to school , schools will need to fill that void .
They suggest loosening the handcuffs on recruiting across state boarders .
We at ACTE recommend taking this further .
Certification laws initially might have had merit , but they no longer achieve their intended purpose and , in fact , can do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do they not guarantee a quality teacher in every classroom or quality principal in every school , they are tending to discourage our best and brightest from a wide array of backgrounds from even entering the education profession .
The second issue deserving special attention is collective bargaining agreements .
AEI explains that the contractual agreements could cause constraints that will prohibit the ability to teach students and put lives at risk during the Coronavirus crisis .
The blueprint recommends modifications to contractual agreements to allow at-risk teachers to continue working , statewide @ @ @ @ @ @ @ issues , and flexibility over scheduling and hours for the 2020-21 school year .
Again , we believe that even more substantial reforms are needed regarding teacher unions if our schools are to be effective .
By their very nature , unions impose a major constraint on efforts to improve our schools .
We believe that addressing this issue has two major components .
First , the most obvious answer would be to pass legislation limiting union protections of teacher seniority and tenure , which right-to-work legislation has in part accomplished .
Second @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unions requires effective leadership at the principal , superintendent , and board levels of management .
Therefore , we must address the way we select and train our education leaders .
We have a plan for that .
As we prepare to send our children back to school , we need to address the pressing issues brought about by the Coronavirus .
But let ’ s not forget about the systemic changes needed to make our educational system effective in the long term .

The American Enterprise Institute just released its Blueprint for Back to School report, recommending that state and federal leaders be prepared for another atypical school year by offering regulatory flexibility regarding seat time, graduation requirements, and procurement rules to permit schools to remain operational in unprecedented circumstances.
They note that a number of public health officials, including the “habitually cautious” Dr. Anthony Fauci, head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, expect that schools will likely be able to reopen this fall. The authors conclude that since reopening in a safe manner will involve “novel challenges” leaders must “begin planning immediately.”
The blueprint was coauthored by AEI visiting fellow John Bailey, a former policy aide in the George W. Bush White House, and Frederick Hess, director of education policy studies. The study was built upon these guiding principles:
While governors have the authority to close and open schools, these decisions are best made by consulting with those closest to the problem, including school leaders, health officials, and community leaders.
Schools are responsible for meeting the needs of all students, including the distinctive needs of students from low-income backgrounds, students with disabilities, and English language learners.
Schools are obliged to find ways to serve all students, even during times of disruption when remote learning requires students to connect from home.
Given that school systems cannot reasonably have been expected to plan for the current situation, state and federal officials must help provide the resources schools need to help weather the crisis.
The blueprint provides crucial insights that can guide policymakers, education and community leaders, and federal officials in their planning to reopen schools. Two issues that go beyond the current crisis deserve special emphasis.
The first issue is teacher certification requirements. The blueprint proposes that if vulnerable teachers are not able to go back to school, schools will need to fill that void. They suggest loosening the handcuffs on recruiting across state boarders.
We at ACTE recommend taking this further. Certification laws initially might have had merit, but they no longer achieve their intended purpose and, in fact, can do more harm than good. Not only do they not guarantee a quality teacher in every classroom or quality principal in every school, they are tending to discourage our best and brightest from a wide array of backgrounds from even entering the education profession.
The second issue deserving special attention is collective bargaining agreements. AEI explains that the contractual agreements could cause constraints that will prohibit the ability to teach students and put lives at risk during the Coronavirus crisis. The blueprint recommends modifications to contractual agreements to allow at-risk teachers to continue working, statewide frameworks for flexibility around staffing and labor issues, and flexibility over scheduling and hours for the 2020-21 school year.
Again, we believe that even more substantial reforms are needed regarding teacher unions if our schools are to be effective. By their very nature, unions impose a major constraint on efforts to improve our schools. We believe that addressing this issue has two major components. First, the most obvious answer would be to pass legislation limiting union protections of teacher seniority and tenure, which right-to-work legislation has in part accomplished. Second, we believe that working with teacher unions requires effective leadership at the principal, superintendent, and board levels of management. Therefore, we must address the way we select and train our education leaders. We have a plan for that.
As we prepare to send our children back to school, we need to address the pressing issues brought about by the Coronavirus. But let’s not forget about the systemic changes needed to make our educational system effective in the long term.


discoveryinstitute--2020-05-08--The Science Guild’s Mask Is Falling Off

The Science Guild’s Mask Is Falling Off

Theoretical physicist Richard Feynman pointed out that science is iconoclastic .
He quipped that “ science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.
” Good science is edgy , takes risks , thinks outside of the box .
Real experts are good at what they do , and they understand and acknowledge their own ignorance and welcome controversies and new insights .
Economist Alexander Salter at Texas Tech has an excellent essay for the American Institute for Economic Research .
From “ Incompetent Experts and Bad Government ” : Experts in the supposedly scientific fields of public health and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Their failures would be comedic , were the consequences not so tragic .
Instead of capable service for the public ’ s welfare , the American people have been made to suffer incompetence and malfeasance .
Unless we critically examine the failure of experts , we invite similar blunders in the future… In terms of incompetence , it would be difficult to top this country ’ s public health officials .
Case in point is the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention .
The CDC , as it describes itself , “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , safety , and security threats.
” In truth , it has directly contributed to the opposite .
If This Were a Novel Salter rightly takes the CDC to task , noting that we lag behind most other advanced nations in our testing for the coronavirus , and it is mostly the CDC ’ s fault .
Working physicians , including my colleagues here in New York at the corona front line , are acutely aware of that .
You ’ d think that the agency tasked with prevention of pandemics would be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was not .
Testing is essential for safely reemerging from our quarantine and also essential if we are to understand the epidemiological dynamics of this virus .
Even after the CDC failed to sound the alarm to close our borders to people , from Wuhan and then Europe , who were vectors for this virus — we had excellent reason to know in December that this was coming — the models for death rates and need for medical resources were basically worthless .
These models led us to make political and economic decisions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ haven ’ t even begun to discuss the WHO .
For months , the World Health Organization covered up the seriousness of this threat to world health .
If this were a novel , we ’ d conclude that the plot was too bizarre to believe .
There is another sharp irony here : Internet atheists ( and some journalists ) have used the pandemic to bash religious believers and to imply that the “ anti-intellectual ” behavior of people of faith plays a large role in the spread of this virus .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ scientific establishment — the largest community of atheist scientific experts on earth — who inflicted this pandemic on the world .
Perhaps a little belief in transcendent moral accountability would have tweaked the consciences of the “ freethinking ” scientific experts and politicians in China when they dissembled and covered up and let this virus spread , just to protect their own backsides .
The pandemic didn ’ t start at a church barbecue .
There is a context to the scientific and political culture in China that spawned this atrocity .
Will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this — “ and that ’ s my best-case scenario ” — as journalistic “ Cassandra ” Laurie Garrett predicts to a deferential Frank Bruni in the New York Times ?
That would be the end not only of our economy but of Western civilization .
America needs good information , from many rigorously designed studies , about the prevalence and deadliness of coronavirus infections in given subsets of people , so that governors and mayors can develop rules for social distancing and reopening that are sensible , sustainable and tailored to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ federal government that assertively promotes and helps to coordinate that , not one in which experts like Tony Fauci and Deborah Birx tiptoe around a president ’ s tender ego .
Should it , then , be the experts , with their models and studies , who are the ones ultimately in charge , freed from “ tiptoeing ” around political leaders and the voters who lawfully elect them ?
On the contrary .
We , the American people , need to establish some limits on the authority of our “ experts.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Fauci has to say , what Bill Gates has to say .
But listen to many other voices as well , inside and outside of the circle of public health doyens .
The American people is sovereign and we must take counsel together to decide on the best course of action .
The American scientific community has become a secular priesthood that desperately needs laicization .
We need to understand , too , that the experts who botched this pandemic are the same people who tell us we are obliged to embrace the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Darwin ’ s theory is a fact , that the mind is meat , that quantum mechanics is the “ nothing ” from which the universe popped into existence , that free will isn ’ t real , and that science disproves God ’ s existence .
Science by consensus is science by guild , and as we are seeing now , rule by the science guild is not merely unwise , it is deadly .
Just when we are putting masks on , the science guild ’ s mask is falling @ @

