Friday, November 20, 2020

Bullet Point Thoughts On 2020 National Election- The Most Bizarre Ever?

I thought I'd offer some bullet point thoughts on 2020 National Election. . . And wasn't it the most bizarre ever?

These bullet points are mostly collected from National Notice tweets (hence the hyperlinks*) as I reacted to the unfolding of the election.  Collecting them caused me to think, generation a few more for the collection.  (Most of these bullets/tweets are my authorship, but a few extra thoughts were so prevalent in the twitterverse that I just picked their expression in tweets from others.-- I think you'll be able to tell which are which.)

(* Note:  In many of cases clicking through to the tweet will take you to links to the facts or an article upon which the tweet is based.)

"Bullet Points" refers to the convention of preceding short thoughts with a 'bullet" dot.  National Notice often gets quite a few compliments for "connecting the dots."  Today we won't be trying so hard to do so.  Mainly, we hope that each of these bullet points presents some pith that is worth spending some time with in reflecting on the big picture of the election overall.  But that shouldn't prevent you from experimenting; you are welcome to experiment on your own in connecting "the dots." 

We are coming out of an election cycle where people, very invested in seeing things certain ways, have often been censoriously impatient with wider ranging viewpoints.  Hopefully, with my offers of things to think over without telling you what to think, you won't reject the thoughts here as just being too "dotty."

     •    Why were the polls so very, very wrong, predicting a Biden landslide and huge Democratic victories?  Certainly there’s been analysis loquaciously offered. And none of that we’ve seen is at all satisfactory.

    •    When the polls are so very wrong (i.e. predicting Biden landslide, huge Democratic victories) two contrary explanations can both be a bit true together: 1.) The polls misled, 2.) Votes went uncounted.- Warning: Any distrust of this election makes you a Trump' conspiracist. . .  (These questions apply to the polls being wrong in 2016 as well.)  

    •    As we fascinate over how wrong the national election polls were, it is interesting to ask ‘what did Google know’ and could Google ever have been that wrong? And if Google had information, where did it go?

    •    Democrats running as Republicans lost ground to the Republicans even when the Republicans should’ve been especially vulnerable. Guess the Republicans do it better.

    •    Given that the polls were so very, very wrong, predicting a Biden landslide and huge Democratic victories, questions never got asked about why Biden and the DNC were running such a lousy campaign when they were running it and it would have made a difference.

    •    (If you can believe the polls) The support racist misogynist Trump got from White men declined. 26% of his votes were from non-white voters: 32-35% of Latino vote, doubling his support from Black women from 4% to 8%, White women went from 53% to 55%, and Black men went from 13% to 18%.  

    •    Not since 1960, in other words, not for 60 years, has a Republican gotten as high a percentage of the non-White votes as Donald Trump did in this 2020 presidential election.  Support from the LGBTQ community doubled from 14% to 28%.  

   •    More people voted for Trump in 2020 than 2016. In almost all traditionally Democratic voting cohorts greater percentages voted  for Trump, but this was made up for by greater Democratic turnout, which may have been due to new Covid-inspired voting procedures. If no Covid, then what?  

    •    Two reasons to suspect Covid prevented 2020 Trump win: 1.) Dems lost percentage of base but won b/c of turnout facilitated by easier voting, & 2.) Media constantly berated Trump on virus handling. 

     •    @RaniaKhalek It’s pretty crazy to think that if it wasn’t for Covid-19 Trump would have likely won by a lot...

    •    Fox News exit poll: 72% of voters want change to government run health care system, 78% racism is a problem, 70% pathway to citizenship for immigrants, 72% concerned about climate change, 70% increased spending on renewable energy . AND. .60% say government should do more (at 42:00)   

    •    During this election the economic effects of a worldwide pandemic were stripping people nationally of their jobs and healthcare, but both candidates for president were opposing providing healthcare for all, Biden promising to veto Medicare for All if passed.

    •    We had w/ Black Lives Matter, perhaps the “Largest Movement in U.S. History” w/ the majority of U.S voters supporting it by a 28-point margin, and we elected president the author of the 1994 mass incarceration crime law and the “Top Cop” Kamala Harris?  

     •    Worthwhile to remember: Notwithstanding that we’re facing existential threats, this was the least issue-based national election for any of us living today. That includes the 2016 where Trump addressed issues more often than Hillary Clinton.  

    •    Correlations: Democratic cosponsors of Medicare for all won, opponents got defeated; Green New Deal cosponsors likewise win. “The more Democrats in swing districts ran on the Right, the fewer votes they were likely to receive.” 


    •    NPR signals us to go right?: Is NPR too dutiful a conduit for mainstream media “wisdom” that Biden won laudably as a centrist while the Democrats lost ground this election b/c the swing votes and regions needing to be won “are simply not that progressive”?

    •    NPR began this segment discussing the purported need for the Democrats to move Right with a quote to that effect from Democratic House member Abigail Spanberger not noting she's a former CIA operative or how badly she just did in her own campaign.  

    •    Following declaration of a Biden win, NPR teaches its listeners that “progressives” such as Elizabeth Warren are too “polarizing” plus scary to the financial industry to put in the Biden cabinet

    •    NPR showcases kindly offered Republican advice that Democrats wouldn’t have lost electoral ground if only they had run more to the right. Who’s expected to swallow that poppycock?: Democrats? NPR Listeners?

    •    Dashing hopes, reducing expectations: NPR (thank you very much) cautions that Biden will be constrained in addressing climate change because of gridlock and the countervailing force of the Republicans who prevailed in this election.

    •    Remember?: Biden worried (Iowa- Dec.) that the Dems might get too many seats in election w/ Republicans “clobbered.”  "I'm really worried that no party should have too much power. .  You need [the GOP as] a countervailing force."- Guess he got his wish!

    •    Wall Street is very happy with the election: Biden the president with a Republican Senate and reduction of Democrats in the House as an excuse for gridlock and Biden to deliver on his promise that NOTHING WILL CHANGE.    

    •    Stragedy? Is “stragedy” the right word to describe how the DNC corporate Democrats strategically connive to set it up that they always “have to” concede to Republican demands? 

    •    Caitlin Johnstone @caitoz Oct 28, 2020 US presidential elections are often very close because the US populace is deliberately kept evenly split between two ideological camps with a lot of emotional hostility and very little policy difference, ensuring they're kept divided against each other and united for the machine

    •    Retweeting 5/11/'19 National Notice article as reminder: While a “divided” America excuses government inaction, the vast majority of Americans, supermajorities, are actually united on what they want to see done with respect to most of the top, most important issues.  

    •    Assessing 2020 as most bizarre presidential campaign race ever, we're duty bound to remember the primaries w/ mucho shenanigans pulled to squelch Bernie & Republican Michael Bloomberg (seller of NYC libraries) ran as a Democrat collecting Dem's voter data.

    •    It almost seems as if the more tedious suspense there is in the networks declaring a presidential winner, the more one is supposed to emotionally invest in rooting for Biden whom we (Bernie supporters) never liked in the first place. Is it supposed to work that way?     

    •    Seeing Biden election jubilation several multiples of Obama ‘08, yet Obama promised (didn’t deliver) hope and change and voted against Iraq war; Biden says “no fundamental change”+ manipulated us into Iraq war. Why do we accept these shifting expectations? And with joy?

    •    @yashalevine entire cities cheering for a rightwing neoliberal bully with dementia. what a time to be alive. not a time to not be heavily medicated.

     •    @aaronjmate Two months ago, Kamala told CNN that Russian interference -- undefined, of course, because who needs details? -- could cost Biden the election. Since Biden won, expect us to now hear zilch about "Russian interference." It's outlived its partisan utility.

