COVID-19: a discussion

(Disclaimer:  I am not a medical doctor.  I have no qualifying scientific degrees.  But, at almost 78 years of age I am in the "at risk" category according to all reports, and as a retired, multiple degree holding individual who is curious and has the time, I have been reading all I can find about this virus and trying to establish a layman's understanding of just what the SARS-CoV-2 threat is all about.  That leaves me with questions as well as a lot of ideas and my intent is to share them with anyone who is also curious and wants to take the time to consider my findings and thoughts.  So...I am not TELLING anyone what to do or what to think...just musing out loud...or in print, to be accurate.  Proceed at your own risk)

My assumptions (perhaps better termed, "presumptions"):

• The "unknown" causes fear
• Sudden "unknown" causes contagious fear
• Fear eliminates logic
• Lack of logic makes for bad or flawed decisions

About the beginning of this year presented reports of a rapidly growing health threat from an unknown extremely contagious virus that held out danger of inordinately large mortality rates on a world-wide basis with no medical solution or intervention known to exist.

The fear was immediate and grew exponentially.  The "flee or flight" instinct took immediate hold, with "fight" not apparently in play so "flee" was the almost universal reaction.  Just what "flee" meant was varied but generally became what we now refer to as "lock-down" and "spacing."  "Logic" was still on holiday, albeit with some groups and individuals attempting to approach the danger looking for solutions that would bring "fight" back into contention.

One of the perils of having some folks attempting to repond logically to a threat when the majority is still in "flee" mode is that even if the logical approach presented in incomplete and/or in error, it SEEMS like the siren of truth, logic and reason and rarely is questioned or doubted.  But...almost inevitably there ARE errors and gaps.  These are to be expected.  But...what SHOULD happen is that these presumptions be examined almost daily to discover, correct or eliminate all that is wrong.  Consider the following:

• Predictions of enormous loss of life were predicated on estimates that were flawed.

One of the errors was basing projections on no effective steps taken to minimize the effect and the spread of the virus from person to person.  

• Initial presumptions were that the virus was long-lasting on various surfaces and was virtually impossible to avoid between individuals closer than 6 feet from one to another.

This has turned out to be largely untrue, as current reports by the medical community suggests that the virus does not remain dangerous on most surfaces for more than a short time.

Then there were the errors and presumptions that caused authoritative declarations to be made (and largely accepted) closing businesses, transportation, community interaction and person to person contact of all kinds.  Some of these errors:

1. Not recognizing that "lock-downs" were ineffective when the virus was already present;
2. Even while recognizing that the elderly and those with pre-existing medical challenges were primarily at risk for loss of live, Governors chose to send recovering patients to Nursing and Old Age Homes resulting in infection of others already at risk of death.
3. Reacting politically rather than logically in an election year by deciding that they (the politician office holders) had to do SOMETHING lest the voters think they didn't care.  Clearly the right action in some situations is to NOTHING until or unless PROVEN FACTS point to a specific line of action.

When one reflects on the fact that just over two years ago (2017, Fall) America went through an immensely severe flu season that resulted in as many deaths as has resulted from COVID-19 and no one lifted an eyebrow or even thought, much less suggested, that we "lock-down" for safety, a question and set of facts comes to mind.  Every bug, every virus we have experienced has an approximately two (2) year life span.  The Spanish Flu in the last century ran its course in two years.  Others have the same record.  So...I suggest the following questions are appropriate to put to the medical community for responses and answers:

• If enormous funding results in a vaccine claimed to be effective and is available in a year, will it be claimed that it is the vaccine that eradicates the occurrence of this virus?  Or will its virtual disappearance be the result of the natural two (2) year life cycle?
• Does the "lock-down" approach truly operate to lessen, minimize, or otherwise protect the public from the effects of this virus?  Doesn't such "isolation actions" lessen or even prevent a development of a "herd immunity"?  
• Has medical research adopted the proper presumptions as to optimal treatment?  Some articles have reported that the oxygen level of COVID-19 sufferers have dipped dangerously low WITHOUT fever or corresponding obstruction of lung function (these come later, suggesting to some that the lung problems result from the virus, and are not the direct cause).  And other reports are that the implementation of respirator treatment puts the lungs under pressurized oxygen with actually has been shown to decrease the ability of the lung tissue to absorb and oxygenate blood, actually acting to deprive patients of oxygen and contribute to death.  Some reports and at least one presentation on Youtube, by Dr. Zach Bush ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DqZs9tLZIU ), suggests that upon diagnosis of the low oxygen blood levels prior to any fever or lung obstruction it might be wise to consider a treatment such as used for cyanide poisoning, currently involving three (3) injections.  If that increases blood oxygen levels, then there may be no development of lung obstruction eliminating all but liquids and bed rest to recover.  Shouldn't medical authorities have to respond to this concept...and any others?