Theoretical physicist Richard Feynman pointed out that science is iconoclastic. He quipped that “science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.” Good science is edgy, takes risks, thinks outside of the box. Real experts are good at what they do, and they understand and acknowledge their own ignorance and welcome controversies and new insights.
Economist Alexander Salter at Texas Tech has an excellent essay for the American Institute for Economic Research. From “Incompetent Experts and Bad Government”:
Experts in the supposedly scientific fields of public health and economics have made a mess of things. Their failures would be comedic, were the consequences not so tragic. Instead of capable service for the public’s welfare, the American people have been made to suffer incompetence and malfeasance. Unless we critically examine the failure of experts, we invite similar blunders in the future… In terms of incompetence, it would be difficult to top this country’s public health officials. Case in point is the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The CDC, as it describes itself, “saves lives and protects people from health, safety, and security threats.” In truth, it has directly contributed to the opposite.
If This Were a Novel
Salter rightly takes the CDC to task, noting that we lag behind most other advanced nations in our testing for the coronavirus, and it is mostly the CDC’s fault. Working physicians, including my colleagues here in New York at the corona front line, are acutely aware of that. You’d think that the agency tasked with prevention of pandemics would be ahead of the curve, but it was not. Testing is essential for safely reemerging from our quarantine and also essential if we are to understand the epidemiological dynamics of this virus. Even after the CDC failed to sound the alarm to close our borders to people, from Wuhan and then Europe, who were vectors for this virus — we had excellent reason to know in December that this was coming — the models for death rates and need for medical resources were basically worthless. These models led us to make political and economic decisions based on faulty science. And we haven’t even begun to discuss the WHO. For months, the World Health Organization covered up the seriousness of this threat to world health. If this were a novel, we’d conclude that the plot was too bizarre to believe.
There is another sharp irony here: Internet atheists (and some journalists) have used the pandemic to bash religious believers and to imply that the “anti-intellectual” behavior of people of faith plays a large role in the spread of this virus. Of course, it is the Chinese scientific establishment — the largest community of atheist scientific experts on earth — who inflicted this pandemic on the world. Perhaps a little belief in transcendent moral accountability would have tweaked the consciences of the “freethinking” scientific experts and politicians in China when they dissembled and covered up and let this virus spread, just to protect their own backsides. The pandemic didn’t start at a church barbecue. There is a context to the scientific and political culture in China that spawned this atrocity.
Certainly, Listen to Dr. Fauci
Will it then be another 36 months of this — “and that’s my best-case scenario” — as journalistic “Cassandra” Laurie Garrett predicts to a deferential Frank Bruni in the New York Times? That would be the end not only of our economy but of Western civilization.
Bruni comments:
America needs good information, from many rigorously designed studies, about the prevalence and deadliness of coronavirus infections in given subsets of people, so that governors and mayors can develop rules for social distancing and reopening that are sensible, sustainable and tailored to the situation at hand. America needs a federal government that assertively promotes and helps to coordinate that, not one in which experts like Tony Fauci and Deborah Birx tiptoe around a president’s tender ego.
Should it, then, be the experts, with their models and studies, who are the ones ultimately in charge, freed from “tiptoeing” around political leaders and the voters who lawfully elect them?
On the contrary. We, the American people, need to establish some limits on the authority of our “experts.” By all means listen to what Dr. Fauci has to say, what Bill Gates has to say. But listen to many other voices as well, inside and outside of the circle of public health doyens. The American people is sovereign and we must take counsel together to decide on the best course of action. The American scientific community has become a secular priesthood that desperately needs laicization.
We need to understand, too, that the experts who botched this pandemic are the same people who tell us we are obliged to embrace the “consensus” in other matters: that Darwin’s theory is a fact, that the mind is meat, that quantum mechanics is the “nothing” from which the universe popped into existence, that free will isn’t real, and that science disproves God’s existence. Science by consensus is science by guild, and as we are seeing now, rule by the science guild is not merely unwise, it is deadly. Just when we are putting masks on, the science guild’s mask is falling off.
Photo credit: ???????? Claudio Schwarz | @purzlbaum via Unsplash.


discoveryinstitute--2020-05-11--Reimagining Home Life Instead of Warehousing Our Elders

How many of us are separated from our mothers and fathers not because of the coronavirus precisely , but rather because of the way we ’ ve chosen to build our home life ?
We have spent the past half century progressively segregating ourselves in America by age .
Whereas multi-generational households were once common , now they seem generally to be the exception .
We have embraced a cultural default of segregating our elderly , starting with 55+ communities and ending with nursing homes .
I don ’ t meant to suggest a grand conspiracy ; our wealth has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But my point is that I think these cultural and economic choices have not been net positive developments in American life — as much because they remove grandmothers and grandfathers , aunts and uncles , etc .
from being regularly present to their youngest relatives as because these choices naturally lead to some degree of intergenerational alienation .
And alienation makes us more fragile as a people , when what we want is to become antifragile , particularly in confronting shocks like this pandemic .
I was thinking on this on Mother ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on it again on Father ’ s Day .
J.D .
Vance tweeted over the weekend on the way the virus sweeps through nursing homes : And if you ’ ve been following this aspect of the virus issue closely , it ’ s not news to you that where the outbreaks began in earnest in the United States in both Seattle and New York hit nursing homes and elder care facilities the hardest .
David Marshall writes : John Zmirak wrote a piece here a week ago provocatively entitled “ Why is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
” Zmirak imagined Cuomo as a member of a cargo cult , aping Judeo-Christian values by saying “ If everything we do saves just one life , I ’ ll be happy.
” But then his Department of Health issued a decree perversely demanding that infected persons be admitted to nursing homes , no questions asked : “ No resident shall be denied re-admission or admission to the NH [ nursing home ] solely based on a confirmed or suspected diagnosis of COVID-19.
” And now thousands have died in New York @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s error arises not from malice , but from the left hand not knowing what the far left hand is doing .
Old folks may be threatened more by stupidity and laziness than by outright cruelty .
I understand that not everyone can or should pursue the goal of building an intergenerational home .
I get it : some personalities turn out to be like oil and water , and some distance or separation can be healthy and necessary .
I ’ m not writing to address the exceptions , however .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ a lesson from this pandemic is that it makes sense to embrace a greater vision of home life .
We should pursue the building of greater homes , and by that I don ’ t mean the physical structures so much as the culture of home as a place of welcome , respite , and community across generations .
I grew up in such a home and have benefited from the experience in ways large and small my entire life .
A greater home life would be one where we prioritize presence over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ greater home life would be the experience of daily life enriched by the varieties and riches that mothers and fathers , grandparents and relatives , bring to the table when they ’ re physically able to come to the same table .
It shouldn ’ t look the same in every community ; in some places it might look like the return of in-laws suites or cottages , in other places it might look like grandparents moving into the adjacent condo , and in other places it might look like relatives living in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that such closeness would make possible .
We can care for one another in better ways that our elder communities and nursing-homes-as-a-default culture suggests .
When we see images of sons and daughters , or elder spouses , standing outside the windows of their loved one ’ s nursing home window , unable to come any closer lest they expose the entire elder community to potential sickness and death , we see solidarity .
But we also see the tragedy of the cultural/social choices we ’ ve been making for how we ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we ’ re prioritizing .
And in that way , those images are an indictment as much as a reason for hope .
There are responsibilities , too , that we ’ re avoiding because our wealth allows us to do so .
To be human is to be relational .
We possess autonomy , but it is a relative autonomy , because we did not bring ourselves into this life .
What responsibilities might we be eschewing as elders when we cloister ourselves off from family and friends in our age-restricted communities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ daughters might we be eschewing when we allow our parents and elder relatives to feel alone , isolated , or literally locked away because we haven ’ t yet been brave enough to ask them to join us and share in the life of our home ?
These are , naturally , deeply personal concerns — but note that they ’ re truly personal , in the sense of relating to persons , and that means that the choices any of us make implicate all the others in our lives and eventually become @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The question is whether we learn from this time , and better prepare ourselves for the inevitable shocks of the future .