     •    @LeeCamp This is how you know the “Russian interference” crap was a lie all along

    •    Being skeptical or suspicious about our elections (for a huge segment of the population) is out of fashion for 2020. 2016 we had a conspiracy theory about Russia influencing the election (wrong reason for suspicion).  2020 we trust in the system

    •    Department of Homeland Security: election was "most secure" in U.S. history"; elections ensure technology is not "a single point of failure"; measures ensure "your vote is counted correctly"; You should have confidence their integrity, don't "overreact."  

    •    Super-tweeter Tim Wu tweeted that George W. Bush had done a "solid" by official recognition of Biden's election with congratulations.   Our National Notice response: Eager to extricate Trump from the 24/7 news cycle or not, this has too strange a resonance given that when all is said and done G. W. Bush did not win Florida in 2000. It should be enough for Biden to have simple won on the votes, not via GWB pronouncements of congratulation

    •    Still relevant Democracy Now headline from Oct 21, 2020: Joe Biden Vets Republicans for Cabinet Positions, Won’t Disclose Names of Major Fundraisers 

     •    BIDEN's Cabinet Looking WORSE Than Expected! (Jimmy Dore)

    •    Still relevant and not all that dated: Krystal and Saagar: Biden’s Floated Cabinet Is RETURN Of The Clinton-Obama Swamp (Oct 14).

    •    Panel: Floated Biden Cabinet Like West Wing Episode From Hell (Nov 9 from Krystal and Saagar).  

    •    Saagar Enjeti REVEALS How The SWAMP Will Run Top Levels Of Biden White House (Nov 19) 

    •    @RaniaKhalek Michele Flournoy [proposed Pentagon Chief] sits on the board of Booz Allen & helped negotiate tens of millions of $$$ in military contracts at Boston Consulting Group. Susan Rice [proposed Secretary of State] backed handing over Libya and Syria to a collection of extremist groups that literally brought back slavery! Is this a joke?

    •    One Third of Biden's Pentagon Transition Team Hails From Organizations Financed by the Weapons Industry- The president-elect is drawing from hawkish think tanks funded by arms companies

    •    If you think of war as a racket, then all the military appointments to administrations such as Biden’s (Trump’s too) are just more examples of more swampy conflicts of interest. . .  Absolutely no better than the other examples and in other ways tragically much worse.  

    •    Doors Revolve- Going to work alongside what’s shaping up as Biden’s hawk & Wall Street cabinet: Corporate Blue Broadcaster MSNBC & CNN “news” staff; 1 MSNBCer who was already secretly writing Biden’s speeches, plus at least another MSNBC 3 and 1 from CNN.

    •    Cecilia Muñoz, Who Defended Family Separations Under Obama, Joins Biden Transition Team- “Muñoz often justified Obama’s harsh immigration enforcement policies, including the administration’s deportation of thousands of Central American children” 

    •    Climate Activists Condemn Biden’s Appointment of Rep. Cedric Richmond, a Major Fossil Fuel Ally- Sunrise Movement: A betrayal- one of Biden’s first hires “has taken more donations from the fossil fuel industry  . . than any other Democrat.”    

    •    Does continuing preoccupation, and being on tenterhooks with concern about whether Trump will be successfully ushered out of office tend to make off limits dismay about how Biden’s cabinet is shaping up as swampy, corporate, and militaristic?  

    •    Will the two Senate runoff races in Georgia help Democrats regain balance of power?: Both Democratic candidates oppose Medicare for All and Green New Deal although polls say Georgia voters want those things.   

    •    Atlanta Journal-Constitution poll: Nearly two-thirds of Georgia voters, about 63%, believe the U.S. is not doing enough and should do more to combat climate change. But the two Democratic candidates in Senate runoff elections don’t support the Green New Deal. 

    •    @politico Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her top lieutenants had a stark warning for Democrats today: swing too far left and they’re all but certain to blow their chances in the Georgia runoff that will determine which party controls the Senate


Monday, July 27, 2020

You, Your Dog and the Coronavirus— Let’s Be Canny About Canine Covid. A Guide To . . . . [?]

You've probably seen things written about children as coronavirus spreaders. . .

Children get the coronavirus just like everyone else, but almost never have symptoms and it's exceedingly rare that children experience any harmful effects.  But human children can spread the virus just like everyone else.

That much as a given, we see mask wearing parents strolling down the street with maskless toddlers charging off in front of them lurching happily in variously directions, or we see a parent or caretaker pushing a stroller with two maskless young ones craning their necks as they exercise their lungs with complaining wails, or perhaps a Covid masked parent carries an infant in a front pack that places the infant's unmasked face forward, directly right in front of their own.

The dictates of etiquette to wear a mask are pretty strong these days (and somehow polarizingly politicized as well), but the etiquette for our children as virus spreaders is different.

So you've probably seen things published about children as virus spreaders.  Published often, or maybe often enough?  Whether it's been often enough, it's been more often than you have seen anything published about our pet dogs, who also widely accompany us, as potential virus spreaders.  Back in April, writing about Covid-19, I wrote asking: What about dogs as virus spreaders?  I was waiting to finally read something about the subject in the general press. Nothing ever turned up.  I finally decided that it was time to go research the subject, that there must be something to be found.

The guidance and information that follows below is sourced mainly from:
    •   The Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
    •   The American Kennel Club
    •   American Veterinarian Medical Association
There is also some minor fill-in of additional information on the fringe of the subject added in from the New York Times, and a few other sources, Wall Street Journal, Healthline, etc.

Before you begin to read, you should know that the CDC, the American Kennel Club, and the Veterinarian Medical Association, all preface their offered advice with basic reassurances telling dog owners not to worry about their dog's transmission of Covid, but then they go on. . .
 
Here is a compilation of their guidance, and we can further discuss what it may mean in terms of the big picture after its presentation:

* * * * *
You, Your Dog and the Coronavirus
Let’s Be Canny About Canine Covid
The first thing to remember is that the Covid-19 coronavirus arrived on the doorstep of the human race through interspecies transmission.  The fact of the zoonotic origin of the virus was determined virtually day one of the pandemic’s emergence with knowledge of the zoonotic origin immediately communicated widely to the public.

Not only can dogs get Covid (and test positive for it), you can get Covid from your dog, and your dog can get Covid from you.  The same is true of cats (including tigers*), which are about as closely related to humans as dogs.  Dogs, like cats are much more closely related to human beings than either the exotic wet market pangolins or Chinese bats that are believed to have helped the virus to make the first crossovers of species infections.
(* Eight tigers at the Bronx Zoo were infected by just one asymptomatic person.)
In addition to their original shared genetic heritage with humans, dogs have been co-evolving with humans since their first domestication 33,000 years ago.  This engenders a host of similarities, including things like diet.  Because of the similarity of dog physiology to humans, beagles are, for example, an animal of choice as a medical stand in for the human species for researchers, like those at the Columbia Presbyterian medical center, when they test drugs to potentially be used on humans to treat inflammation or experiment with organ transplants.  The Covid-19 respiratory disease is, notably, partly an inflammatory illness.

