January 6th 2021: A day that will live in infamy.

 

    The events of the last 24 hours have been both horrible and encouraging. The pathetic insurrection attempt by Trump followers to disrupt the certification of the election by congress was expected. The only explanation for the lack of strong police presence was that the president interfered with protecting the congress. Our country has been shamed by a deranged self obsessed person who sees only his needs in any transaction.  The fools who performed this insurrection will face consequences and he will abandon them as he has anyone he no longer needs. This was a planned action that probably dates to the time that the Attorney General Barr resigned (or before).  Video circulating of him with family and friends happy and excited to observe the looming chaos reveal the utter shallow and empty quality of the person and his family.

    The persisting failure of joint congressional leadership to counter his disruption has been discouraging but there were hopeful signs yesterday in the joining together to complete the process of certification, in the face of a mob trying to block it. The American Democracy has survived, barely, and needs major repairs, not just on the damage to the capitol building, which is symbolic. Some in the congress now realize the dangers the country faces, and will withdraw their support from his lies and incompetence. They will need to move forward to redefine their party.

    A remaining group of congressmen (and women)continue to support the lies and unreality of the Trump position in hopes of capturing his remaining supporters for their own political advantage. Trump's supporters deserve a voice in the country that does not exploit them and addresses their real needs, not their fantasies. None of the individuals who spoke to oppose the certification have any other interest but their own political future, and will betray these people again. 

    History will tell if this day was the harbinger of a period of repression and dictatorship in a former democracy which became a "banana republic", or whether there are enough individuals who value the opportunities inherent in democracy to protect and preserve it.  I hope to be one of the latter.

CHALLENGES FACING THE NEW ADMINISTRATION

Washington is totally broken.  Trump et al must be replaced and something done to repair the government.  Some of this will only come through voting in new members of congress.  And this can only happen effectively if the CITIZENS UNITED decision of the Supreme Court is overturned by new legislation and challenges.  The control of the political process by the wealthy is enabled by the Citizens United decision. (This was a case brought by xxx about financing a movie!)

COVID  The pandemic sweeping the country must be accomplished by a unified national plan integrated by each state including protective isolation practices,  and effective vaccine distribution.  The fantasy that vaccines alone will quickly end the pandemic must be dispelled or it will encourage risky behavior and only extend the problem. 

 ECONOMY The apparent illusion that we had an effective economy was destroyed by the covid pandemic.  It is worth taking a moment to understand this.  The major impact of covid is on close contact business:  travel, crowd events and theme parks, restaurants, in person malls and shopping,  etc.  Over half the work force was thrown into unemployment and has recovered only about 2/3rds.  Is this the basis of a long term valid economy?  We have become a country which spends its money on disposable consumer items,  streaming media,  and low caloric value foods.  The streaming world "saved" our entertainment,  but isolates us into fantasy worlds.  It is time to review the basis of the economy and make decisions that support new directions in employment and education.  Fighting China is a total waste of time.  Their giant labor pool encourages them to commit to manufacturing of consumer disposables and attempt to steal high tech knowledge.  We should focus on expanding and protecting our own skills and let them emphasize what the US has "off shored".  The tariff war was a good example of the stupidity of the current administration.

The reality is that the country is controlled by businesses that care nothing about the government or its integrity,  but only about their profits and the people and country will go down as a result.  They will blame it on Trump,  but Rome was overcome by the corruption within,  and could no longer defend itself.  This is how arrogant powerful countries always fail.

SECURITY  The fundamental assumption of US security has been based since the 1950s on nuclear power.  Attempts to limit new members to the "nuclear weapons club" have already failed and will continue to fail.  The only solution for nuclear weapons is a world wide monitored treaty for managing their production and control. The breaches of internet performed by Russia represent the new world threat emerging.  Interactive control and damage to essential infrastructure including military operations like drones are the new weapons and warfare.  And they impact noncombatants much more than traditional warfare.  The mentality of the US DOD and congress have not progressed to this understanding to the extent that some of our enemies have.  Countries with limited nuclear weapons will find other weapons faster.  US must be dealt with the whole internet security issue ASAP.

DISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH  The overall focus of the economy must change, but it must also address the mal-distribution of wealth.  The richest country in the world throws away the most food,  has the most unoccupied housing,  and the highest level of poverty and homelessness per capita.  This is crazy and builds a community of the "discarded" that can only lead to political instability.  How stupid can leaders be not to see the dangers in this and continue to facilitate laws that favor inequality??? The economy is threatening a worsening spread and free fall and the markets are ignoring this but will soon feel the effects of the pandemic and unemployment.  States are out of money and will be unable to provide the basic services that they must provide.  Demanding that the FED compensate this can only be temporary and long term deficits catch up with every country.  The tax base will fall apart.  During the 1930s the availability of labor due to unemployment led to the CCC and much infrastructure development was accomplished at affordable levels including the Golden Gate Bridge and Hoover Dam.

INSTITUTIONAL RACISM  The history of the US, along with most other European and some Asian nations includes development using slave labor.  (It also included "indentured servant labor" different in preserving personal identity).  The Civil War was fought partly to address resolving the use of slaves,  and ended with an apparent resolution of slavery that was quickly undermined in Reconstruction.  Waves of new immigrants in the 1800s and 1900s came to claim their place in the society, while the African American role remained unresolved. The 1960s appeared to be a new development in Black political presence with the voting rights act,  but it too has been undermined.  Electing a partly ethnic African president only served to highlight the conflict, and Black Lives Matter will continue to be a challenge for the country.

TWO PARTY SYSTEM The desire to find Red states and Blue states is a simplification that obscures other important issues.  Different regions have different regional objectives and needs and attempting to parse them to one party or the other is very difficult.  The US is a regionally differentiated multi-issue society trying to simplify the problems into a two party system rather than a parliamentary multi-issue party system.  The solution has been to have each party pick the regions and issues it wishes to support,  which is no solution at all.  A new approach to political organization is needed.  The recent election in GA shows that a simple RED/BLUE definition is not correct and a new political calculus must be developed.

POTUS continuing to contest and manipulate about the election.  The events of the last 24 hours have been both horrible and encouraging. The pathetic insurrection attempt by Trump followers to disrupt the certification of the election by congress was expected. The only explanation for the lack of strong police presence was that the president interfered with protecting the congress. Our country has been shamed by a deranged self obsessed person who sees only his needs in any transaction. The fools who performed this insurrection will face consequences and he will abandon them as he has anyone he no longer needs. This was a planned action that probably dates to the time that the Attorney General Barr resigned (or before).
The persisting failure of joint congressional leadership to counter his disruption has been discouraging but there were hopeful signs yesterday in the joining together to complete the process of certification, in the face of a mob trying to block it. The American Democracy has survived, barely, and needs major repairs, not just on the damage to the capitol building, which is symbolic. Some in the congress now realize the dangers the country faces, and will withdraw their support from his lies and incompetence. They will need to move forward to redefine their party.
A remaining group of congressmen (and women)continue to support the lies and unreality of the Trump position in hopes of capturing his remaining supporters for their own political advantage. Trump's supporters deserve a voice in the country that does not exploit them and addresses their real needs, not their fantasies. None of the individuals who spoke to oppose the certification have any other interest but their own political future, and will betray these people again. 

 The magnitude of all these problems is astounding.  The country and our leaders have let problems build up for decades in administrations of both parties.  These cannot be solved in a year or even one administrative term.  But there must be a start to addressing them.  Americans are good at problem solving when they work together and good at starting wars when they don't.

THE UNITED STATES IS A FAILED COUNTRY

This article in current Atlantic Monthly captures half the story:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/01/what-trump-and-his-mob-taught-world-about-america/617579/

More important is what it taught America about itself. We have been lying to ourselves. If Americans want our country to be the fantasy we pretend that it is, we have a lot of work to do. For decades we have not lived the image projected by leaders and media. Now is the time for a reckoning and revision, or accepting that we have failed to realize the ideal "a country where all men are created equal" and that government "of the people, by the people, and for the people" HAS departed..