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--2020-05-10--State Legislature Should Have Stronger Oversight Role During Emergencies

In recent weeks , many citizens have written to me requesting that the Legislature take action to address the COVID-19 crisis .
The reality is that the Legislature ’ s formal power to act in this crisis is limited ; it is the governor who has broad authority during times of emergency .
While legislators have oversight over some of the emergency orders issued so far , others , such as the Stay Home , Stay Healthy order , do not require any legislative input or approval .
As we look to the future , the Legislature must have a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state legislators during this pandemic , we find ourselves in a new role : Approving or denying the governor ’ s requests to extend the suspension of specific state statutes and regulations beyond his authorized period of 30 days .
While the Legislature is not in session , the leaders of the state ’ s four caucuses — Speaker of the House , majority leader of the Senate , and minority leaders of the House and Senate — make these decisions with input from their caucuses .
To date , legislators have acted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , of Gov .
Jay Inslee ’ s requests to waive statutes and regulations beyond 30 days .

In recent weeks, many citizens have written to me requesting that the Legislature take action to address the COVID-19 crisis. The reality is that the Legislature’s formal power to act in this crisis is limited; it is the governor who has broad authority during times of emergency. While legislators have oversight over some of the emergency orders issued so far, others, such as the Stay Home, Stay Healthy order, do not require any legislative input or approval. As we look to the future, the Legislature must have a much stronger role during emergencies.
As state legislators during this pandemic, we find ourselves in a new role: Approving or denying the governor’s requests to extend the suspension of specific state statutes and regulations beyond his authorized period of 30 days. While the Legislature is not in session, the leaders of the state’s four caucuses — Speaker of the House, majority leader of the Senate, and minority leaders of the House and Senate — make these decisions with input from their caucuses. To date, legislators have acted to extend most, but not all, of Gov. Jay Inslee’s requests to waive statutes and regulations beyond 30 days.
Continue Reading at the Seattle Times


discoveryinstitute--2020-05-15--Vitamin D and COVID-19: Is It Data or Noise?

Two groups of researchers recently reported a link between vitamin D and COVID-19 mortality—more vitamin D meant lower mortality .
A Northwestern University researcher who reported this association advised that “ it is clear that vitamin D deficiency is harmful , and it can be easily addressed with appropriate supplementation.
” This news spread faster than the virus itself among worried , sometimes desperate , people who grasped at the Vitamin D lifeline .
Too often today news stories are clickbait .
Sink the hook and reel ‘ em in .
Headlines are written not to report facts , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ low levels of Vitamin D may be more likely to catch coronavirus and die from COVID-19 infection , study suggests ” ( Daily Mail , May 1 , 2020 ) “ Clear link between vitamin D deficiency and severity of coronavirus ” ( NUTRAgredients.com , April 28 , 2020 ) The studies themselves were less exciting than these headlines .
They were not scientific experiments .
There were no rigorous randomized trials with the health of subjects given Vitamin D compared to that of subjects given placebos .
Instead , the researchers compared @ @ @ @ @ @ @ knows the average vitamin D level in a country ’ s residents so the researchers used proxies that had been reported in other studies .
These vitamin D estimates were then compared to the COVID-19 mortality rates in these countries and the comparison revealed a negative correlation .
For example , residents of Italy and Spain have relatively high COVID-19 mortality rates and are thought to have relatively low levels of vitamin D. One very big problem with such studies is the inevitability of chance patterns and correlations in large data bases .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ among the population ( and they surely aren ’ t ) , data mining will , more likely than not , discover a geographic cluster of victims .
To demonstrate this , I created a fictitious city with 10,000 residents evenly spaced throughout the city , each having a one-in-a-hundred chance of a COVID-19 infection .
I used a computer-based random number generator to determine which residents in this imaginary town would be the victims .
The resulting COVID-19 map is shown below .
Each black dot represents a victim .
There are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
There is clearly a COVID-19 cluster in the lower part of the map .
It would easily be discovered by any half-decent data-mining program .
If this were a real city , data-mining software could go on to ransack data , looking for something unusual about the neighborhood or the people living there .
Perhaps a city park is nearby .
If we now compare COVID-19 rates for people who live near parks with rates for people who live far away , guess what ?
The COVID-19 rates are higher near parks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are more susceptible .
Figure 1 also shows a COVID-19 “ fortress , ” a part of town where nobody has the disease .
There is surely something unusual in this COVID-19-free neighborhood that could be discovered by data-mining software or a Sunday drive .
Perhaps the town ’ s water tower is nearby .
If we now compare the COVID-19 rates for people who live near the water tower with COVID-19 rates for people who live far away , COVID-19 rates are lower near the water tower .
That ’ s precisely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nobody there has COVID-19 .
In each case , living near the parks and living near the water tower , we face the same problem .
If we use the data to invent the theory , then of course the data support the theory !
How could it be otherwise ?
Would we make up a theory that did not fit the data ?
The same argument scales up to cities within a country or countries within the world .
Some cities will inevitably have higher COVID-19 rates than others ; so will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ random data contain geographic clusters , the identification of clusters is not necessarily meaningful .
The association , after the fact , of these clusters with some characteristics of the area or the people living in the area is not convincing scientific evidence of anything .
A compelling example of such spurious associations happened in the 1970s when an epidemiologist looked at the homes of people living in Denver , Colorado , who had died of cancer before the age of 19 .
Some cancer clusters were found .
If these homes had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have concluded that proximity to soccer fields causes cancer .
( The grass ?
The fertilizer ?
The weed killer ?
The noise ? )
Instead , she found that many of the homes were near power lines , which set off nationwide fear , fueled by frightening stories .
A journalist named Paul Brodeur wrote three New Yorker articles that reported an unusually large number of cancer cases among people living near a power station in Guilford , Connecticut , and fifteen cancer cases among people working at a school near power @ @ @ @ @ @ @ later put these articles ( with minor changes ) into a book titled The Great Power-Line Cover-Up : How the Utilities and Government Are Trying to Hide the Cancer Hazard Posed by Electromagnetic Fields ( 1993 ) .
He ominously warned that , “ Thousands of unsuspecting children and adults will be stricken with cancer , and many of them will die unnecessarily early deaths , as a result of their exposure to power-line magnetic fields.
” Never mind that scientists know a lot about electromagnetic fields and that there is no plausible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ might cause cancer .
The electromagnetic energy from power lines is far weaker than that from moonlight and the magnetic field is weaker than the Earth ’ s magnetic field .
Experiments were done worldwide that supported the science and refuted the journalist .
Weighing the theoretical arguments and empirical evidence , the National Academy of Sciences concluded that power lines were not a public health danger and that there was no need to fund further research , let alone tear down power lines .
One of the nation ’ s top medical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ research resources on this question .
In 1999 , The New Yorker published an article titled “ The Cancer-Cluster Myth , ” which implicitly repudiated its earlier articles by Paul Brodeur .
That was an implicit retraction .
Nonetheless , some people still think that power lines cause cancer .
Once the toothpaste is out of the tube , it is hard to put it back in .
Will the reported link between vitamin D and COVID-19 end similarly ?
Nobody knows .
What we do know is that citizens want simple explanations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the reality is extremely complicated and not very well understood .
Age seems to matter , as do social distancing and mobility .
So do the usual suspects : obesity , smoking , high blood pressure , heart disease , and diabetes .
Perhaps race and diet matter .
Timing certainly matters , as an area can change from no infections to devastation in a few weeks .
There are lots of models , but some are just extrapolations without explanations and others are just simulations of overly simplistic models .
None explain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Brazil and Argentina , Thailand and Vietnam , Iran and Iraq , let alone differences within countries .
Why was the impact was so much worse in Italy ’ s Lombardy region than in neighboring Veneto ?
Why is the impact so different in Connecticut and Vermont ?
Why do poor countries tend to have relatively low risk while poor people living in wealthy countries have relative high risk ?
Vitamin D is surely not the most important causal factor for COVID-19 mortality .
Does it matter more than a trivial amount @ @ @ @ @ @ @ studies .
Maybe vitamin D supplements could help a lot .
Maybe they could help a little .
Maybe they would do nothing at all .
We won ’ t know until randomized controlled trials are done .
Before you start binging on vitamin D , let ’ s see how the scientific tests now underway in France and Spain turn out .
In the meantime , megadoses of vitamin D are not a good substitute for face masks and distancing .
Data mining : A plague , not a cure It is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and their discovery meaningful ; in large data sets , patterns are inevitable and generally meaningless .
( Gary Smith )

