THE DEMS, COVID AND SCIENCE

Humanity is now in its third year of battling the SARS-CoV-2 virus (aka Covid). We have become frightened, pained, upset and wounded, as well as wearied and drained. Even Democratic Governors –  from California to Connecticut – have been announcing relaxed rules for dealing with Covid during the past three (3) weeks.

Today the CDC finally issued new, eased and science-based Covid guidelines, following the relaxation already begun at the State level. The CDC guidelines focus on preventing hospitals and health care facilities from being overwhelmed, rather than prior guidelines that emphasized eliminating the transmission of Covid among people. I doubt the CDC would have issued their new guidelines now without being forced by the governors’ prior decisions.

Can we breathe an un-masked sigh of relief? Hope springs eternal. Such hope may now be especially appropriate since Spring will formally appear in less than a month. But what about the BA.2 variant that’s now entering our viral stage?

Throughout this ever-shifting pandemic, Dems have consistently proclaimed their allegiance to “following science” as the only valid way of overcoming this virus. It’s seriously doubtful we will ever overcome Covid. But thanks to vaccines and other health care improvements, we may be able to live with it endemically, as I mentioned in a previous blog .

The Dems’ following science mantra is necessary for Covid policies’ groundwork, but the mantra may not be sufficient as a policy justification. The vaunted Scientific Method, which western science has used for over 400 years, has promoted significant, broad-based societal benefits. Despite this impressive chronicle, many Repubs seemingly beg to differ about using science. That’s farcical.

In contrast, by emphasizing their policies follow science, the Dems seem to believe they can circumvent stating other relevant justifications. That is mistaken. Two issues test this mantra’s policy efficacy. First, certifiable medical science can take considerable time to become digested from its beginnings in academic or private labs into medicines and practices, and finally public policies. Second, science rarely proscribes only one solution. There’s often more than one scientific way to achieve an objective. Each way invariably requires trade-offs to be considered and resolved. Numerous scientific results are controversial at first. In a sense, such trade-offs and resolution are at the heart of the Scientific Method.

A brightly shining star in Covid’s firmament has been the impressively quick commercial development of the vaccines. The first person in the US was inoculated with a Covid vaccine on December 14, 2020. The mRNA vaccines’ production took just a gold medal sprint worthy 11 months to be produced, authorized and shot into arms.

But that swift production of mRNA Covid vaccines required a foundation of basic, scientific research and knowledge that began long ago in the early 1960s. One of the pioneering scientists whose interest in mRNA vaccines began in the 1970s is Katalin Karikó, who is now Senior Vice President of BioNTech. BioNTech, together with Pfizer, has provided 324 million Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA Covid vaccine doses in the US.

The Dems have inappropriately hoisted “following science” as a needed policy pinata, shown below, that will ensure the production of unambiguous, universal guidance for how we should deal with this pandemic. If an FDA or CDC policy is science-based, as these agencies’ policy-makers and the president routinely state, it must be right. If only.

 

The Dems' Covid Pinata 

Numerous groups, disagreeing with such guidance for assorted reasons, have persistently attempted to sling sharp pokes into the Dems’ follow science pinata. They have yet to be showered with treats, but they keep on trying.

Historically, empirically-based scientific inquiry has produced many valued changes that have fundamentally altered and improved how we see ourselves, our world and beyond. An apocryphal apple falling on Newton’s head is but one example.

Scientific inquiry is never static. Scientific knowledge regularly evolves as more data are gathered and new theories are postulated to describe them. Scientific findings on many topics of public interest cannot be carved into a Mt. Rushmore for all time. Here are two examples from the past.

The heliocentric model of the heavens.  Talk about fundamental changes. When Copernicus first suggested that the universe did not revolve around our Earth it was a big deal for those in the know – meaning the Catholic Church. Geocentrism – where the Earth is placed at the center of the heavens – had been accepted wisdom from on high for eons. In 1543 Copernicus first proposed an alternative sun-centered (heliocentric) model of the heavens. Astronomers and others will celebrate his 550th birthday next year.