The mob that stormed congress was fomented by deranged leaders, and media promotion of conspiracy fantasies, but they were living in a country that has failed them and many others: 

This is a country in which income inequality has increased dramatically over the past decade to the point that there is little middle class left and expanding poverty and homelessness,  while a tiny fraction of the population gets enormously wealthy.  The true definition of a "banana republic".

Electing a partly ethnic African president activated the outpouring of persisting personal and institutional racism, and then the next president utilized this segment of society as a political stepping stone.  Black Lives Matter  issues were on full display when white domestic terrorists invaded the capitol and no significant police resistance was mounted.

In the previous election, citizens chose a reality TV fantasy president who voiced their anger and rage but is personally and intellectually incapable of leadership, exploits everyone for his personal gain and is unable to  acknowledge his own mistakes and failures, including the recent election.  

There is a long history of "pay to play government" at all levels in America, while leaders pretend it does not occur here and demean other "3rd world countries" for their graft and corruption.  America has been the go-to place for laundering money for decades with its "shell corporations" which have just recently been forced to reveal owners in a defense bill that Trump vetoed, and which WAS overridden.

The country is so dysfunctional that it was unable to manage a life threatening epidemic because so many don't want to give up their fun/freedom and because of its impact on the economy.  Leadership at many levels could not find a reasonable balance between saving lives and protecting economic security of the people.  And

Washington has become a "forbidden city".  A region where every sort of special interest goes to cash in on the government, i.e. taxpayers money, as facilitated by modern mandarins called "beltway bandits".  The excessive political role of the oil industry in political affairs has resulted in engaging America in two recent wars in the middle east with major destruction to the social, material and physical stability of the region,  with no significant benefit to our country.  This is the parallel of the wars Rome pursued which eventually led to its decline.

This is not a sudden change.  It is not clear when the government went off the rails, but the assassination of Kennedy was a beginning leading into the chaos of the country's response to the Vietnam war.  Nixon's efforts failed to stem the tide.  Carter was a saint, and saints have no role in politics.  The Reagan era brought an increased role of business interests, and the delusions of Republicans that this was the "golden age" because the Soviet Union was failing under its lack of leadership and the credit attributed to Reagan.  The Clinton presidency saw a bipartisan acceptance of "pay to play"   and increasing disregard for the middle class, despite the booming economy.  This is not a Republican Democrat issue, the Clinton's blurred that line.  It is about rich/poor and who is heard in the country.

The United States is a large geographical region with many subregions of special interests.  It would be difficult under any circumstances to govern and manage all the different interests.  This challenge encourages bureaucracy and Washington,  like China, Russia, and other very large governments, have enormous bureaucracies which ineffectively attempt to manage the people and interest groups.  Bureaucracy favors paranoid distrust and the emergence of social media has created a channel of communication for fanning this paranoid distrust. Social media did not create the paranoia, but it serves as a conduit for transmitting it rapidly.  Social media COULD be used to make government more transparent and bring citizens into more knowledge about the conflicts and negotiations being performed.  The major news media are now useless in this regard.  The major TV and paper news media are owned by large private corporations with strong interest in slanting the reporting and cannot perform the functions of the "third estate" reliably.

Fixing attitudes toward science in time of COVID

What is "science"? According to Wikipedia:  "a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge about the universe by virtue of testable explanations and predictions...Science is based on research, which is commonly conducted in academic and research institutions as well as in government agencies and companies."  This simple statement includes both the history of its development,  and the current range of procedures.  