Two groups of researchers recently reported a link between vitamin D and COVID-19 mortality — more vitamin D meant lower mortality. A Northwestern University researcher who reported this association advised that “it is clear that vitamin D deficiency is harmful, and it can be easily addressed with appropriate supplementation.”
This news spread faster than the virus itself among worried, sometimes desperate, people who grasped at the Vitamin D lifeline. Too often today news stories are clickbait. Sink the hook and reel ‘em in. Headlines are written not to report facts, but to attract attention:
“Vitamin D linked to low virus death rate” (World Pharma News, May 8, 2020)
“People with low levels of Vitamin D may be more likely to catch coronavirus and die from COVID-19 infection, study suggests” (Daily Mail, May 1, 2020)
“Clear link between vitamin D deficiency and severity of coronavirus” (NUTRAgredients.com , April 28, 2020)
The studies themselves were less exciting than these headlines. They were not scientific experiments. There were no rigorous randomized trials with the health of subjects given Vitamin D compared to that of subjects given placebos. Instead, the researchers compared data from several countries.
No one knows the average vitamin D level in a country’s residents so the researchers used proxies that had been reported in other studies. These vitamin D estimates were then compared to the COVID-19 mortality rates in these countries and the comparison revealed a negative correlation. For example, residents of Italy and Spain have relatively high COVID-19 mortality rates and are thought to have relatively low levels of vitamin D.
One very big problem with such studies is the inevitability of chance patterns and correlations in large data bases. Even if COVID-19 deaths are randomly distributed among the population (and they surely aren’t), data mining will, more likely than not, discover a geographic cluster of victims. To demonstrate this, I created a fictitious city with 10,000 residents evenly spaced throughout the city, each having a one-in-a-hundred chance of a COVID-19 infection. I used a computer-based random number generator to determine which residents in this imaginary town would be the victims. The resulting COVID-19 map is shown below. Each black dot represents a victim. There are no COVID-19 victims in the white spaces.
There is clearly a COVID-19 cluster in the lower part of the map. It would easily be discovered by any half-decent data-mining program. If this were a real city, data-mining software could go on to ransack data, looking for something unusual about the neighborhood or the people living there.
Perhaps a city park is nearby. If we now compare COVID-19 rates for people who live near parks with rates for people who live far away, guess what? The COVID-19 rates are higher near parks, suggesting that people living near parks are more susceptible.
Figure 1 also shows a COVID-19 “fortress,” a part of town where nobody has the disease. There is surely something unusual in this COVID-19-free neighborhood that could be discovered by data-mining software or a Sunday drive. Perhaps the town’s water tower is nearby. If we now compare the COVID-19 rates for people who live near the water tower with COVID-19 rates for people who live far away, COVID-19 rates are lower near the water tower. That’s precisely why we chose this neighborhood. Because nobody there has COVID-19.
In each case, living near the parks and living near the water tower, we face the same problem. If we use the data to invent the theory, then of course the data support the theory! How could it be otherwise? Would we make up a theory that did not fit the data?
The same argument scales up to cities within a country or countries within the world. Some cities will inevitably have higher COVID-19 rates than others; so will some countries. So what? Because random data contain geographic clusters, the identification of clusters is not necessarily meaningful. The association, after the fact, of these clusters with some characteristics of the area or the people living in the area is not convincing scientific evidence of anything.
A compelling example of such spurious associations happened in the 1970s when an epidemiologist looked at the homes of people living in Denver, Colorado, who had died of cancer before the age of 19. Some cancer clusters were found. If these homes had been near soccer fields, she might have concluded that proximity to soccer fields causes cancer. (The grass? The fertilizer? The weed killer? The noise?) Instead, she found that many of the homes were near power lines, which set off nationwide fear, fueled by frightening stories.
A journalist named Paul Brodeur wrote three New Yorker articles that reported an unusually large number of cancer cases among people living near a power station in Guilford, Connecticut, and fifteen cancer cases among people working at a school near power lines in Fresno, California. Brodeur later put these articles (with minor changes) into a book titled The Great Power-Line Cover-Up: How the Utilities and Government Are Trying to Hide the Cancer Hazard Posed by Electromagnetic Fields (1993). He ominously warned that, “Thousands of unsuspecting children and adults will be stricken with cancer, and many of them will die unnecessarily early deaths, as a result of their exposure to power-line magnetic fields.”
Never mind that scientists know a lot about electromagnetic fields and that there is no plausible theory for how power line electromagnetic fields might cause cancer. The electromagnetic energy from power lines is far weaker than that from moonlight and the magnetic field is weaker than the Earth’s magnetic field. Experiments were done worldwide that supported the science and refuted the journalist. Weighing the theoretical arguments and empirical evidence, the National Academy of Sciences concluded that power lines were not a public health danger and that there was no need to fund further research, let alone tear down power lines. One of the nation’s top medical journals editorialized that we should stop wasting research resources on this question.
In 1999, The New Yorker published an article titled “The Cancer-Cluster Myth,” which implicitly repudiated its earlier articles by Paul Brodeur. That was an implicit retraction. Nonetheless, some people still think that power lines cause cancer. Once the toothpaste is out of the tube, it is hard to put it back in.
Will the reported link between vitamin D and COVID-19 end similarly? Nobody knows. What we do know is that citizens want simple explanations, even in situations like COVID-19 where the reality is extremely complicated and not very well understood. Age seems to matter, as do social distancing and mobility. So do the usual suspects: obesity, smoking, high blood pressure, heart disease, and diabetes. Perhaps race and diet matter. Timing certainly matters, as an area can change from no infections to devastation in a few weeks.
There are lots of models, but some are just extrapolations without explanations and others are just simulations of overly simplistic models. None explain the enormous differences between Ecuador and Colombia, Brazil and Argentina, Thailand and Vietnam, Iran and Iraq, let alone differences within countries. Why was the impact was so much worse in Italy’s Lombardy region than in neighboring Veneto? Why is the impact so different in Connecticut and Vermont? Why do poor countries tend to have relatively low risk while poor people living in wealthy countries have relative high risk?
Vitamin D is surely not the most important causal factor for COVID-19 mortality. Does it matter more than a trivial amount? We cannot tell from cluster studies.
Maybe vitamin D supplements could help a lot. Maybe they could help a little. Maybe they would do nothing at all. We won’t know until randomized controlled trials are done. Before you start binging on vitamin D, let’s see how the scientific tests now underway in France and Spain turn out. In the meantime, megadoses of vitamin D are not a good substitute for face masks and distancing.
Further reading:
Data mining: A plague, not a cure It is tempting to believe that patterns are unusual and their discovery meaningful; in large data sets, patterns are inevitable and generally meaningless. (Gary Smith)


discoveryinstitute--2020-05-14--Trump Needs to Recruit a Medical ‘Red Team’ To Challenge Lockdown-Manic Governors