In 1609, Galileo defended Copernican heliocentrism based on his own, original astronomical observations. For that he incurred the Catholic Church’s unrelenting rath. During the Roman Inquisition in 1615 Galileo was found to be a nasty heliocentric heretic and placed under house arrest until he died nearly 50 years later. Yet the cloistered Church could not stop the heliocentric sun from shining in.

The theory of evolution.  Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace offered their ground-breaking research about evolutionary natural selection in 1858 at London’s Linnean Society. The next year, Darwin published On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection that was hugely controversial and consequential. Quixotically, it still remains provocative for a few people mostly on theological grounds. After the late-19th century, natural selection has become a foundational cornerstone of modern biology. But folks still petition school boards to stop teaching evolution to their children, not just CRT.

There is no unique, unambiguous prescriptive policy to cure our Covid dilemmas. Policies must change as Covid-reality varies. Science-based policy options involve shortcomings as well as benefits. These trade-offs need to be recognized and discussed. Invariable remedies do not spring forth because they have been wrapped within a mantle of science. Pronouncing policies as “following science” does not obviate the need to acknowledge their trade-offs.

Discussing these trade-offs is key. That’s not something that Dems or policy-makers at the FDA and CDC have seemed comfortable doing in prior stages of the pandemic. The Dems would be wise to cease characterizing their policy remedies as loftier simply because they’re following science and take a more holistic, inclusive approach.

 

 

JUST LIVING WITH COVID

Everybody’s headed for a hole in the ground. ~ Warren Zevon & Duncan Aldrich 

It’s been 25 months and more than 5.5 million global deaths since the insidious Covid-19 pandemic began. The World Health Organization (WHO) properly declared a public health emergency of international concern a month after this virus was first discovered in Wuhan China. How long will the Covid-emergency last? How long should it last? When can we just live with Covid?

Coronaviruses began infecting humans in 1965. They caused the SARS and MERS outbreaks in 2002 and 2012, respectively.

Virologists believe Covid will be with us for a very long time, just like the H1N1 virus that jumped to humans producing the 1918 Spanish Flu, which killed 675,000 Americans. The H1N1 virus is still with us; it’s now one of the strains in the seasonal flu virus.

Despite politicians’ and policy-makers’ fervent proclamations that Covid will be “conquered” and “vanquished,” it won’t be. Why? Because it’s a virus, it mutates constantly, forever. It won’t surrender even to our fully-modern medical technology. Like every other infectious disease-producing virus, it’s here for ages. The single exception to this eventuality was the smallpox virus that was eradicated world-wide in 1979, nearly 200 years after a vaccine was first produced, and after killing an estimated 900 million humans during its reign.

As we enter the third year of this pandemic, the question has been raised: how we can learn to live with Covid on an ongoing basis. Other questions include determining what continuing, non-emergency policies will sustain our ability to live, play and work alongside the presence of Covid, like we have done with the flu virus and many others.

Several prominent former members of President Biden’s Covid-19 Advisory Board have recommended creating “New Normal,” non-emergency health policies that will allow us to survive more safely with Covid. Their recommendations essentially involve strengthening the role of US public health agencies by improving and sustaining public health infrastructure. Such strengthening would involve significant, continuing federal and state funding, which, perhaps wisely, they did not enumerate.

The mystery isn’t only about what our Covid policies should become, after suffering so much in this enduring pandemic. There are others as well.

Because they don’t leave any fossils, it remains mysterious as to what viruses really are and have been. Many scientists believe proto-viruses began replicating on Earth several billion years ago. They have a giant head start; the earliest modern homo sapiens have been doing this for perhaps 300,000 years.