And finally...at least for now...can't we all agree that in an medical event Government, Politicians, and holders of elected office should not be allowed to "not allow an emergency to go to waste" and seize control of our lives in a way that we would never allow if not for the fear that they encouraged, fed, and enlarged in order to try to validate their power grab(s)?

What do you think? 

Trump is the Republican's Obama

For the third Presidential election cycle we are experiencing an abandonment of reason by American citizenry.  That this can happen in a world where data is virtually unlimited and effective research no further than your laptop is astounding and does not speak well for homo sapiens.

Mr. Obama was elected twice on emotion, with virtually no vetting or inquiry as to his experience or training to handle the rigors of the job.  "Hope and Change" was the motto.  Never did Mr. Obama define those terms, so quite naturally every voter inclined to wish him well interpreted those terms to mean what the voter expected it to mean.  Salesmen for years have used that tack and one expects some success with it...but not total success.  The old adage was that you can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but never all of the people all of the time.  So...how did Mr. Obama not only win, but be re-elected four years later when it had become clear that he had his own definitions that were not influenced by the electorate and further that he was disposed to dis-ingenuousness (that means, lying),

The press almost universally failed to inquire of Mr. Obama specifics, nor did they suggest to readers, listeners or viewers that they might want to make such inquiries.  Whether this was failure on their part, or conspiracy with Mr. Obama's supporters I will leave for others to consider.

But one thing is crystal clear:  Mr. Obama's election and re-election was based on emotion, not logic or knowledge.

One might be excused for believing that, having seen the result of emotional indulgence, the public might be a bit more oriented toward logic, inquiry and thorough vetting the third time around.

Apparently, not so much!

There was once a time in America when the voting public acted much as a jury; they listened to the promises, they looked at the past record of behavior, they evaluated whether the promises were ones that could be kept, they even evaluated the moral behavior and reputation of the candidate for public office.  One candidate withdrew when it was discovered that he had a girlfriend in addition to his wife...and without any proof of physical infidelity.  Such a person was not fit for public office...then!

Since then we've had a President who seduced and intern, another who has been proven to have lied to the American people multiple times,  and failed to even try to keep promises made multiple times.  And in this third election cycle we have the leading candidate on the ideological right (well, he says that he is on the right!),  who until less than a year ago was demonstrably a political liberal and until days ago denied that he was involved in any bankruptcies, only to know admit that companies that he controlled did, on four occasions, declare Chapter 11 Bankruptcy and...seriously...now claims that having done so will help him solve the country's challenge of reducing and eliminating a National Debt that exceeds Nineteen Trillion Dollars.  No joke!

And on the other side of the ideological aisle, we have two candidates: one has a track record of enabling a womanizer while claiming to be the perfect person to defend women against a claimed "war on women" by her opponents, has a proven record of lying about events in which she was involved while holding high appointed office, and is under investigation for potential violation of the United States Espionage act by failing to keep Top Secret documents and information safe.  And her opponent on the same side is earnestly is promising to redistribute income, taking from those who have earned it legally to redistribute it to those who have not, on the basis of claiming that such earnings were and are immoral; who is promising that college education for all should be "free"...to those receiving it, but with no realistic suggestion of who or how the cost will be paid; and who is an avowed Socialist.

What provides the most consternation is that these three people are serious candidates for President of the United States of America!

We are about to see the third Presidential election in a row determined, not by the American Voting Public sitting as a Jury but by an emotional mob.

Mr. Obama's first election was by a Happy, Enthusiastic, Optimistic mob, looking for high standards and statesmanship on the part of a supremely educated member of a minority race.

His second was less Happy and Optimistic, but was still a Mob that had "Faith."