President Trump and 50 governors now face a critical choice .
Since March 16 , 33 million Americans have filed for unemployment , and more than 83,000 American deaths have been attributed to the COVID-19 virus .
So what to do ?
How many more weeks , months , or even years should current sheltering-in-place orders continue ?
When can or should they be lifted ?
The administration ’ s virus taskforce has recommended only a gradual lifting of stay-at-home orders and has established criteria for full re-opening that could take months to satisfy in many states .
Yet Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people [ will ] be affected badly .
.
.
and there will be more death , ” “ we have to get our country open and we have to get it open soon.
” Many in the media condemned this statement as “ risking more death to save the economy ” and a dangerous repudiation of “ the science.
” Blue-state governors who have refused to reopen have similarly cited “ the science ” to justify their decisions to extend stay-at-home orders .
“ Health outcomes and science — not politics —will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Coast governors insisted in a recent joint statement .
“ Any plan to reopen society MUST be driven by data and experts , not opinion and politics , ” echoed New York Gov .
Andrew Cuomo ( D ) .
But which experts ?
The media and official spokespersons for science often depict science primarily as a source of authoritative deliverances .
Whether about climate change , the comparative efficacy of embryonic and adult stem cell therapies , or the medical benefits of various diets , science is often portrayed as speaking with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ consequences .
Of course , there are many widely accepted and well-supported scientific theories that are properly considered part of the body of established scientific knowledge .
But science also involves a deliberative process of testing and evaluating new evidence and competing interpretations of that evidence .
Moreover , scientists often disagree about how to interpret facts and even about what the facts are .
As the Italian philosopher of science Marcello Pera has shown , science advances as scientists argue about how to interpret evidence .
Premature appeals to an alleged consensus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deliberative function and lead to unwarranted conclusions , impeding scientific advance .
The false perception of scientific consensus or certainty can , in turn , form the basis of rigidly enforced authoritarian public policy .
Since the COVID-19 outbreak , President Trump has relied on a small group of scientists within the federal health establishment .
These experts , led by Dr. Anthony Fauci of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease , relied on early epidemiological models to craft their policies for quarantining everyone instead of the sick and vulnerable .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump and other politicians have tacitly accepted science as a source of authority to the exclusion of science as a deliberative process of testing and evaluation—one that requires the constant refining of models and theories and argument between scientists about how to interpret evidence .
With the formation of his task force on reopening the economy , the president has pitted the advice of economists against the advice of medical scientists .
These economists have warned of irreversible economic consequences of continuing the shutdown .
Yet the president has not yet recruited skeptical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of his current medical advisors .
Consequently , his policy has remained captive to a singular , and quite possibly scientifically flawed , understanding of the epidemic as day by day his signature achievement , the formerly booming U.S. economy , unravels .
Trump and governors can escape this dilemma by embracing a different concept of science—one that prizes open argumentation and evaluation , and constant reevaluation , of competing hypotheses , models , and evidence .
He needs immediately to recruit a new set of medical advisors from outside the federal health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to replace , his current team .
Many eminent and dissenting medical , scientific and epidemiological experts would make an outstanding scientific “ Team B , ” perhaps as part of a new task force about how to open the economy .
Consider just a few of the experts who have publicly questioned key assumptions or aspects of current policies : • Professors Jay Bhattacharya , Eran Bendavid , and John Ioannidis of the Stanford University Medical School ; • Scott Atlas , former chief of neuroradiology at Stanford University Medical Center ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ former head of epidemiology , Rockefeller University ; • John Lee , former professor of pathology , Hull York Medical School in the United Kingdom ; • Daniel G. Murphy , chairman of the Department of Emergency Medicine at St. Barnabas Hospital in the Bronx ; • Douglas Axe , Maxwell Professor of Molecular Biology at Biola University and former research scientist at Cambridge University ’ s Medical Research Council Laboratory ; Collectively , this group has marshalled many scientific facts and arguments that challenge the wisdom of extending stay-at-home orders .
Their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scrutiny , could provide a stronger and more persuasive basis for Trump ’ s current calls for rapid reopening .
For example , these dissenting experts have noted that models justifying the original sheltering-in-place orders have grossly exaggerated : ( 1 ) the likely total number of COVID-19 deaths , ( 2 ) the death rate among infected people ( now steadily dropping to between 0.5 and 0.1 percent from the original 3.4 percent projection ) and ( 3 ) the strain on the hospital system .
Such experts also note that total @ @ @ @ @ @ @ likely not exceed the number from the 1968 Hong Kong flu ( 100,000 ) , the 1957 flu ( 116,000 ) , or exceed by much the number ( 61,000 ) from 2017-2018 flu season , for which no equivalent economically destructive measures were taken .
Some further argue that the current death count ( of roughly 75,000 ) will shrink dramatically once corrections are made for comorbidity factors , loose Centers for Disease Control coding standards , financial incentives for classifying respiratory deaths as COVID-caused and the distinction between dying with and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some of these dissenting experts have shown that peak or dramatically slowing rates of infection in many places—including China , South Korea , Ohio , California , and New York—occurred well before mandatory shutdown orders could have had any effect , casting doubt on whether extreme mitigation efforts actually made a discernable health difference .
Most dissenters think these policies no longer justify their unintended adverse public health consequences such as more suicide , drug addition , child abuse , and increased deaths resulting from limited or delayed access to other medical treatments @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the outbreak , scientists have learned a lot about the often severe , and admittedly not flu-like , symptoms that can afflict those vulnerable to the virus .
At the same time , mounting evidence shows that the early policy recommendations were based upon models that greatly exaggerated the threat to the overwhelming majority of the population .
Recruiting what the military calls a “ Red Team ” to challenge the received view of an organization from within will enable Trump to weigh the merits of competing medical recommendations .
That will help @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more nuanced policy that balances competing medical insights as well as the competing goods of public health and economic vitality .
Trump may also need such experts to help him put effective pressure on those blue state governors who are unnecessarily extending job-killing stay-at-home orders .
Of course , these governors cite “ the science , not politics ” to justify their orders .
A new team of scientific experts , therefore , could help the president marshal evidence — including evidence his current team ignores — to challenge unreasonable lockdown policies in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for example , home of a formerly robust economy , Gov .
Jay Inslee recently extended a mandatory stay-at-home order through the end of May citing , again , “ the science.
” Yet the state ’ s Department of Health website shows characteristic bell-shaped epidemiological curves documenting a steady drop in new cases and deaths since both peaked well more than a month ago .
It also reports roughly a dozen COVID-related deaths in the last week out of a population of 7.5 million people — hardly a raging epidemic by any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ newly available data and recruits a new team of scientific experts to marshal that data in support of a recalibrated policy , he may stave off economic calamity and , quite possibly , save his presidency .