These virologists subscribe to the virus-first premise: Long, long ago, viruses evolved from molecules of protein and nucleic acid, before cells first appeared on Earth. Thus ironically, viruses themselves contributed to the development of cellular life.

The first human virus was scientifically identified in 1881, the yellow fever virus. During the past century scientists have changed their minds several times about what viruses are. They were first seen as poisons (the word “virus” is derived from the Latin term for poison, venenum), then as an elementary life-form and finally as biological chemicals.

Virus devaluation to inactive chemicals began 86 years ago, when biochemists determined that viruses are not alive. On their own they cannot produce life-required metabolic functions, such as conversion of food/fuel into energy to run cellular processes.

Viruses’ hosts provide these necessary functions, not the virus itself. Unfortunately, viruses can and have infected virtually every earthly life-form, from humans and insects to tobacco plants and bacteria. Some virologists believe viruses may occupy an enigmatic grey area between living and nonliving. Perhaps similar to what certain Dems believe Trumpists are.

They may not be alive, but the microscopic Covid viruses have affected hundreds of millions of people during the past two years, and will continue to do so all the way to its omega variant (which is 9 variants after omicron, if you never had to memorize the Greek alphabet like I did long ago) and beyond. This virus’s persistence – which, politicians, policy-makers and the rest of us should have previously acknowledged – has precipitated growing relevance for changing short-term, emergency policies to ones that support our need learn how to “live with it” (the Covid virus) over the longer-term.

It can’t be an emergency forever, as an infectious disease expert aptly phrased our current policies.

How can policies be changed from considering Covid not as an emergency, but as an ongoing epidemic? Increasing Covid vaccination rates is the most important objective for living with it. Shown below is one of a growing number of pop-up vaccination clinics.  Regrettably, it’s also the most problematic, given the political caste and personal reluctance that now surrounds vaccination. Next in line is widespread use of masks. The fragile nature of some healthcare systems also poses problems.  

A pop-up vaccination clinic in action.

Achieving this objective will be challenging and increasingly expensive. The “easy arms” have already been injected. At the moment, the US has a fully-vaccinated rate of 63%, much below what epidemiologists used to, but no longer talk about in terms of Covid’s Herd Immunity rate might be.

Medical personal directly involved with immunization describe the current process of getting reluctant folks to be inoculated as “a very grinding, slow process” that’s akin to “medical trench warfare.”

This is especially true after the Supreme Court’s misguided decision last week to block government-mandated shots by companies with more than 100 workers, who employ 67% of our labor force. The Supremes can no longer be relied on to support public health, among other issues. Itself a tragedy within a tragedy.

Interim policies that have been recently initiated should increase availability of take-home Covid tests and oral anti-Covid medicines. Other “living with it” policies once hospitalizations stabilize and decline may ultimately include modifying restrictions on: mask usage, isolation periods, travel, public and private meetings, social distancing, K-12 and college closings, restaurants, quarantines and business hours/operations.

To be successful in reducing Covid’s substantial negative externalities, such guidelines require everyone to comply. Those who willingly damage public health by non-compliance of vaccination and eased, non-emergency Covid-mitigation policies should result in added limitations-consequences for those people. Such compliance consequences would be completely consistent with existing, mandated inoculations in order for children to attend day care, pre-K and K-12 schools.

“Living with it” policies will require “get with it” public compliance. Here’s to a brighter, healthier future. 

COBOL AND COVID

My pitching philosophy is simple: keep the ball away from the bat. ~ Satchel Paige 

Infrastructure. You’ve heard this word so many times it no longer perks up your or anyone’s attention. When I think of infrastructure, I imagine roadways, airports and bridges. Merriam-Webster’s rather non-descript definition of infrastructure is: “the system of public works of a country, state or region.”