If you have Covid:
    •    Isolate yourself from your dog and any other pets who may associate with your dog.
    •    Avoid all contact with your dog such as petting, snuggling, being kissed or licked, sleeping in the same location, and sharing food or bedding.  Do not let your dog come into areas where you have been.
    •    Act prudently to keep your dog separate and away from members of other households on the assumption your dog may have become infected.
    •    If your pet becomes sick, do not take your pet to the veterinary clinic yourself.   
If your dog gets Covid:
    •    Isolate your dog.  It is recommended to confine your dog to a designated “sick room.”
    •    Do not pet your dog, snuggle, kiss, share food or bedding, or allow yourself or anyone else to be licked by your dog.
    •    Wear a cloth face covering and gloves when in your dog’s presence, and wash your hands thoroughly and frequently.
    •    If you are at higher risk for severe illness from Covid, turn your dog’s care over to another person, preferably a household member.
    •    If you must walk your dog, limit it to short bathroom breaks only and be extra careful to pick up your dog’s waste with gloved hands (dispose immediately in sealed bag), plus avoid all interactions with other pets and people. Ideally, infected dogs should be walked in an area that can be readily sanitized in a dedicated area separate from other animal populations.
    •    Disinfect bowls, toys, with an EPA-registered disinfectant and carefully launder items such as towels, blankets, and other bedding.
    •    Do not visit veterinary hospitals without calling the veterinarian first. Veterinarians and their staff should adhere to biosafety and biosecurity protocols for infectious diseases to ensure the safety of their patients.
    •    Pets with confirmed Covid infections should remain in isolation until a veterinarian or public health official has determined that they can be around other pets and people.
    •    Caveat: If your dog gets Covid you are unlikely to know it, because dogs who get Covid almost never show symptoms (as many as 80% of humans may also be asymptomatic and unaware when that are infected with Covid.- If your dog has symptoms, monitor them.) 
General precautions against Covid spread applicable to your dog at all times:
    •    Treat your dog as you would any other human family members – do not let dogs interact with people or other dogs outside the household.
    •    Walk dogs on a leash keeping them socially distant from other people, dogs and pets.  It is estimated that infectiousness from exhaling Covid virus without a mask (staying potentially infectious for hours) can travel up to perhaps 18 feet, particularly in an exercise or panting situation– Recognize that some extendable leashes can add many additional feet to that for dogs inclined to roam.
    •    Avoid taking your dog public places where a large number of people gather, or narrow streets that force close proximity. If necessary, keep dogs indoors when possible.  Avoid, for instance, visits to parks (including dog parks), markets, or other gatherings such as festivals.
Additional notes:

•    The companionability of your dog can be a valuable antidote to the anxieties that dealing with Covid-19 24/7 evokes.  With isolation and quarantine, reducing those anxieties can have a beneficial impact on human health.
•    There have been no random testing studies for Covid antibodies for dogs in New York City or elsewhere to determine whether any herd immunity is developing for that subpopulation.
•    There have been no tests to determine the prevalence of Covid-19 T-cell immunity in the canine species as a possible factor in developing canine heard immunity.

* * * *

When I found what I found as guidance on the sites of  CDC, the American Kennel Club, and the American Veterinarian Medical Association I compiled it and set it forth as I did above to share with you the impression that I personally got as I bounced and shuffled around the various pages where they offered their suggested guidance: The demanding hypervigilance of it all seems like a satirical recipe for anxiety in contrast to the assurances with which they casually started.  Although compiled all together in one place, the dos and don'ts above are all pretty much all exactly their words, not mine, so I'm not making anything up. 

It obviously raises questions about where to draw the line.  And maybe reviewing and considering these questions in the context of dogs can refresh our perspective as we consider everything else we are doing as the news about Covid batters us 24/7 and, in response, we preoccupy ourselves about what to do to keep safe.  The mask thing is now a thing more than ever, and it's probably the most symbolically visible in terms of signals of social etiquette, but does the gloves thing still apply?  How many times are we supposed to wash our hands every day and for how many minutes?  Do you spray your shoes and your entryway with Lysol every time you return from the great outdoors (where everything is supposed to be safer than indoors)?. .

. . . We may all certainly feel more personally vulnerable and stimulated to undertake increased protections when the New York Times writes about how even the strong and mighty tigers of India, with whom none of us live, are sorely threatened by the virus, but if media outlets published similarly prominent stories warning us to curtail our cuddling with the pouches who jump into our beds at night and who provide us with sanity preserving quarantine companionship, some of us might rebel.  Some of us might push back to say that lines being drawn were becoming far too strict.  Nevertheless who is to say that the canine Covid infection is really less a story than tigers strickened in remote jungles?  It's soothing and preferable to be told not to worry about Fido.

Bridling at, and perhaps questioning where lines are being drawn is not to say that Covid is not a real thing or that Covid is somehow ripe to be made light of.  Like all medical illnesses it continues to deliver multiple personal tragedies to those unfortunate enough to suffer its worst effects.  New York City, once considered the center of runaway infection in the U.S., has experienced, according to the New York Times figures as of this writing (July 7, 2020), an estimated 22,970 deaths attributed to Covid infection going back to about mid-March.  More recently, since the time of George Floyd's May 25th Memorial Day murder, the bell curve for New York City deaths has been trailing off.  New infections in the city were once estimated to exceed 6,000 a day (that was before more widespread testing and after more than 20% of New Yorkers in the city were already antibody positive according to random testing), but, on this side of the bell curve the virus still takes a toll.  As of this writing, the New York Times reports 225 new NYC cases of coronavirus yesterday (with a seven-day average of 334 new identified cases per day) and 9 new deaths attributed to Covid (with a seven-day average of 11 deaths per day).

No one wants anyone to die from the virus.

If you are in suspense and still wondering, if you go to the guidance that served as my sources, you will see that, in all of it, nobody advises putting a mask on your dog.  They all advise against it. . . Decide now what you will about young toddlers and babies wearing masks.

On last very big picture thing to mention: As all these safety preoccupations concern us to whatever extent they may, the new coronavirus is simultaneously being used callously and opportunistically as an excuse for one of the biggest transfers of even more trillions of wealth to the wealthiest that we have ever seen and for other significant restructurings of our society, while, meanwhile, we do nothing about existential threats like global warming and climate change.

PS: (added August 1, 2020) Since this article was published, the New York Times ran a story about a virus infection research study about the likely infectiousness of children saying that "Infected children have at least as much of the coronavirus in their noses and throats as infected adults, according to the research" and "children younger than age 5 may host up to 100 times as much of the virus in the upper respiratory tract as adults, the authors found."  (See: Children May Carry Coronavirus at High Levels, Study Finds, By Apoorva Mandavilli, July 30, 2020.)   The news to us was not how very likely it is that children are as infectious as adults, but the news that anyone ever thought that maybe they weren't. At best there was little research on the proposition generating inconclusive indicators. . .  That's except for an article published in the Times just days before that this new one was now contradicting (whiplash anyone?)
More Updates: 

August 19, 2020- Democracy Now Headline- "World Health Organization Says Young People Are Driving Coronavirus Outbreaks"

Democracy Now (September 18, 2020) and New York Times (September 8, 2020): Testing with mask-protected Hamsters infected with Covid shows that it can work like an inoculating “crude” vaccine if masks let just a little bit (and not too much) of infecting coronavirus through.

November 05, 2020- Democracy Now: Denmark officials ordered millions of mink to be killed because of concerns that they could transmit an evolving strain of the  novel coronavirus back to humans.  

November 5, 2020- New York Times: Experiments are showing that a nasal spray that acts a bit “like a vaccine” is able to protect ferrets from getting the SARS-CoV-2 virus.  If the spray also works in humans, “it could provide a new way of fighting” the coronavirus pandemic. Ferrets are used for these experiment by scientists “because they can catch viruses through the nose much as humans do.”  (SARS-CoV-2 is the virus that causes the disease COVID-19 in humans. COVID-19 is the disease caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus in humans. In animals, the disease is referred to as SARS-CoV-2.)

November 24, 2020- New York Times: A “host of new research” including “with hamsters” supports the view that a newer, increasingly prevalent mutated version of the coronavirus is more transmissible and thus better at “infecting people more easily” and going “more easily from person to person and making the pandemic harder to stop.” Hamsters were “more quickly” infectious of others with this variant.
 