President Trump and 50 governors now face a critical choice. Since March 16, 33 million Americans have filed for unemployment, and more than 83,000 American deaths have been attributed to the COVID-19 virus.
So what to do? How many more weeks, months, or even years should current sheltering-in-place orders continue? When can or should they be lifted?
The administration’s virus taskforce has recommended only a gradual lifting of stay-at-home orders and has established criteria for full re-opening that could take months to satisfy in many states. Yet Trump also insisted that even though “some people [will] be affected badly. . . and there will be more death,” “we have to get our country open and we have to get it open soon.”
Many in the media condemned this statement as “risking more death to save the economy” and a dangerous repudiation of “the science.” Blue-state governors who have refused to reopen have similarly cited “the science” to justify their decisions to extend stay-at-home orders.
“Health outcomes and science — not politics — will guide these decisions,” three West Coast governors insisted in a recent joint statement. “Any plan to reopen society MUST be driven by data and experts, not opinion and politics,” echoed New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D). But which experts?
Two Conceptions of Science
The media and official spokespersons for science often depict science primarily as a source of authoritative deliverances. Whether about climate change, the comparative efficacy of embryonic and adult stem cell therapies, or the medical benefits of various diets, science is often portrayed as speaking with one voice.
This has many adverse consequences. Of course, there are many widely accepted and well-supported scientific theories that are properly considered part of the body of established scientific knowledge. But science also involves a deliberative process of testing and evaluating new evidence and competing interpretations of that evidence.
Moreover, scientists often disagree about how to interpret facts and even about what the facts are. As the Italian philosopher of science Marcello Pera has shown, science advances as scientists argue about how to interpret evidence. Premature appeals to an alleged consensus, therefore, can short-circuit this necessary deliberative function and lead to unwarranted conclusions, impeding scientific advance. The false perception of scientific consensus or certainty can, in turn, form the basis of rigidly enforced authoritarian public policy.
Since the COVID-19 outbreak, President Trump has relied on a small group of scientists within the federal health establishment. These experts, led by Dr. Anthony Fauci of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease, relied on early epidemiological models to craft their policies for quarantining everyone instead of the sick and vulnerable.
In giving way to these experts, Trump and other politicians have tacitly accepted science as a source of authority to the exclusion of science as a deliberative process of testing and evaluation — one that requires the constant refining of models and theories and argument between scientists about how to interpret evidence.
With the formation of his task force on reopening the economy, the president has pitted the advice of economists against the advice of medical scientists. These economists have warned of irreversible economic consequences of continuing the shutdown. Yet the president has not yet recruited skeptical medical scientists who can challenge the advice of his current medical advisors. Consequently, his policy has remained captive to a singular, and quite possibly scientifically flawed, understanding of the epidemic as day by day his signature achievement, the formerly booming U.S. economy, unravels.
Here’s a Way Out
Trump and governors can escape this dilemma by embracing a different concept of science — one that prizes open argumentation and evaluation, and constant reevaluation, of competing hypotheses, models, and evidence. He needs immediately to recruit a new set of medical advisors from outside the federal health bureaucracy to challenge, although not necessarily to replace, his current team.
Many eminent and dissenting medical, scientific and epidemiological experts would make an outstanding scientific “Team B,” perhaps as part of a new task force about how to open the economy. Consider just a few of the experts who have publicly questioned key assumptions or aspects of current policies:
Professors Jay Bhattacharya, Eran Bendavid, and John Ioannidis of the Stanford University Medical School;
Scott Atlas, former chief of neuroradiology at Stanford University Medical Center;
Professor Knut Wittowski, biostatistician and former head of epidemiology, Rockefeller University;
John Lee, former professor of pathology, Hull York Medical School in the United Kingdom;
Daniel G. Murphy, chairman of the Department of Emergency Medicine at St. Barnabas Hospital in the Bronx;
Douglas Axe, Maxwell Professor of Molecular Biology at Biola University and former research scientist at Cambridge University’s Medical Research Council Laboratory;
Professor Martin Kulldorf, Harvard University Medical School.
Collectively, this group has marshalled many scientific facts and arguments that challenge the wisdom of extending stay-at-home orders. Their scientific arguments, after appropriate evaluation and scrutiny, could provide a stronger and more persuasive basis for Trump’s current calls for rapid reopening.
A Different Narrative From Equally Qualified Experts
For example, these dissenting experts have noted that models justifying the original sheltering-in-place orders have grossly exaggerated: (1) the likely total number of COVID-19 deaths, (2) the death rate among infected people (now steadily dropping to between 0.5 and 0.1 percent from the original 3.4 percent projection) and (3) the strain on the hospital system.
Such experts also note that total number of deaths attributed to COVID-19 will likely not exceed the number from the 1968 Hong Kong flu (100,000), the 1957 flu (116,000), or exceed by much the number (61,000) from 2017-2018 flu season, for which no equivalent economically destructive measures were taken.
Some further argue that the current death count (of roughly 75,000) will shrink dramatically once corrections are made for comorbidity factors, loose Centers for Disease Control coding standards, financial incentives for classifying respiratory deaths as COVID-caused and the distinction between dying with and dying from coronavirus.
Most importantly, some of these dissenting experts have shown that peak or dramatically slowing rates of infection in many places—including China, South Korea, Ohio, California, and New York — occurred well before mandatory shutdown orders could have had any effect, casting doubt on whether extreme mitigation efforts actually made a discernible health difference. Most dissenters think these policies no longer justify their unintended adverse public health consequences such as more suicide, drug addition, child abuse, and increased deaths resulting from limited or delayed access to other medical treatments, surgeries, and testing.
It’s Time to Recruit a ‘Red Team’
Since the outbreak, scientists have learned a lot about the often severe, and admittedly not flu-like, symptoms that can afflict those vulnerable to the virus. At the same time, mounting evidence shows that the early policy recommendations were based upon models that greatly exaggerated the threat to the overwhelming majority of the population.
Recruiting what the military calls a “Red Team” to challenge the received view of an organization from within will enable Trump to weigh the merits of competing medical recommendations. That will help him and governors design and defend a more nuanced policy that balances competing medical insights as well as the competing goods of public health and economic vitality.
Trump may also need such experts to help him put effective pressure on those blue state governors who are unnecessarily extending job-killing stay-at-home orders. Of course, these governors cite “the science, not politics” to justify their orders. A new team of scientific experts, therefore, could help the president marshal evidence — including evidence his current team ignores — to challenge unreasonable lockdown policies in specific states.
In Washington state, for example, home of a formerly robust economy, Gov. Jay Inslee recently extended a mandatory stay-at-home order through the end of May citing, again, “the science.” Yet the state’s Department of Health website shows characteristic bell-shaped epidemiological curves documenting a steady drop in new cases and deaths since both peaked well more than a month ago. It also reports roughly a dozen COVID-related deaths in the last week out of a population of 7.5 million people — hardly a raging epidemic by any measure.
If Trump arms himself with newly available data and recruits a new team of scientific experts to marshal that data in support of a recalibrated policy, he may stave off economic calamity and, quite possibly, save his presidency.


discoveryinstitute--2020-05-18--Covid-19, Random Mutations, and Aristotle’s Matrix of Design

On this episode of ID the Future , Andrew McDiarmid speaks with neurosurgeon Michael Egnor about Egnor ’ s recent @ @ @ @ @ Coronavirus Demonstrates How Evolution Presupposes Intelligent Design .
Egnor notes that the coronavirus and other @ @ @ @ @ speaking , considered living things , even if they depend on living hosts for their @ @ @ @ @ discusses the role of random mutations in viruses and draws upon Aristotle to argue that @ @ @ @ @ only occur , and have their meaning , against a backdrop of purpose and design @ @ @ @ @ the designed systems — the bodies — that viruses invade .

On this episode of ID the Future, Andrew McDiarmid speaks with neurosurgeon Michael Egnor about Egnor’s recent Evolution News article, The Coronavirus Demonstrates How Evolution Presupposes Intelligent Design. Egnor notes that the coronavirus and other viruses are not, strictly speaking, considered living things, even if they depend on living hosts for their continued existence. Egnor also discusses the role of random mutations in viruses and draws upon Aristotle to argue that these and other random events only occur, and have their meaning, against a backdrop of purpose and design — in this case, the designed systems — the bodies — that viruses invade.


discoveryinstitute--2020-05-18--Evolution and Intelligent Design in a Nutshell

Are life and the universe a mindless accident—the blind outworking of laws governing cosmic , chemical , and biological evolution ?
That ’ s the official story many of us were taught somewhere along the way .
But what does the science actually say ?
Drawing on recent discoveries in astronomy , cosmology , chemistry , biology , and paleontology , Evolution and Intelligent Design in a Nutshell shows how the latest scientific evidence suggests a very different story .
Journey into the smallest cell , to the farthest reaches of the universe , and to the great flowering of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bang .
Learn about the mission to build a self-reproducing 3D printer , and how those efforts shed new light on the origin of the first life on earth .
And travel with a marine biologist to a Cambrian treasure trove once closed off to Western scientists , a most remarkable fossil site in Chengjiang , China , that deepens what Charles Darwin called “ the mystery of mysteries.
” “ Richard Dawkins , the evolutionary biologist and outspoken atheist , once wrote , ‘ Biology is the study of complicated things that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for a purpose.
’ In Evolution and Intelligent Design in a Nutshell , this common observation ( even among atheists ) is explored to its logical conclusion… .
Writing from biology and engineering backgrounds , the authors have created an accessible , informative primer on intelligent design , using data from both biology and cosmology .
If you ’ re looking for a powerful introduction to the concepts and evidences that continue to haunt those who reject the existence of God , this book is an excellent resource.
” J. Warner Wallace , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Christian Worldview , and author of Forensic Faith