Infrastructure isn’t exciting or stimulating. That’s basically why there are far more politicians who love to promise they’re going to amp up infrastructure spending than actually put dollars to work improving it. Infrastructure’s considerable value stems from enabling many appreciated economic and social activities to happen. Like Little Red Riding Hood driving her EV on her town’s freshly-paved streets to visit gramma’s house (and avoid the big bad wolf), or using her town’s public water system to clean her fine, red hoodie in her water-efficient washer.

Last fall, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that combined federal, state and local spending in 2017 on infrastructure was $441 billion, roughly 2.3% of GDP. This estimate represents the lowest level in more than 60 years. Infrastructure spending peaked at about 3% in the late 1950s, when the Interstate highway system was being constructed.

The Interstate System is perhaps the best-known Federal infrastructure program. Its 47,000 miles cost about $129 billion, making it the nation’s largest-ever public works program. Every state has an interstate highway. The first segment of an Interstate highway was begun in 1956 in the Show-Me state of Missouri. The state with the most Interstate miles is Texas (3,501.2mi.); the one with least is Delaware (40.6mi.).[1]  

Roadways are an example of traditional infrastructure that’s easily seen and used by the public. The Coronavirus pandemic has exposed a series of failings in our public infrastructure that is more hidden but nonetheless has created calamities for lots of us. I’ll talk here about two types of fading public works.

First, Covid testing. The CDC’s initial requirement of only using state and local government testing laboratories to diagnose Covid-19 in individuals produced tragic consequences. Despite #45’s completely spurious claims, neither the CDC or these public labs have accomplished their clearly-understood objective of providing sufficient, reliable and timely testing.

Six months into the coronavirus’ incessant attack, the US has yet to adequately deliver enough dependable testing in a timely fashion. In August the US ranks 12th of the 91 nations listed in terms of total per capita coronavirus testing – 173.8 tests/1000 people. Luxembourg is first with a testing rate that’s four (4)-times higher than the US. The media regularly reports people having to wait so long for their results that the findings are medically meaningless. Like all too many others, one San Francisco person finally received his test results 16 days after taking it.

Another veiled, unseen form of vital public infrastructure that’s stumbled in its efforts to surmount substantial viral challenges is the government’s digital infrastructure, its computer systems and personnel. These computer systems enable the panoply of federal/state/local government program payments to be received by intended recipients – like Social Security, SNAP/food stamps, Medicaid/Medicare, tax refunds and, of recent note, unemployment insurance benefits (UI). The pandemic has strained federal, state and local governments’ assistance programs beyond anything imaginable over the last 80 years.

Our public digital infrastructure has floundered because many public agencies haven’t prioritized or been allowed to update their systems for decades. They’re typically legacy mainframe systems, with a very capital “L”.

As of July 25, over 54.1 million American workers, representing more than one in three workers in our labor force, have filed for UI. That’s more than 37 times higher than normally expected, pre-virus. The national unemployment rate peaked in April at 14.7%, the highest since the Great Depression. Our real (inflation-adjusted) GDP fell 9.5% during the last quarter. Over 100,000 small businesses have likely closed for good. Well-known retail businesses have also declared bankruptcy like Lord & Taylor, Sur La Table, Brooks Brothers, Hertz, JCPenney and Chuck E. Cheese.

In response to this medical, economic, social and wholly-human catastrophe the Congress passed its first Covid pandemic support legislation on March 27, the $2.2 trillion CARES Act. Among countries, the US is not known for its generosity to the unemployed. However, the CARES Act provided significant fiscal support for workers, firms and many others harmed by the coronavirus, including a $600 per week supplement to the unemployed. This multi-faceted support totaled 13.2% of the nation’s GDP, placing the US program third largest in the OECD, a group of advanced nations, behind Japan and Canada. In this age of “do-nothing” government, the CARES Act embodies an impressive, timely accomplishment.

But nothing lasts forever including this Act, by design. Alas, the Dems and Repubs have wasted time pointing fingers of blame rather than agreeing what the scope and form of a successor Covid support program should be.