January 4, 2021- New York Magazine (the cover story). The Lab-Leak Hypothesis For decades, scientists have been hot-wiring viruses in hopes of preventing a pandemic, not causing one. But what if …?  By Nicholson Baker (Nicholson Baker is a hero to us as a brilliant writer/researcher who independently broke very important ground reporting on the suspiciously wasteful destruction of huge amounts of information in our libraries).  In the New York cover article he provides some coronavirus history: “Beginning in the 1970s, dogs, cows, and pigs were diagnosed with coronavirus infections; dog shows were canceled in 1978 after 25 collies died in Louisville, Kentucky. New varieties of coronaviruses didn’t start killing humans, though, until 2003 — that’s when restaurant chefs, food handlers, and people who lived near a live-animal market got sick in Guangzhou, in southern China, where the shredded meat of a short-legged raccoonlike creature, the palm civet, was served in a regional dish called “dragon-tiger-phoenix soup.” The new disease, SARS, spread alarmingly in hospitals, and it reached 30 countries and territories. More than 800 people died; the civet-borne virus was eventually traced to horseshoe bats.”
 
January 22, 2021- New York Times- The Coronavirus Kills Mink, So They Too May Get a Vaccine-  The pandemic has been a powerful reminder that there is no clear barrier between viruses affecting animals and people.  By James Gorman
   
"At least two American companies, as well as Russian researchers, are working on coronavirus vaccines for mink. The animals have grown sick and died in large numbers from the virus, which they have also passed back to people in mutated form.

. . .the mink infections in the United States do pose a threat to public health. At least two minks that have escaped from the farms have tested positive. And one wild mink tested positive. Scientists worry that if the virus spreads to more wild mink or to other animals, it could become established in natural populations and form a reservoir from which it could emerge, perhaps in mutated form, to reinfect humans at another time. . .

 . . . although the Agriculture Department is not now considering any applications for vaccines for cats and dogs, that is a possibility that the companies are considering."


March 31, 2021- New York Times- Russia claims to be the first country to develop coronavirus shots for animals. By Andrew E. Kramer "Russia’s state veterinary service said on Wednesday that it had become the first regulator in the world to approve a coronavirus vaccine for animals, intended for use on fur farms or for pet cats and dogs. . . The agency said it had developed the vaccine for animals in part as a public health tool, lest the virus spread from animals to humans or — in a worst-case scenario — mutate in animals and then spread back to humans in a more virulent form. .. . . The Russian agency noted four reports of pet infections just in the last week, in Italy and in Mexico. It that said a vaccine for pets was needed as insurance against variants that might spread more easily."


May 20, 2021- NPR Morning Edition: Infectious Disease- New Coronavirus Detected In Patients At Malaysian Hospital; The Source May Be Dogs  Scientists at Duke University say they have discovered what may be the latest coronavirus to jump from animals into people. And it comes from a surprising source: dogs.

"In the past 20 years, new coronaviruses have emerged from animals with remarkable regularity. In 2002, SARS-CoV jumped from civets into people. Ten years later, MERS emerged from camels. Then in 2019, SARS-CoV-2 began to spread around the world. . . For many scientists, this pattern points to a disturbing trend: Coronavirus outbreaks aren't rare events and will likely occur every decade or so. . .Now, scientists are reporting that they have discovered what may be the latest coronavirus to jump from animals into people. And it comes from a surprising source: dogs. . . "
 
March 2021 and August 2021- Nature: The coronavirus is rife in common US deer-  Survey results show that many white-tailed deer, a familiar sight on US lawns and golf courses, have antibodies to the virus that causes COVID-19. by Smriti Mallapaty, August 2, 2021, National Geographic: Wild U.S. deer found with coronavirus antibodies- White-tailed deer, a species found in every U.S. state except Alaska, appear to be contracting the coronavirus in the wild, - 40%, by Dina Fine Maron, August 2, 2021, Popular Science/MSN: White-tailed deer test positive for COVID-19 in lab studies, Dave Hurteau/Field & Stream  3/24/2021:
COVID-19 has been known to pass from humans to ferrets, mink, dogs, cats, and other animals, and this cross-species transmissibility has prompted researchers to test other creatures. The latest: whitetail deer.

* * *
In a pair of studies, researchers gave whitetail fawns strains of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, including the most common human strain.
Bow Hunting: Whitetail Deer Are Contracting Covid-19- a Preliminary Study Shows as Much as 40% of the Wild White-tailed Deer Population May Have Contracted Covid-19.- A study published this week indicates that wild whitetail deer are contracting SARS-CoV-2 and developing the antibodies used to fight off the infection.  By Justin Zarr, August 3, 2021, Field and Stream: COVID-19 Hits Wild Whitetail Population- Forty percent of nearly 400 wild deer tested were positive for COVID-19. The deer seem unharmed, by Tom Keer, August 5. 2021.

August 23, 2021-  MSN/USA Today: 15 rescue dogs, including 10 puppies, killed by council in Australia over COVID-19 concerns, by Jordan Mendoza

A local government in the state of New South Wales in Australia faced criticism after reports surfaced they ordered 15 dogs killed to prevent the spread of COVID-19 among shelter workers.

August 23, 2021- Huffington Post: Furor Erupts After Australian Officials Kill Rescue Dogs Over COVID-19 Fears- One of the female dogs had reportedly just given birth to a litter of puppies. By Mary Papenfuss

“We are deeply distressed and completely appalled by this callous dog shooting,” Animal Liberation activist Lisa Ryan told the Herald.

“We totally reject council’s unacceptable justifications that this killing was apparently undertaken as part of a COVID-safe plan.”


January 6, 2022Dr. John Campbell’s YouTube Channel: Omicron from mice,

Given that genetic analysis shows that Omicron diverged from the B.1.1 lineage roughly in mid-2020, without any of its evolved mutations found in versions of the virus that infected the human population, including Alpha, Beta, Gamma, and Delta, there is a theory that the many accumulate Omicron mutations could have evolved in and been transmitted back from another mammalian host, prime candidate perhaps being mice.
 
January 19, 2022- Democracy Now: Japan Sets New Curbs, Hong Kong Culls 2,000 Exposed Hamsters, as Asian Nations See COVID Surges.

In Hong Kong, authorities started confiscating small animals from pet shops after announcing it would cull some 2,000 hamsters and other small mammals after a dozen of imported hamsters tested positive for COVID-19.  
 
January 19, 2022 Updated January 25, 2022- New York Times: Animals That Infect Humans Are Scary. It’s Worse When We Infect Them Back.- Mink farms threaten to become a source of new coronavirus variants — and an object lesson in how ‘spillback’ can make deadly diseases even deadlier. By Sonia Shah

The farmer wore thick leather gloves to protect his hands from the minks’ powerful bites, but he did not wear a mask. I was fully vaccinated and had tested myself to ensure I wasn’t infected, but he didn’t ask me about my vaccine status nor did he ask me to wear a mask. (Masking on mink farms, like vaccinations and testing, were not legally required.) Before I left, I asked if I could take his photograph. He reached into a cage, grabbed a mink by the torso and held it up for the camera. The mink opened its mouth, inches from the farmer’s grinning face, and screeched in terror.

* * *
Spillbacks confound our containment strategies. In theory, we can tame pathogens that prey exclusively on Homo sapiens. . . .  But once a pathogen spills back from humans into wild animals, those options slip away, for we have even less control over the behavior of nonhuman animals than we do over our fellow humans.

* * *

Pathogens that rely on social contact often evolve toward lower virulence as a trade-off for greater transmissibility, but spillback allows them to escape that virtuous circle, with potentially devastating consequences.

Saif said the coronaviruses that preceded Covid-19 dynamically cycled through species, including sparrows, pigeons, bats, pigs, alpacas, cows, chickens, chimpanzees, dogs, cats and humans, in a dizzying history stretching back centuries. The eruptions she described were much more than human pandemics. They were multispecies events. The Covid-19 pandemic may become one, too. Perhaps it already is.
 
January 20, 2022 Updated January 22, 2022- New York Times:  A South African study of infected zoo lions spurs worries about the virus spreading in the wild.  By Lynsey Chutel

JOHANNESBURG — Lions at a South African zoo that caught the coronavirus from their handlers were sick for more than three weeks and continued to test positive for up to seven weeks, according to a new study that raised concerns about the virus spreading among animals in the wild.