Are life and the universe a mindless accident — the blind outworking of laws governing cosmic, chemical, and biological evolution? That’s the official story many of us were taught somewhere along the way. But what does the science actually say? Drawing on recent discoveries in astronomy, cosmology, chemistry, biology, and paleontology, Evolution and Intelligent Design in a Nutshell shows how the latest scientific evidence suggests a very different story.
Journey into the smallest cell, to the farthest reaches of the universe, and to the great flowering of form and energy known as the Big Bang. Learn about the mission to build a self-reproducing 3D printer, and how those efforts shed new light on the origin of the first life on earth. And travel with a marine biologist to a Cambrian treasure trove once closed off to Western scientists, a most remarkable fossil site in Chengjiang, China, that deepens what Charles Darwin called “the mystery of mysteries.”
Plaudits


discoveryinstitute--2020-05-16--Five Surprising Changes To Watch for from COVID-19

As the COVID-19 panic slowly lifts , media are full of talk about how our culture will change .
Some offer their hopes for “ remote work and flexibility ” ( at Forbes ) .
Some offer their fears : “ one of the worst things that could happen is for things to return to ‘ normal , ’ ” with respect to anti-Asian racism ( at Toronto Star ) .
And then some see it as a huge cultural watershed : “ The world after the coronavirus pandemic will be a different world .
It will never be the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ News ) They could all be right in some part .
Here are some changes — maybe surprising , disconcerting changes — to watch for : ● We ’ ll probably reduce the number of things we touch in public places : Expect to see more use of phones to open , close , and unlock doors in public places to prevent everyone from having to touch the same button or panel .
A number of inventor are working on other devices now .
● When we go back to work , we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ expected for some time , if only to minimize the effect of “ second wave ” outbreaks .
For example , There are high-tech approaches to maintaining social distancing in the office , but chances are that you ’ ll see mainly low-tech ones in your first days back .
Especially in small- and medium-size companies , you ’ re likely to see tape on the floor directing traffic flows and marking off social distance .
Desks might be spaced farther apart .
You may see lots of plexiglass dividers and signage on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the very different world we ’ re living in now .
Mark Sullivan , “ What to expect on your first day back in a touch-free , socially distant office ” at MSN Money Later , more high-tech , less obtrusive methods may be used in high-risk work spaces : ● Expect to hear much more about robots that can stand in for humans , as a way of enabling social distance : According to the US Department of Labor and Statistics there are over 1.1 million private security guards in the country @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Coronavirus .
Will many firms to look to robotic security guards after this epidemic ?
… Restaurants employ nearly 3 million wait staff throughout the US .
Robotic waiters are just around the corner and with the ability for a restaurant to ease customers concerns on health and virus transmission , a robotic waiter could be very appealing and save significant costs for the restaurants .
These schemes generally overlook that fact that most people actually want and are willing to pay for human contact .
But some such developments may @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all during future epidemics .
On a more dismal note , there are the Spanish police drones flying around , publicly shaming people who violate lockdown orders .
And Singapore ’ s robotic police dogs , enforcing social distance : If this catches on among bureaucrats , robots may come to be seen quite differently in the near future .
● On that last note , we will need to watch our civil liberties carefully .
As a data analyst warns , privacy that we have given up in order to fight the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; It ’ s not a plot ; people just get busy with other things and leave emergency measures in place when they may no longer be needed and may eventually become a hazard , if used for an unintended purpose .
● Lastly , on a darker note , an anthropologist warns that we may have to live past an unsettling view of our neighbors and ourselves because many more people found themselves entertaining conspiracy thinking and magical ideas : Going forward , we all need a plan to cope with future @ @ @ @ @ @ @ harm .
Further reading on post-COVID-19 changes : Top consumer trends COVID-19 will change long term : Data from 40 countries suggests that , post-COVID , people will continue to stick close to home .
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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , 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 .
Five possibly unexpected ways the post-COVID office @ @ @ @ @ @ @ know more about working at home than we ever thought we would .

As the COVID-19 panic slowly lifts, media are full of talk about how our culture will change. Some offer their hopes for “remote work and flexibility” (at Forbes). Some offer their fears: “one of the worst things that could happen is for things to return to ‘normal,’” with respect to anti-Asian racism (at Toronto Star). And then some see it as a huge cultural watershed: “The world after the coronavirus pandemic will be a different world. It will never be the same again!” (at Yahoo News)
They could all be right in some part. Here are some changes — maybe surprising, disconcerting changes — to watch for:
● We’ll probably reduce the number of things we touch in public places:
According to Dr. Okeke-Igbokwe, people might start pushing those elevator buttons with their elbow or even an object like a pen instead of their fingers. “The same goes for pushing your pin number at the ATM or making a purchase at a store,” she adds. “Directly touching the keypads with your fingers will be an action of the past.” Elizabeth Yuko, “13 Everyday Habits That Could (and Should) Change Forever After Coronavirus” at RD.com
Expect to see more use of phones to open, close, and unlock doors in public places to prevent everyone from having to touch the same button or panel. A number of inventor are working on other devices now.
● When we go back to work, we will find that social distancing will be expected for some time, if only to minimize the effect of “second wave” outbreaks. For example,
There are high-tech approaches to maintaining social distancing in the office, but chances are that you’ll see mainly low-tech ones in your first days back. Especially in small- and medium-size companies, you’re likely to see tape on the floor directing traffic flows and marking off social distance. Desks might be spaced farther apart. You may see lots of plexiglass dividers and signage on the walls that will remind you of the very different world we’re living in now. Mark Sullivan, “What to expect on your first day back in a touch-free, socially distant office” at MSN Money
Later, more high-tech, less obtrusive methods may be used in high-risk work spaces:
Ford Motor Company, for instance, is asking a small number of its manufacturing floor employees to wear wrist wearables that buzz when the wearer gets too close to another worker. Landing AI uses computer vision technology to analyze real-time security camera footage and detect when bodies are too close together. Motorola’s Avigilon subsidiary and San Mateo, California-based Camio are also working on systems that use video analytics to detect social distancing and mask violations in the workplace, as my colleague Jared Newman reports. Mark Sullivan, “What to expect on your first day back in a touch-free, socially distant office” at MSN MoneyMay 16, 2020
● Expect to hear much more about robots that can stand in for humans, as a way of enabling social distance:
According to the US Department of Labor and Statistics there are over 1.1 million private security guards in the country. All of whom are potential carriers of the Coronavirus. Will many firms to look to robotic security guards after this epidemic? … Restaurants employ nearly 3 million wait staff throughout the US. Robotic waiters are just around the corner and with the ability for a restaurant to ease customers concerns on health and virus transmission, a robotic waiter could be very appealing and save significant costs for the restaurants. “Coronavirus Speeds Up Robotic Revolution” at Rebellion Research
These schemes generally overlook that fact that most people actually want and are willing to pay for human contact. But some such developments may be necessary to providing a service at all during future epidemics.
On a more dismal note, there are the Spanish police drones flying around, publicly shaming people who violate lockdown orders. And Singapore’s robotic police dogs, enforcing social distance:
If this catches on among bureaucrats, robots may come to be seen quite differently in the near future.
● On that last note, we will need to watch our civil liberties carefully. As a data analyst warns, privacy that we have given up in order to fight the virus may be difficult to take back;
Any infringements of human rights made in an emergency should be necessary and proportionate, and end when the crisis does. Yet there are countless examples of where this has not happened. For instance, expansions of surveillance by law-enforcement agencies under the US Patriot Act, in the wake of the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001, remain in place. Joshua Blumenstock, “Machine learning can help get COVID-19 aid to those who need it most” at Nature
It’s not a plot; people just get busy with other things and leave emergency measures in place when they may no longer be needed and may eventually become a hazard, if used for an unintended purpose.
● Lastly, on a darker note, an anthropologist warns that we may have to live past an unsettling view of our neighbors and ourselves because many more people found themselves entertaining conspiracy thinking and magical ideas:
The sudden, devastating spread of the coronavirus, which makes every human interaction potentially lethal, has also made people around the world feel helpless and vulnerable. Our normal habits endanger us, and science offers scant protection. For many, the official prophylactic (locking ourselves in our homes) seems a recipe for financial self-destruction. In these circumstances, as anthropologists would predict, people around the world have turned to magic and conspiracy theories. Hugh Gusterson, “COVID-19 and the Turn to Magical Thinking” at Sapiens
Going forward, we all need a plan to cope with future stress that makes sense and does no harm.
Further reading on post-COVID-19 changes:
Top consumer trends COVID-19 will change long term: Data from 40 countries suggests that, post-COVID, people will continue to stick close to home.
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.


discoveryinstitute--2020-05-15--What If We Ignored Those Most Vulnerable to COVID-19?