The House Dems easily passed their $3 trillion follow-on package, called the HEROS Act, on May 15. Meanwhile the Senate Repubs are tardily drafting their follow-on package, entitled the HEALS Act, that could provide $1 trillion of benefits. [Don’t you just love how every piece of legislation needs an acronymically-suitable title.] The winner of the HEROS v. HEALS political prizefight has yet to be determined.

No matter how the new legislation finally gets squeezed through the Congress’ political meatgrinder, it will likely be very challenging to implement by state agencies that administer unemployment benefits. Why? Because the vast majority of state unemployment insurance agencies use ancient computer systems.

The age of state benefits agencies’ computer systems ranged between 22 and 42 years old, according to a survey that was performed over 10 years ago. These mostly mainframe hardware systems are digital dinosaurs that use obsolete programming languages like COBOL. The first COBOL program ran in August 1960, that’s 60 years ago folks, on an RCA 501 mainframe computer.[2] Because of their nearly-geologic age, state unemployment insurance agencies’ computers are costly to run, fragile, inflexible and error-prone. Their operation requires continued attention by knowledgeable personnel. It’s no surprise that very few computer jockeys know (or want to know) anything about such archaic systems – most have retired long ago. Hiring knowledgeable staff for such computer systems is a nightmare. Doc Brown’s DeLorean might be a useful staffing tool.

During the 2007-09 recession, when these agencies were last obligated to produce rapidly rising numbers of benefits payments, their legacy computer systems regularly failed. No real system changes were needed, only larger than usual volumes. Many shut down for days after the systems attempted to handle the elevated claim levels.

This Spring, the CARES Act implementation required substantial amounts of angst-inducing time and effort by state UI systems’ operators to redesign their systems to add the uniform $600/week federally-funded supplementary payment to qualified recipients. The federal Treasury Department had similar, time-consuming technical difficulties in providing millions of citizens with their $1,200 payment checks. Many of these challenges centered on the agencies’ obdurate computer systems.

Notwithstanding their possible merit, if the provisions of the Senate’s proposed HEALS Act go into effect, such challenges would multiply. States would need to provide supplementary UI money that would equal 70% of an employee’s lost weekly wages (but not exceed $500/week), when added to existing state benefits. This represents a major change from the CARES Act $600/week supplementary payment.

As such, this HEALS Act stipulation would give many states’ UI systems yet another coronary. To make this seemingly straightforward 70% calculation would require rapid introduction of new revisions to legacy software together with likely linkages to additional databases. What could go wrong when changing lumbering, inflexible, archaic hardware/software systems? How long would it take? Don’t ask and don’t hold your breath.

Perhaps these recognized obstacles are the reason the Senate’s HEALS Act surprisingly provides $2 billion to help states “upgrade” their ancient UI systems. Surprising because the vast majority of Repubs are loath to provide any funding that assists state and local governments.

I would be amazed if the final House-Senate compromise legislation includes any payments that depend on such semi-sophisticated computations. The regrettable state of public digital infrastructure will limit Congressional negotiators to arguing about levels of dollars per week, not percentages of lost wages. It’s another case of public law and action being effectively constrained by woebegone infrastructure.

In this confrontation between COBOL and Covid, keeping it simple – following Occam’s razor – is the only expedient maxim. 

August 11, 2020 postscript. Another COBOL & Covid interaction. The CA state health director abruptly resigned on August 10 amid CA’s rising case/death rate and a big snafu with Covid-related health data. Why the problems? From the story: The governor on Monday vowed to quickly overhaul what he described as the state’s outdated information technology systems, which he blamed for not just the testing data snafu, but also for a staggering backlog of unemployment claims .

 

---

[1] Until the District of Columbia convinces Congress it should become a state, it’s just a district with 12.3mi. of Interstate. You shouldn’t hold your breath for DC’s latest statehood effort to be successful.

[2] At that time, my father served as the senior RCA executive in charge of its computer systems business.