* * * *
Scientists warn that “spillback” infections of humans infecting animals — as have occurred with mink, deer and domestic cats — could ravage whole ecosystems in the wild.
 
January 25, 2022- The Hill: Kim Iversen: Did Omicron Come From RATS? Can’t Vax Our Way Out Of Pandemic When ANIMALS Spread Covid

Omicron may have originated in rats. . .what about the otters that have found to be infected, and hippos, what about the rats?. . . Viruses . . . that infect other animals, we’ve been unable to eradicate. . .people slaughtering animals. .  Even Australia; they put down the dogs, but they also put down a bunch of hamsters; people were adopting hamsters. They found out there was Covid outbreak where they bought the hamsters. The Australian government actually ordered everyone to bring their hamsters back to be terminated.  
 
February 3, 2022= New York Times: In New York City Sewage, a Mysterious Coronavirus Signal- For the past year, scientists have been looking for the source of strange coronavirus sequences that have appeared in the city’s wastewater. By Emily Anthes

Last January, a team of researchers searching for the coronavirus in New York City’s wastewater spotted something strange in their samples. The viral fragments they found had a unique constellation of mutations that had never been reported before in human patients — a potential sign of a new, previously undetected variant.

For the past year, these oddball sequences, or what the scientists call “cryptic lineages,” have continued to pop up in the city’s wastewater.

researchers . .  some . . suspect that the lineages may be coming from virus-infected animals, possibly the city’s enormous population of rats.

“To date we have not seen these variants among clinical patients in N.Y.C.,” said Michael Lanza, a spokesman for New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene.

Researchers at the University of California at Berkeley have found similar sequences in one California sewershed. . .

* * *
Laboratory experiments suggest that these lineages may also be able to evade some antibodies.

* * *
“To have something in a sewershed that you’re detecting, you need a fair bit of it around,” said Dr. Adam Lauring, a virologist at the University of Michigan, who was not involved in the research.

Dr. Johnson, the Missouri virologist, agrees. He favors the hypothesis that the sequences are coming from animals . . .

* * *
The researchers initially considered a diverse array of potential hosts, from squirrels to skunks. “This is a very promiscuous virus,” Dr. Johnson said. “It can infect all kinds of species.”

* * *

Dr. Johnson has been considering rats, which roam the city by the millions.

* * *
Scientists have repeatedly found that humans can pass the virus to animals, especially pets, zoo animals, farmed mink and others with which they are in frequent contact. That has raised concerns that the virus might establish itself in an animal reservoir, where it might mutate and get passed back to humans.


See also, from the prior day February 3, 2022: New York Times Guest Essay- The Clues to the Next Variant Surge Are All Around Us- . . there are places to look that may help scientists find new variants even faster: sewage and the air.

Friday, May 29, 2020

Is the New York Times Offering A Misleadingly Bleak Depiction of Status of “Herd Immunity” in New York City?

Today's New York Times front page featuring a petri dish chart for its home city of New York, saying that those with antibodies in the city are scarce, while it describes the potential of herd immunity as a "distant objective" and cautions that there is no safety from the spread.  But,the presentation of its NYC statistic is suspiciously inaccurate.
[NOTE: This article was updated July 2, 2020 to refer to the estimated lag times it takes for Coronavisrus antibodies to develop thus making it important to look back and consider April's random testing of New York City residents as being a snap shot of the status of the infection's spread earlier in the month of April.

Front page, above the fold, upper right there is a big prominent chart in the physical copy of today’s New York Times to go along with the headline: “In battling Outbreak, Herd Immunity,  Remains Distant Objective,” by Nadja Popovich and Margot Sanger-Katz May 28, 2020.  (The Times internet version of its headline is currently “The World Is Still Far From Herd Immunity for Coronavirus”)

That chart has a dramatic petri dish-looking dot diagram labeled to say that it shows that in New York City 19.9% of the population have covid antibodies and in the smaller print adding “May 2nd.”  The chart has its own bold headline label: "Still not Safe From The Spread."

The print version of this article provides this text:
In New York City, which has had the largest coronavirus outbreak in the United States, around 20 percent of the city’s residents have been infected by the virus as of early May, according to a survey of people in grocery stores and community centers released by the governor’s office.
But, in actuality, the study results just described by the New York Times as fixing this percentage in “early May,” were reported in the New York Times April 23rd: "1 in 5 New Yorkers May Have Had Covid-19, Antibody Tests Suggest" By J. David Goodman and Michael Rothfeld, April 23, 2020-
In New York City, about 21 percent tested positive for coronavirus antibodies during the state survey.
That article also stated:
State officials said the test had been calibrated to err on the side of producing false negatives — to miss some who may have antibodies —
That April Times article didn’t say then when in April the study had been conducted, perhaps an unusual skip, saying only that the study had involved tests conducted “over two days, including about 1,300 in New York City, at grocery and big-box stores” that had then been “sent to the state’s Wadsworth facility in Albany” and generated an announcement about its results on Wednesday, April 22, 2020 (publicly discussed by NYS Governor Cuomo the next day).  All of this would push back somewhat the unknown date that the random study was actually conducted.-- 

-- Pushing things back further in assessing things is that antibodies for Covid are not said to develop for one-to-three, or even more weeks after becoming infected.  That means that the random sample snap-shot involves a lag.  If you push things back two weeks plus a few days to compensate for all this, that means that the snap shot may best reflect a date of about Friday, April 3rd.  The "confirmed case" for New York City count the New York Times gave on April 2nd was 52,000.  May 29th the New York Times gives a "confirmed case" count figure of "205,854."

While the results of that mid-April random study were intriguing, there seems to be no hint of another updating random study since.

Reporting on rates of coronavirus infection is a moving target.  The virus is capably of spreading at an exponential rate, which is clearly what it did in the beginning in many locations including New York City.  At about the time of the NYC random study it had been reported (April 15, 2020 on Democracy Now) that the milestone of 10,000 deaths from the virus in New York City had just been reached.  The death toll in New York City is now more than double that number at about 21,000.  Increases in and accelerations of the infection rate precede the reported death rate.

So, if random testing were done, now, at the tail end of May, probably about six or more weeks since the last random tests were conducted, where would the current antibody detection rate in New York City be?  That would have to take into consideration that April, followed by the first half of May was the month during which the virus was spreading most rapidly in New York City to create new infections.  Would it be more than double the April random test figure the Times splashed on its front page incorrectly saying the figures were from May as it based it article on that?  The charts below, from the New York Times itself, are elucidating in considering this:

Remember, when looking at these charts, that although the numbers are consistent for what they are, the "confirmed case" figure is always just a tiny fraction of the number of the people who have actually contracted the virus.  That's something that is widely acknowledged.  So, for instance, the April 2nd date when there were a reported about 52,000 confirmed cases is the approximate date when random testing indicates that probably about 21% of New Yorkers had had the virus.  By the May 29th date that the New York Times gives a "confirmed case" count figure of "205,854" for one can expect, following at least somewhat proportionally, a fairly major increase in the actual cases.
 
So the question I ask is: Is the New York Times offering a misleadingly bleak depiction respecting the possibilities of when the protections of herd immunity may be kick in for those who live in New York City, the Times' home base?  Still a "distant objective" that new Yorkers are "far from"?

Sunday, April 26, 2020

As Digital Technology Steps In To Help Us Connect And Communicate During The Coronavirus Crisis, One Of The Devices Most Exquisitely Designed For Connection And Communication Breaks Down And Fails Us

The coronavirus has sent us rushing to technology, most of it relying on the filters of the internet, because, above all else, human connection and communication is important.  There are, of course, concerns about the internet, how data is scraped and compiled on us as we are surveiled.  I wrote about that and other concerns of where living with the virus was pushing us back in late March.  (See: Reflections On What It Means To Be Retreating More Into Virtual Existence In Fear Of A Virus.)