“ We locked down America with relative speed in March and we avoided all the worst predictions of the potential impact of the coronavirus , but we struggled to reach consensus anywhere on how to responsibly open back up.
” If we had to write the one sentence history of the COVID-19 pandemic today , that would be something like America ’ s version .
We don ’ t know how things will continue to play out , but what ’ s clear at the moment is that state and local leaders appear to be paralyzed .
Unfortunately , those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this ruling class paralysis aren ’ t likely the first to come to our minds .
Their story is not told in the TL/DR history of this time .
We ’ re witnessing the failure of the managerial bureaucracy when leaders like New York ’ s Gov .
Andrew Cuomo direct that COVID-positive patients be placed amongst not-yet-infected vulnerable populations .
This failure to protect our elders , owing at best to incompetence and at worst to willful indifference , is not limited to New York .
Gregg Girvan and Avik Roy of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( FROEPP ) report on the truly grim national impact of COVID on our elders : According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention , 5.1 million people live in nursing homes or residential care facilities , representing 1.6 % of the U.S. population .
And yet residents in such facilities account for 40 percent of all deaths from COVID-19 , for states that report such statistics .
… On the flip side , it would appear that elderly individuals who do not live in nursing homes may be at a somewhat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for hospitalization and death due to COVID-19 .
States and localities should consider reorienting their policy responses away from younger and healthier people , and toward the elderly , and especially elderly individuals living in nursing homes and other long-term care facilities .
FROEPP is providing vital perspective on a policy failure that risks becoming an elder abuse crisis , insofar as our political leadership continues to fail in repurposing resources to protect those populations most at risk .
“ A lot of people are speculating that NY state ’ s numbers are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hospital death a nursing home resident who dies in a hospital .
We haven ’ t confirmed that this reporting approach is unique to NY .
… But for those who are debating the merits of continuing full lockdowns , it ’ s worth considering the fact that 39 % of # COVID19 deaths are occurring at self-contained residential facilities that host 1.6 % of the U.S. population.
” It ’ s worse when looking at the city level rather than the state level .
ABC7 in Los Angeles reports that “ 51 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were residents in ‘ institutional settings ’ ” .
Instead of focusing like a laser on this aspect of the pandemic and how best to mitigate it , and instead of allowing all who feel able to do so to return to their businesses and their jobs , California ’ s political elite spent a significant portion of this week dealing with Alameda County mandarins attempting to keep Tesla , the state ’ s only automaker , shut down .
We ’ re wasting this precious time .
To the degree that lockdowns @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spent formulating plans to protect those populations most vulnerable for the foreseeable future .
It should be astonishing that our political and media elite — so eager to lecture , so eager to tout their bona fides , so eager to proclaim the need to “ believe science ” — are ignoring what we know to be true about the populations most impacted thus far , and thus most deserving of our focused response .
Dr. Charlie Camosy , author of Resisting Throwaway Culture : How a Consistent Life Ethic Can Unite a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can we credibly speak about human dignity and the rights of marginalized peoples internationally when we fail to protect our own most vulnerable peoples at home ?
We must do better in living up to our principles .
This virus is not going away .
If you have a loved one in a nursing home or institutional care setting , consider sitting down at the kitchen table with your family to determine what it would take to bring your loved one home .
I ’ d wager that many persons for whom institutional @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there .
There likely will come a point at which the burdens and risk of such care will outweigh the benefits .
Especially for those who may already have limited time left , wouldn ’ t it be better to share that time together and as a family , than leave them to die alone ?
When it comes to the failure of our political ruling class , we can only stare in amazement .
But when it comes to the options available to us in our own lives to care for those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now is the time to act .


Wuhan’s Other Epidemic

The coronavirus has turned America upside-down .
In less than three months , the virus has killed 70,000 Americans and destroyed more than 30 million jobs .
According to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo , “ enormous evidence ” shows that the virus emerged from a laboratory in Wuhan , China — not in that city ’ s infamous “ wet markets.
” But while few question that the virus originates in Wuhan , many don ’ t know that Wuhan is also the source of another deadly epidemic : America ’ s fentanyl overdoses .
Fentanyl , a form @ @ @ @ @ @ @ America ’ s most dangerous drug .
In 2018 , fentanyl killed 31,897 people in the United States — more than twice the number of any other narcotic .
The chemical compound is so lethal , in fact , that just two milligrams — enough to cover Lincoln ’ s beard on a penny — can prove fatal .
In the past five years , fentanyl has devastated hundreds of American communities , particularly in the Northeast and Midwest , where overdose death rates have skyrocketed .
“ Most of the fentanyl and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — as well as their precursor chemicals — originate in China , where the regulatory system does not effectively police the country ’ s expansive pharmaceutical and chemical industries , ” a recent RAND analysis concludes .
Chinese manufacturers export the drug in two ways .
First , they send shipments directly to American criminal organizations via the U.S .
Postal Service , UPS , and FedEx , using the “ dark web ” to process orders .
Second , they ship fentanyl and precursor chemicals to drug cartels in Mexico , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ markets .
Over the past decade , Wuhan has emerged as the global headquarters for fentanyl production .
The city ’ s chemical and pharmaceutical manufacturers hide production of the drug within their larger , licit manufacturing operations , then ship it abroad using deliberately mislabeled packaging , concealment techniques , and a complex network of forwarding addresses .
According to a recent ABC News report , “ huge amounts of these mail-order [ fentanyl ] components can be traced to a single , state-subsidized company in Wuhan.
” Earlier this year , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the coronavirus , North America ’ s illegal drug market went into panic mode .
Drug cartels in Mexico forecasted a massive spike in prices for fentanyl and methamphetamine ; law-enforcement officials in the U.S. reported a shortage of drugs in Denver , Houston , and Philadelphia .
Still , the drug continues to kill .
Even amid state lockdown orders , street dealers in places like San Francisco ’ s Tenderloin neighborhood have donned gloves and masks and continued distributing Chinese-supplied fentanyl to addicts .
Evidence suggests that China is at best @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two situations .
Beijing ignored repeated warnings about safety concerns at the Wuhan Institute of Virology , then covered up what some observers , including Pompeo and President Donald Trump , suspect was an accidental release of the virus into the human population .
As for drug exports , Chinese leadership has consistently failed to regulate the illicit fentanyl market , refused to crack down on producers , and interfered with FDA inspectors hoping to investigate pharmaceutical production .
The next few years may augur a major realignment in the Sino-American relationship .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ : the two nations have trillions in financial ties , plus vast networks of allies .
The virus and the fentanyl epidemic should serve as grim reminders to American policymakers that getting U.S. posture correct as regards China — in ways that serve our national interest — should be a top priority .

The coronavirus has turned America upside-down. In less than three months, the virus has killed 70,000 Americans and destroyed more than 30 million jobs. According to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, “enormous evidence” shows that the virus emerged from a laboratory in Wuhan, China — not in that city’s infamous “wet markets.” But while few question that the virus originates in Wuhan, many don’t know that Wuhan is also the source of another deadly epidemic: America’s fentanyl overdoses.
Fentanyl, a form of synthetic opioid, has quickly become America’s most dangerous drug. In 2018, fentanyl killed 31,897 people in the United States — more than twice the number of any other narcotic. The chemical compound is so lethal, in fact, that just two milligrams — enough to cover Lincoln’s beard on a penny — can prove fatal. In the past five years, fentanyl has devastated hundreds of American communities, particularly in the Northeast and Midwest, where overdose death rates have skyrocketed.


discoveryinstitute--2020-05-21--Wesley Smith Joins Laura Ingraham to Discuss the Dangers of Contact Tracing

Wesley J. Smith , Senior Fellow at Discovery Institute ’ s Center on Human Exceptionalism , sat down with Laura @ @ @ @ @ about using ‘ contact tracing ’ as a means of combatting COVID-19 .
Especially as @ @ @ @ @ pandemic as a way to seize power .