The historical summary in Wikipedia includes: "Isaac Newton and Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz succeeded in developing a new physics, now referred to as classical mechanics, which could be confirmed by experiment and explained using mathematics (Newton (1687), Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica). Leibniz also incorporated terms from Aristotelian physics, but now being used in a new non-teleological way, for example, "energy" and "potential" (modern versions of Aristotelian "energeia and potentia"). ...Where Aristotle had noted that objects have certain innate goals that can be actualized, objects were now regarded as devoid of innate goals... Leibniz assumed that different types of things all work according to the same general laws of nature," These historical observations capture two features of current practice:  the use of specific terms for objects, and mathematics as a descriptive language to describe rules.  During this time the pursuit shifted from exploration of natural events to practical applications.  Much of thermodynamics comes from observations boring cannon barrels. WIKI: "In Bacon's words, "the real and legitimate goal of sciences is the endowment of human life with new inventions and riches", and he discouraged scientists from pursuing intangible philosophical or spiritual ideas, which he believed contributed little to human happiness..."
     These are the two aspects of science: the methods of doing it, and its applications to the everyday world. The "scientific method" WIKI: "involves formulating hypotheses, via induction, based on such observations; experimental and measurement-based testing of deductions drawn from the hypotheses; and refinement (or elimination) of the hypotheses based on the experimental findings."   This is vague and general because the procedures of inquiry vary from one field to another,  but do usually start with a question which leads to an "hypothesis" or proposal from observations of the world.   "Why does so and so....?"  It must lead to answering the question by specific, repeatable observations.  Scientists test hypotheses by conducting experiments or studies.  And the outcome answers the question posed.  

There is a general agreement that science method is 1)a statement about the natural or material world 2)evaluated by a procedure requiring observation of an event(s) related to the statement. Some examples may help:
In astronomy, this may be a prediction of the occurrence of an event, the location of Jupiter from a vantage point in October, related to statements about the motion of objects in the solar system of objects in view, which can only be observed at infrequent intervals.  In astronomy, the events are observed but not controlled.  By contrast, physics can usually create an experimental controlled procedure for repeating the event described in the statement to make observations to compare with the predictions.  A simple example might be observing an object rolling on a surface and discovering the effect of friction.  A complex example might be the  acceleration of particles in a cyclotron which strike a target and deflect in predicted ways, (or do not).  The complex apparatus of the cyclotron is engineered according to other physical procedures to produce defined effects (forces) on the particles. The ultra-nuclear particles can only be observed by indirect measuring techniques,  subject to their own experimental methods.  Many observations in early studies in chemistry resulted from combining substances and observing changes of color or state.  But modern chemistry depends on highly complex reaction models and the identification of complex molecules based on response to electromagnetic radiation.  In modern scientific inquiry, a complex chain of assumptions and observations underlies the outcome of the experiment, which are subject to variable influences.   Even more complex and indirect procedures are needed for studies in biology, and with each level of complexity,  the potential for error increases and measurements must include statistical techniques for separating the observations from random statistical noise introduced in the observation procedures.  The idea of testing a statement about the world by techniques of observation does not change,  but the techniques become increasingly complex, and the observations are the result of complex features of the experimental situation.  This is not a theoretical statement but a practical statement about how modern science is done.  If an effort is made to repeat the observation,  the precise system of observation is required for the replication,  and the replication may fail if the conditions are not met.  Individuals who have never actively participated in scientific research beyond the controlled "labs" of high school or college courses do not appreciated this complexity, and assume that whatever is “discovered” by science is agreed upon by all scientists immediately or soon after,  and disagreements only occur when someone is “wrong”. 
      The observations discovered in “science” are applied in the applications of  engineering:  the breakdown of crude oil into petroleum products in refineries,  the effect of air flowing over curved surfaces to lift airplanes into the air, the creation and testing of pharmaceutical chemicals, etc.   In engineering applications,  allowances are usually made for a margin of safety, i.e. lift has added capacity for the  unexpected dangers in flight.   Crashing airplanes illustrate the reality that valid scientific principles can be applied in ways that are sometimes not reliably applied to achieve the predicted engineering outcomes.  This does not disprove the scientific principles but shows that they can be incorrectly applied, or that other factors intervene.
     The repeatability of observations in astronomy depends on the recurring events of various components in the solar system.  But many events of material objects on earth are not reliably repeatable.  An example are the algae tides that sometimes “bloom” on ocean shores.  They recur often enough to observe the correlation with other variables,  but not often enough to predict their next occurrence.  The repetition of the geyser “old faithful” has repeated on schedule for centuries,  but the timing of another geologic phenomenon,  the eruption of Hawaii volcanoes cannot be predicted with accuracy.  The inability to predict does not make science “fake”, but shows it's limitations.  When the observations cannot be made in a controlled laboratory setting,  determination of variables is more difficult; when events do not recur at regular intervals,  prediction of their causes is more difficult.
    An example is the assessment of global warming.   Observations of the rising temperature of the earth are confirmed by multiple sources,  and “global warming deniers” are generally persons who wish to deny the reality for personal economic reasons.  Evidence from tree and plant growth,  and geologic formations indicates that variations in the configuration and climate of the earth have varied over eons.  The current changes in global temperature do not validate hypotheses about what variables contribute to these changes.  Theories about the role of loss of the ozone layer,  and green house gases trapping heat provide possible explanations, but because global warming is not been a recurring event, and because the vast increase in green house gases is not known to have occurred on earth in the past, these cannot be validated with assurance.  Experiments have been designed which support the possible effects of these variables, but do not quantify their role over the earth.  It is stupid to deny the evidence of global warming, but defensible to claim the evidence for green house gas effects may not be the entire basis of the events.  May countries' scientists have concluded that this is likely to be a major cause  and so there is strong advocacy for reducing the production of these substances.        But this raises two problems: 1) how to generate the necessary energy for economic purposes without generating these gases,  and 2) will the reductions slow or reverse the changes in climate or is the process too far progressed into some cycle to be reversed?   Neither of these has a current scientific answer.  Efforts to promote one or another opinion are influenced by fossil fuel companies on one hand, denying their role to prevent curtailing the use of these fuels,  and on the other by environmentally sensitive scientists who believe that the data available is essential to saving the planet.
Nothing in this debate invalidates the accuracy of science as a method,  but indicates that scientists are human beings who can be influenced to state opinions about ambiguous information biased by their source of support.  As a group,  scientists are disappointed by the loss of respect that has emerged in the general public,  but this is the result of participating in political dialog,  advocating for a position, based on limited data,  and not acknowledging the advocacy position.  When scientists behave like politicians they are perceived to be politicians,  and science as an endeavor is degraded.