March was before we all started wearing masks everywhere.  Now we’ve started covering our faces.  One of the best designed devices for human connection and communication that was ever created is the human face.  Now we are masking it.  We are not only maintaining our “social distance” physically–  think of how, in addition, we are also emotionally socially distancing ourselves by shutting down our ability to communicate with the rest of the world with our faces that were so exquisitely designed for this purpose evolving over the millennia precisely toward this perfection?  One facial expression is worth a thousand words. . .

. .  We communicate with our facial expressions even before we have words.  We communicate with our facial expressions when we lose our words.  When our words lie, our facial expressions is where the truth still wends out to the world.  When we talk about trying to conceal our emotions we talk about “masking” them; that’s a direct reference to hiding our faces, hiding our expressions.

As we all  amble the streets our in our masks, I thought about the charts that you you often see them magnetically affixed to refrigerators, designed to teach children to recognize their emotions.  Adults also enjoy these charts too for the way it encourages and sets them free them to be more relaxed in an easier self recognition of what they are feeling.  I was on the street surrounded by masked people when the visual that illustrates this brief post sprang into my mind . .

. . . How much less meaningful things are when we lose that face to face contact with others– Unfortunately, I can’t let you tell me that the jerky back and forth of unnaturally lit videos from people feeling confined to their apartments is a substitution for the real same thing. –  It isn't, I mean, let's face it (pun intended).

Thursday, April 23, 2020

Despite All The Information Flung Around About The Covid Crisis, The Big Story Is Mostly About What We Don’t Yet Know


I feel like I am being pummeled with information right and left about Covid-19, most of it scary and about deaths and mounting tabulations of people confirmed as infected.

I find that I have withdrawn even more from the 24/7 news cycle, which more and more seems to be all Covid all the time.  It’s not that I am not taking the time to check in periodically to catch up on the news, but its continuing sameness is leaving me with a starved feeling.  I am still feeling uniformed.  That “sameness” left me confused and uncertain whether, the other day, I had done my daily check of Democracy Now’s headlines— Every day is so much like the other.   (Democracy Now, which for decades called itself “The War and Peace Report,” is now calling itself “The Quarantine Report”– At least it rhymes.)

The New York Times especially seems to love publishing a zillion attention-grabbing charts these days.

What I find remarkable is that, with all the information that is being directed at us about covid-19, how much we still don’t know in terms of getting an overview.

Here, listed below, are things we still don’t know.  Almost all of these things have been written or reported about somewhere.  I am going to dispense with my usual habit about carefully providing documenting links about where these things might have been covered, because, when all is said and done, it is more about what nobody seems to really know.  It all comes from what is a mish-mosh of confusion.

We don’t know:
    •    How Many People, What Percentage of the Population, Have Been Infected with Covid-19?  This is a question that can be asked country by country, region by region.  We don’t know because, especially in the United States, there is no testing to find out.  If you are in New York City and think you have a Covid-19 virus infection the first thing you will be told when you try to figure out what to do is that you probably should not try to get tested.  New York City is deemed to have perhaps the highest infection rate in the United States.  The other day I heard that less than 1% of the United States population had been tested.  When I tried to look that up I found a figure that was actually far below that.  And the virus has been spreading for a long time, which means that, in terms of knowing things, the situation hasn’t necessarily remained the same for those who tested negative for the virus when they were tested.  The numbers we get frequently and relentlessly about the latest calculation of “confirmed cases” in different places throughout the world are mostly measures of how many tests were done provoked because people were recently showing a certain (not even consistent) level of virus infection symptoms.

    •    What Percentage of Our Populations Can Be Expected To Ultimately Get Covid19?  The effect of Covid-19 will depend on how many people get it.  There are estimations that the 1918 “Spanish” flu infected about one-third of the world’s population.  Some people have put out information that Covid-19 will infect about twice that percentage.

    •    What Percentage of People Who Get Infected Will Be Asymptomatic?  The numbers people are offering on this question are wildly all over the place.  It seems that, even with a given population trending toward the elderly, at least about 20% will be asymptomatic, but it appears from other reports that in the general population about 50% or more will be asymptomatic.  The Washington Post recently reported that 88% of pregnant women in New York who turned out to have the virus were asymptomatic.  That particular figure could have something to do with likely ages and general health for women getting pregnant or for differences in the immune system when women are pregnant.  Further, in figuring out the percentage for the overall population, what does “asymptomatic” mean?; at what point is a case of infection so mild that the person who gets it pays so little or no attention to it mean that it crosses over the line to what is deemed “asymptomatic”?  This question of how many people are asymptomatic also has a lot to do with guessing how many people are possibly out and about passing the virus on to other people.

    •    What Percentage of People Who Get Infected Will Have Mild Cases And of What General Character?   This question is much like the question about who is asymptomatic, but, without virus testing or after-the-fact antibody testing, who knows?  And if we don’t know who has been sick with the virus, who can, with authority, pass on a description of what their personal experience with the virus was like, how harrowing or not it was?

    •    What Is the Mortality Rate From The Virus?  We are being given lots of figures about people dying from the virus, but without knowing how many people have been infected overall we have no idea of what the mortality rate from the virus is.  The New York Times ran a front page story to tell us that it is so hard to know what the mortality rate is that nobody knows.  Although the story managed to place some very high possible mortality rates near the beginning of the story, it had covered a very wide range of possible figures, basically covering all bases, by the time it concluded.  We don’t even know yet  exactly how many deaths to attribute to covid-19; some deaths are not being noted, while other deaths might have happened anyway from co-morbidities.  Complicating determination of the percentage is that, even if we know the infection rate, information about mortality necessarily lags information that could someday be collected about rates of infection.  Possible mortality rates include rates below 1%.  People often seek to compare mortality rates for covid-19 to annual influenza mortality rates, but this can be deceptive because mortality rates for flu can vary; for some annual influenzas it can be very high compared to other years.  Also, flu, for which people also frequently get vaccinated, probably affects a much smaller percentage of the population annually.

    •    How Long Will The Virus Crisis Last?  Nobody knows how long the virus crisis will last, but how long the crisis will last ties in with the idea of “flattening the curve.”  The idea of social distancing to “flatten the curve” does not precisely mean that fewer people will get sick from the virus; it mostly means that the same number of people will get sick over a more extended period of time, reducing stress on the capacity of the healthcare system.  Pretty much by definition, the more the curve is flattened, the longer it will take for the curve to reduce all the way.

    •    When Did Covid-19 Infections Begin, Particularly, In Particular Places Like The United States?   To know more about how fast Covid-19 infection is spreading and predict better how it may play out (including the shape of its possible curves), it would be good to know how long it has been around.  Did it really start in the United States in mid-January?  There is some very credible discussion about whether it was actually being spread in the United States in November and December.  Some theories pushing the far end of what is speculated suggest it goes back as far as September.

    •    How Much Can We Expand The Healthcare System’s Capacity To Deal With Needs To The Extent That The “Curve” Isn’t “Flattened”?   As I heard John Kane pointing out on WBAI radio the other day, the “flatten the curve” graph, which all of us must have seen by this time, has three lines on it: A high bell curve line if social distancing doesn’t slow the rate of infection, a flatter bell curve over a much more extended period of time, and the third line is the line representing the capacity of the healthcare system.  The first two lines are the lines generally presented as malleable, subject to change and adjustment, but the third line could also be moved.  The question is how much could that third line be moved by responsive investment.  At the moment, the covid-19 crisis is serving as justification for spending trillions of dollars in subsidy money to address the economic effects of the crisis.  What amount of money would need to be spent to move the line representing healthcare system capacity upward?