Now the Mob (on both sides of the political aisle) is angry and turning on the "usual suspects" to a remarkable degree.  They are identifying on an emotional level with those who are confirming their own unhappiness with the government.  That unhappiness has nothing to do with Truth, or Logic, or a thorough vetting to statements and promises being made.  No, it is still emotional and reason has been thrown away.

Mr. Trump is the Republican's Obama, and he is being seen and treated with the same emotional mind-set with which the Left treated Mr. Obama; merging of their anger with his statements of anger, independent of and absent any evaluation of his past positions.  Ms. Clinton is a continuation of the policies of Mr. Obama, but without the "blackness" which benefited him.  Sen. Sanders is all emotional promises of "free stuff" to young voters who already are emotional by the dearth of opportunity in a stagnant economy and are prime for any promises of a better life, regardless of whether those promises are practically possible.

The Mob Rules...still.

We have nine months to see if any logic or sense will return to the political arena.  There is no apparent reason to be optimistic.  And if all continues, there will be an emotional hangover and we all will suffer the longest headache of our lives.

Is Change possible without admitting Error?

What a question..."Is change possible without admitting error!"  Is it an important question?

To define the discussion, let us assume that change made as a result of our own evaluation process is a change made by choice.  That is not strictly true, but space requires a condensing of the discussion. And let us also stipulate that change imposed by other people or outside events  are not "choice" driven.  With those boundaries in place, let us consider the question again.

There are two different kinds of changes we make in our lives;  First, we change to choose a better path or result; Second, we change to avoid a bad result that is contrary to our intention.  The first is an improvement and the second is an avoidance.  That is all well and good...but do we have to acknowledge that fact?  I would suggest that the change to improve the result often is not consciously acknowledged...unless it is in the business world.  If it is in the business world, that evaluation is often trumpeted as proof of ability to evaluate and succeed, so not only is it acknowledged, it is headlined to the public as well as in our own consciousness, and is not seen as labeling the initial direction as "wrong" but merely as an "interim" step in "doing the job right."

But...what if the change is imposed upon you by your superior at work?  Now the change is not your discovery or choice at all.  Yes, of course you will (it is your bosses command, after all) make the change and you will attempt to do your best to make it happen...but will your effort be the same 110% that you would have put in if it had been your discovery?  I would argue that it depends on whether you are able to admit that the first direction was in error, even if only by degree, acknowledge that fact, and commit to the new process or goal.  Otherwise, your effort will be something less than it could be.

So...when a change is imposed upon you it is logical that it will be less than optimally successful unless you can see that the original direction was in error.  Applied to the current discussion, "No, change is not possible without admitting error!"

What about our private life decisions and paths?  Those changes which we determine are appropriate...all by ourselves (or, at least not imposed by others) are likely to be successful.  But...do we acknowledge that the original path or choice was "wrong?"  No...I suggest that does not often happen.  But our subconscious mind does play games with us, doesn't it?  The "new" choice is better and the "old" one abandoned...at least in part...as "no longer being optimum!"  Isn't that just a polite way of saying that the "old" choice is now seen as "wrong?"  I think the answer is, "Yes, we do acknowledge error in the original choice and once again optimize the change because we do see the improvement and accept responsibility for ourselves to make the change happen.

However, now the trick question: "Does this apply to politics and voting?"

I argue that not only does it apply, but that history proves that it applies.  Just looking at the current administration (one could make the same observations about each and every other one, with the same result) we can see that a choice of who to vote for had been made twice.  The first was by and large an acceptance of a promise for "Hope and Change" in which specifics were never provided; each of us imagined that the definitions of "Hope" and of "Change" by the candidate were the same as ours.  For many, that was clearly not so.  Yet at the next election, the result was the same.  And dialogues after the second election showed that most people were unable to admit that their expectations were in error.  The majority of voters were not able to come to terms with their own error in evaluating campaign promises and character, much less commit to any change.  Only now, after almost 7 years of facing the facts on a daily basis does it appear from polls that the majority of voters are beginning to admit "error" to any degree, no matter how small.

Many in our country prefer that our subconscious deal with admitting error and putting it in an acceptable format before bringing it to consciousness.  Perhaps all of us do!  Either way, I suggest that no change is ever possible or successful without admitting error in the preceding choice, and denial only slows the correction.