    Other examples can be found in sciences involved with human life and behaviors.  Is economics a science?  Economists can measure aspects of human behavior,  including the distribution of money as a variable in society.  Traditional theories define the expected human behavior of a group of individuals “rationally”(logically) attempting to benefit themselves.  But observation of real human behavior does not consistently fit these models,  and a modifying theory of “behavioral economics” has developed and been given a Nobel prize for recognizing the perturbations that must be considered.  Some of these effects can be predicted in advance,  but others are only identified by the failure of humans to perform according to abstract models.  The entire US economy has been modeled by computers,  which give fair predictive accuracy for short term future values, unless a significant unexpected event influences the economic situation.  As they say in investing “past performance cannot predict future results”.  Does this mean that economics does not have predictive value?  Sometimes the predictions are useful.  The unknown factors cannot be added in advance,  including certain human behaviors.   Economists are called on to advise governments about changes in policy,  and not surprisingly different ones provide advice that fits the expectations of different parties.  This reveals the ambiguity in data that does not have repeatability to confirm predictive statements.  Responsible economists would be clear about the limitations of their proposals,  but here again, when scientists behave like politicians they are judged as politicians.

    If scientists want to "rehabilitate" scientific activities as non-political events,  they must be clear about the limitations of data in political situations,  and avoid taking advocacy positions clearly supported and compensated by different advocacy groups or they must clearly state that their opinions are being supported by these groups.  The requirement for this disclosure has recently been applied to medical research reports funded by commercial sources. With the current polarization of our society,  it is possible that leaders may refuse to fund research that might not support their objectives,  or unrealistically fund projects that do with little hope of success.  So long as researchers are clear about the sources of funding and the observations made in research the scientific method is protected.  