    •    How Many Lives Will Be Saved By “Flattening The Curve”?   “Flattening the curve” can save lives and is expected to, but how will “flattening the curve” save lives and how many will it save?  (We are frequently admonishing younger people to socially distance and wear masks to save, not their own lives, but the lives of older, statistically more vulnerable people.) The most important way that “flattening the curve” can save lives is that it might mean, that to the extent that there are medical treatments that will be life saving for infected individuals,  flattening the curve will help to avoid any need to triage and withhold such treatment from anyone whose life could be saved.  It means, in more basic terms, that someone won’t die just because the healthcare system gets overwhelmed.  Postponing when people get the virus could also make a difference if a vaccine is developed (something that may not happen) or if time otherwise allows for the development of superior treatments. Postponing virus deaths also allows people who may ultimately soon die from another cause to live as long as they were otherwise likely to.

    •    When The Reported New Infection Or Death Rates Level Off or When They Go Down In Certain Areas, Do We Know Why?  In some areas, New York may now be one of them, the increase in new infections and the reported number of daily deaths appear to leveling off, maybe peaking before starting to go down.  This will probably also eventually happen in other areas where those numbers are still going up.  When these numbers go down, do we know why?  I have noticed a certain routineness when it the numbers are reported as going down for those reports to ascribe it to the success of the “social distancing” we are all being encouraged to be engaging in.  But the “flattening the curve” model also predicts that, at some point, these numbers will reduce because there are fewer people left, a smaller percentage of the population, to still catch the virus.  When do we know that is happening and that lowering numbers in these areas is in part due to where we are on the curve?

    •    What Is The Recovery Rate From The Virus?  Like calculating mortality, even if we know the infection rate, information about recovery, which can take time, necessarily lags information that could be collected about rates of infection.

    •    How Long Does It Take To Recover From The Virus?  While some people may seem to recover relatively quickly, how long can it take for others to recover?

    •    How Many People Will Suffer Permanent Disabilities Because Of A Bout With The Virus Rather Than Fully Recover?  In some cases, death is not the only permanent outcome of a serious virus infection. If permanent lung, organ or brain damage is, in certain instances, the result of infections, that is another thing to be taken into account in terms of the seriousness of what’s being suffered, plus, long-term, the effects of these things may need to be added in to calculate the morbidity rate.

    •    When Is Someone Recovered From The Virus?  Stories have been written about people who thought they were recovering or had recovered from the virus and then “relapsed,” so they may have not been fully recovered or recovering when they thought.  What do we need to know to have our bearings in this respect?

    •    How Long After Apparent Recovery Will Somebody No Longer Be Infectious So They Are Safe To Rejoin The Company of Others?  The New York Times has published information saying that people who have recovered after a bout with the virus are no longer infectious to others after a very short period of time. Meanwhile studies have come out saying that the advent of the safe period may take weeks longer than the Times published. 

    •    Does It Matter And Are There Different Ways of Getting Infected?  I have seen nothing talked about respecting whether it matters how a person’s body is introduced to the virus when it gets infected.  If a healthcare worker tending to a very sick patient gets a faceful of coughed-out virus just as they are deeply inhaling, is that going to have the same probable effects as someone who picks up a pen previously used by an infected person, then puts their fingers to their lips and swallows virus to be taken in by their digestive system?

    •    Are Some People Going To Be Immune To Covid-19?  This may seem to be a strange question to ask, but do we know all the reasons that an estimated two-thirds of the world’s population did not get the 1918 flu?  A friend of mine is one of the individuals who presented himself for study when he was surprised that he had never gotten AIDs.  It turned out that he is one of the people in the world with a double set of genes that means he can’t get AIDs.

    •    What Makes Some People Particularly Susceptible To The Worst Expressions Of The Virus When They get Infected?  While we were initially told that older people and people with a long list of health problems would be those worst affected if they got the virus, it has not turned out that predictions are guaranteed to follow such simple dividing lines.  People in their 90s and even over 100 are getting expressed, symptomatic cases of the virus and recovering just fine.  Young adults are sometimes dying, succumbing surprisingly quickly.  An explanation offered for why some individuals have more problematic responses to being infected with covid-19 than others is that they suffer “cytokine storms,” an over-response of the immune system where the response itself becomes the problem because it isn’t balanced.  It is thought that the provocation of “cytokine storms” was the reason that the 1918 flu seemed unusually lethal for young, healthy and strong people. There may be other ways we don’t know that some responses to being infected may be idiosyncratically worse for some individuals.

    •    Do We Know All The Reasons That Certain Sub-populations Of Some Communities Are Being Hurt By Covid-19 At Far Higher Rates?  The death rate from Covid-19 for blacks and Latinos is far outpacing the rate for other cohorts of the population.  To an extent, that would be expected as the result of health and wealth disparities previously in place that create inequities and differences in baseline health, and living conditions.  Also, the economic situation facing such populations may prevent people from engaging in the same amount of social distancing, thus pushing them to the front of a less “flattened” curve.  While those are things that likely contribute to explanations, have we identified all the reasons for the difference in the effects from the virus?  Are these the only ones?

    •    Are There Different Strains of The Virus Circulating; To What Extent Are People Getting Sick To Different Degrees Because They Are Not Getting Precisely The Same Version Of The Virus?  Are there two strains of the virus?  Are there three strains of the virus?  Are there eight strains of the virus?  I have read assertions that each of those things is true.  Is the new coronavirus steadily evolving?  Covid-19 is a coronavirus, which puts it in the larger family of viruses that includes the common cold viruses.  The common cold viruses constantly evolve and mutate. My understanding is that most coronaviruses do.  So do flu viruses.  So it is likely that not everyone is getting exactly the same version of the Covid-19 virus now and, in the future, people may get still other versions.  One question is to what extent getting a different virus may produce illness more or less likely to be severe.  Another question is whether getting one version of the virus can confer immunity or protection against getting another.  There could be good news in this if a more benign edition of the virus could confer immunity against the ravages of a more malign version. There could also be bad news in this if different strains of the virus, and a constantly evolving virus, mean it is possible to get infected and suffer effects more than once, particularly if the subsequent infections could be as severe as the first or worse.  The difficulty of creating a vaccine for constantly evolving coronaviruses is one explanation for why there has never been a vaccine created to immunize people against the common cold.  On the other hand, one theory offered to explain the demise of the 1918 flu is that the flu defeated itself, by evolving itself out of existence by evolving less and less lethal strains that, in essence, served to vaccinate the population.  That 1918 flu theory supposes that healthier people were transmitting strains of the viris that were progressively less lethal.

    •    Could A “Contact Tracing” Approach Help Deal With Covid-19 Effectively?  “Contact tracing” with isolation has been described as an alternative to the “flattening the curve” approach.  “Contact tracing” actually tries to prevent and stamp out virus infections rather than just prolonging the period over which people get infections.  “Contact tracing” is resource intensive in terms of finding and eradicating the virus.  (Not that “social distancing” isn’t having a huge effect on how other resources are being redirected during this time.)  “Contact tracing” can work if a disease is just arriving in a population.  It works less well when a disease is highly communicable, particularly if that disease is highly communicable throughout a period when it is difficult to identify that people have it.  It is not likely to work when a disease has become endemic to a population, i.e. when it is already widely spread and found throughout a population.  It starts with testing.  That’s something we have been doing very little of, particularly in the beginning when “contact tracing” would have had better odds of being effective.  Then, for every case of a disease known and identified because of such testing, you have to identify and trace the contacts of the infected person.  Then they need to be tested as well.  Then you should be tracing the contacts of those people if they are infected as well.  If your tests are not giving you immediate results you may need to start tracing and further testing sooner, based on guesses.  All the infected people need to be isolated and quarantined when found.– Finding and tacking all the contacts spreading the disease can be very difficult if, as may be the worst case, people can have spread the Covid-19 virus for up to two weeks before getting sick themselves, there is more than a 50% chance, maybe 60-70% or more chance, of being asymptomatic or having symptoms mild enough people never know they have the virus, and they may be spreading the virus for weeks after having symptoms.– Maybe there are communities in some parts of the United States that have so far been sufficiently isolated and don’t yet have the virus so that “contact tracing” can prevent the disease from gaining a foothold, but for how long will those (rural?) communities have to remain isolated and reliant on “contact tracing” before a virus endemic in the rest of the country dies out and is no longer a threat?