     There are many ways of distorting scientific methods to create observations that are biased or limited.  Because the conditions of modern science often require complex arrangements of observations,  manipulating this situation may result in entirely different results.  Here the scientific procedure is being carried out,  but the influencing variables are being controlled in advance.   For example,  study of the effectiveness of a treatment on humans can be biased by how the patients and controls are selected.  It is very difficult to detect and manage this kind of manipulation of scientific procedures,  and results in "noisy" collections of studies pro- and con- a given determination which can only be sorted out by detailed analysis of the different procedures.  This INTENTIONAL misuse of experimental procedures to manipulate the outcome of studies is a fraudulent use of scientific method but hard to suppress.  It can only be managed by the combined efforts of the scientific community in the area of research being reported.

     Advocacy in science will not go away.  The current COVID-19 epidemic is a good example. Applying scientific results to practical situations is important and misuse is destructive and must be minimized.  Advocating positions based on ambiguous data is sometimes necessary and acknowledging the personal advocacy will clarify the interpretation.  Political leaders must make difficult decisions that impact the country,  and they should be interested in the best scientific accuracy they can obtain to help make the decisions.    Balancing the risks of infection, disability, and death, with the impact on the economy is a difficult problem.  Other epidemics have occurred and data collected, but this infection has its own special features, so there are no recurring events.  Balancing epidemiology and economic data on a real time basis to chart a course through the problem would be the rational approach.  One that our country has been unable to accomplish through failures of leadership,  despite the availability of the resources to do so.  Attacking scientists in this situation reflects the political need to avoid blame for failures,  but scientists must be careful not to overstate the validity of their advocacy.

COVID dreams: how to save lives and the economy at the same time

 A WSJ article "New Thinking on Covid Lockdowns:They’re Overly Blunt and Costly" reviews recent experience in different countries and regions,  trying to find a balance between deaths and economic consequences.  New Thinking on Covid Lockdowns: They’re Overly Blunt and Costly - WSJ https://www.wsj.com/articles/covid-lockdowns-economy-pandemic-recession-busines...

They make several points:

"The equivalent of 400 million jobs have been lost world-wide, 13 million in the U.S. alone. Global output is on track to fall 5% this year, far worse than during the financial crisis, according to the International
Monetary Fund.  “We’re on the cusp of an economic catastrophe,” said James Stock, a Harvard University economist who, with Harvard epidemiologist Michael Mina and others, is modeling how to avoid a surge in deaths
without a deeply damaging lockdown. “We can avoid the worst of that catastrophe by being disciplined,” Mr. Stock said."

The initial rejection of economic shutdown was reversed by the course of the disease:

"The sight of hospitals in Italy overwhelmed with dying patients shocked people in other countries. Covid-19 was much deadlier than flu, it was able to spread asymptomatically, and it had no vaccine or effective therapy. Taiwan, South Korea and Hong Kong set early examples of how to stop Covid-19 without lockdowns. Their reflexes trained by SARS in 2003,
MERS and avian flu, they quickly cut travel to China, introduced widespread testing to isolate the infected and traced contacts. Their populations quickly donned face masks. "

Other countries including the US,  and states within the US responded in different ways.  The goal of minimizing the spread or R value was weighed against "flattening the curve" to minimize impact on healthcare systems.

“There have been few attempts to truly define the goal, and partly it’s because policy makers and epidemiologists haven’t thought well enough about the vocabulary to define what they mean or want,” said Dr. Mina, the Harvard epidemiologist."

And it is fair to say that starting with the President of the US, some attempted to deny that any definition of the problem was needed at all.