    •     What Tests Are Available And How Reliable Are they?  “Contact tracing” depends on tests to know who has the virus and who has had the virus. Tests can also put a lot more in perspective, which can help us plan and make decisions.  Although there is very little testing going on, there are a number of different tests available and apparently others in development.  That makes it hard for the public to know what’s what.  To what extent are these tests reliable?  Do they provide false positives or false negatives, some more than others?  Probably everyone has heard by now the exceedingly odd fact that critical time was lost when the first tests shipped out by the United States government were completely unreliable. (Those tests were the ones shipped because our federal government rejected the test available through the World Health Organization.)  There are two kinds of tests: tests for who has the virus, and antibody tests that may be able to determine who has had the virus.  It’s necessary to accurately answer both questions for a lot of things like determining mortality rates or tracing.
   
    •    How Communicable Is Covid-19?  In the beginning I remember the instructions about the conscientious hand washing that was prescribed to prevent communication of covid-19.  Now everyone in New York City is wearing masks.  There are signs everywhere in NYC telling people to stay six-feet apart, some of those signs with visuals demonstrating what “six-feet” is.  Distances are taped off to show people how far apart to stand while waiting your turn to be one of a limited number of shoppers in a supermarket.  But these “be afraid and careful” messages are now being supplemented by new analysis and charts that suggest that the clouds of virus infected people can breath out may go eighteen feet, may go over and under partitions, maybe doorways.  We are told that heavy-breathing joggers may send their infected breath farther than others.  And we are told that the virus, liking flat surfaces, can sit waiting on metal or shiny plastic for days.  So it seems that a jogger or a bicyclists speeding down a New York City street can exhale and spew virus on blockworths of car doors and car door handles that could remain infectious for days?  Mothers are all wearing masks as they accompany their children on trips into the breeze and sunshine, but children and babies in New York City almost never wear masks.  There are practically no instances of children or babies getting sick from the virus themselves so they don’t need the protection of masks for themselves, but they do get and transmit the virus.  Are they spreading the virus?  Not wearing masks, we can think of them as little virus spreaders?. . . Recently, someone thought to test household cats for the virus.  This was after tigers in a New York City zoo got the virus.  Yes, cats get the virus, presumably from their owners and presumably the infection can go the other way too.  What about all the dogs being walked on NYC streets that don’t wear masks?  However communicable covid-19 actually is, are we doing what would assuredly prevent it from spreading, or are we only diminishing the odds to slow up and space out incidences of transmission to “flatten the curve”?  When I go to the supermarket these days, aren't I touching items that others have touched or breathed on?  When I pay at the the supermarket or the pharmacy these days in NYC, the store worker I am dealing with is behind a shiny new plexiglass partition, but then I am asked to sign for my purchase using the same stylus as everyone who came before me used and the same payment screen and buttons they used.  That’s at the pharmacy where people go to pick up their medicines if they aren't feeling well. That’s if I use my credit card.  If I use physical cash to pay (I understand virus connected efforts are afoot want to replace cash with digital currency) I will receive physical change for my currency that has been touched by other people who came to the pharmacy, and others before that.
                       
    •    Will There Be A Vaccine In The Near Future?  We don’t know whether there will a vaccine anytime soon.  The long-term failure to come up with a cure for the common cold, covid’s cousin, doesn’t auger well.  On the other hand, there have been some hints that a vaccine might be coming, hints even that some companies have gotten a head start. There is also the question of how long a vaccine might work well if the virus keeps evolving.  Aside from a vaccine which could prevent infection, there are other very similar questions about whether we will discover and exchange information about other drugs, treatments and approaches that enable us to deal more effectively with people who get infected.

    •    Will There Be Additional Rounds To Go Through With Covid-19 In Future Seasons?  Some months from now will we, in the United States find ourselves on the subsiding side of a flattened covid-19 infection bell curve only to discover that we are facing a new wave of covid-19?  The 1918 flu came through the United States population in two waves and there are already some predictions that something like this will happen with covid, including that a new wave of covid could coincide with the cold weather that ushers in a new regular flu season with a much more crippling combined effect.  One explanation for a covid’s return in a new wave of infections is a theory that the virus might mutate sufficiently by that time to override any previously acquired immunities. If there can be a second wave of covid there is the possibility that there could be more waves after that, a third, fourth, etc.  People have therefore asked what should be expected in terms of new normals for how we deal with our health, our economy, our entire culture.
As I said, I am eschewing my usual practice of carefully providing links as I write about the above because there is so much contradictory information about what isn’t yet known.  You can Google these things yourself.  With things changing every day, you may get better, more up-to-date information, than if I provided particular links.

I have focused on the big picture unknowns in terms of trying to figure out what we need to deal with, background for deciding what may be a rational response.  I am not getting into different ideas of where the covid-19 virus first emerged or where it came from.  Nor am I getting into the most political aspects of responding to the situation, like the new “stimulus” bills or such things as the ridiculous proposals to further subsidize the health insurance industry at this time.

The fact that I am enumerating so many things here as official unknowns to which we are all subject, hasn’t prevented me from trying to get my personal bearings about where I think we may stand where I live.  I live in New York City.  Because of fatalities and infections here, New York City has been described as the center of the crisis in the United States.

Starting almost a week ago, I ran some numbers several different ways. I am not going to share my calculations, because with all the unknowns factoring in, even a small difference in filling in some of the unknown numbers different ways could swing the calculation results very much one way or another.

Based on what I looked at, I would say that it would not be an unreasonable guess that somewhere nearing one out of every four New Yorkers currently in the city, or at least one in five, either has or has already had the covid-19 virus.  That's what I have been telling people since last Saturday and Sunday. That guess is not out of sync with my knowing a lot of people who think they likely had the virus.  It is not wildly out of sync with hearing that recently 20% of the city police force was out sick, seven times the normal rate, while remembering that more people may likely be asymptomatic than not.  It is not wildly out of sync with a report that, recently, pregnant women in the city were testing positive for the virus at almost a 15% rate (and I don’t think that study was combined with an antibody test).  Thus I am looking at my fellow city residents seeing the virus essentially everywhere.  I suspect that I am one of the one who has already had it– As advertised, this is an article about how much is not known.

While there may be a leveling off of new rates of infection in New York City, I am guessing that, for a time, new infections will continue here without declining rapidly.  I am afraid, but guessing that we may ultimately have about three times the number of covid deaths in the city that we have already had.

I have tried to catalogue, as best I can, the panoply of covid-19 unknowns that plague us.  There are far too many.  I hope that if there are others ahead of us in filling in these blanks we will be informed promptly.  It would only be fair to do so.

In dealing with all these unknowns, I am reminded that the best, scariest monster movies are the movies that never show the monster– Or at least they are the ones that wait as long as possible to do so– Those films, instead, rely on hinting at the monster’s parts moving in the shadows; they show you the scared people screaming in terror in reaction. . . Maybe, like the original Jaws, they, from time to time, suggestively reveal a few chomped on body parts.  I feel a little like that now.

We are living with some other unknowns now too.  When we as New Yorkers walk down the street with our masks on, we can’t see whether our neighbors are smiling.  Will we forget what it is like to smile at somebody in the street or to smile at someone serving us at the store and get a smile back?

Living a virtual life via internet connections is not the same thing.  What’s more, our substitute existences through the internet are subject to data scraping and surveillance.  I reflected and wrote more about that, March 28th here: Reflections On What It Means To Be Retreating More Into Virtual Existence In Fear Of A Virus.