"In mid-April, his health advisers issued guidelines for when states with lockdowns should reopen, including 14 days of declining cases and the ability to test and trace anyone with flulike symptoms. “The predominant and completely driving element that we put into this was the safety and the health of the American public,” Dr. Fauci told reporters. But that same day Mr. Trump made it clear his priority was the economy: “A prolonged lockdown combined with a forced economic depression would inflict an immense and wide-ranging toll on public health,” he said. Within weeks he was praising states that had reopened despite not meeting the guidelines and was tweeting “LIBERATE” to supporters protesting lockdowns."

This political split interferes with any effective intervention strategy and reflects the denial and economic interests of elements of the government which disregard danger to human life. This excerpt from WSJ references a paper on staged reopening, but ignores two major points: 1) the president denied the epidemic and tried to block control measures because he imagined this would protect his economic interests, and 2) voluntary participation is not assured, for example, by churches refusing to close down. 

(This is the clearest example of how failing to isolate leadership from personal economics is dangerous for the country.  The president and his family's major holding are in the hospitality industry most likely to be impacted, which certainly influenced his decision to deny the significance of the disease.  That other Republican leaders followed suit instead of a more measured response is unfathomable.)  

Closing some businesses over others based on risk interferes with “fairness” free enterprise. The WSJ article reflects the typical confusion that the issue is a choice between economy and lives.  The economy will collapse under the fear of contracting the illness as it did in the 1918 flu or 1970 flu.  Trump’s strong denial message could not eliminate the surge of deaths in NYC and the fear it induced.  Giving the public clear boundaries to  define protection is better than an inconsistent response with emphasis on economy above all,  or the one of safety over all.  This is not a political issue but a scientific one.

A simple model for addressing a balance between deaths and economy can be built:  
1) Strong isolation of high risk individuals to lower death rates.  2) Quarantine and contacts quarantine for those who are symptomatic and test positive. Testing and reporting to government health agency is mandatory. The loss of work is compensated as “illness” or “sick leave”.    
3) All major “super spreader” events are eliminated until the rate of infection in the local region goes below R = 1 or so.  
4) Some businesses are inherently “super spreader” in nature,  including those with crowds like performances or sporting events, air travel in commercial airlines, business meetings in large groups, cruise ships,  Vegas style casinos, and most large hotel/hospitality venues. (Most of the Trump businesses are of this type, making the impact especially negative on his holdings.) These must be treated in the same fashion as “super spreader” events. 

"Research by Dr. Mina and others has shown that “super-spreader”events contribute disproportionately to infections, in particular dense indoor gatherings with talking, singing and shouting, such as at weddings, sporting events,religious services, nightclubsand bars. Bars and restaurants accounted for 16% of Covid-19 clusters (five or more cases) in
Japan; workplaces, just 11%. Bars, restaurants and casinos accounted for 32% of infections traced to multiplecase outbreaks in Louisiana." 

5) Businesses with significantly high rates of positives must close until positive testing abates.  This is compensated by (how?)  and is enforced by mandatory penalties.  
6) Casual social interaction is not eliminated but mask and distancing guidelines are encouraged,  favoring families and close friends and avoiding “super spreader” events.  A strong public awareness program encourages compliance.
7) Schools pose a special dilemma.  The rate of serious complications is lower in children and teens, but their potential to spread to other family members is high.  The social contact in most schools makes them “super spreader” locations.  Children and teens including college students have a strong tendency to ignore social distancing making the problem more difficult. This is also complicated by the difficulty in distance learning for many children,  and the financial issues in higher education.  
8) It is also necessary to prevent temporary migration to nearby low intensity regions. The NYC migration is typical of this,  and mostly available to the wealthy,  spreading infection to all.
    Freedom of action and assembly are abridged in this model, which has serious constitutional problems.  This might be mitigated by enacting laws to support the program,  which would likely have to be state by state.  The sequence of emerging disease state by state has made it difficult to get a national policy.  Without enforcement, it appears that a significant proportion of the population is unwilling to adhere to even the least restrictive “mask and distance” recommendations as intolerable loss of liberty.  (This is sometimes ascribed to Trump's attitude, but I think it is the reverse: his attitude reflects a significant component of the society.)  The model has a more serious problem: the US is not willing to commit to increasing in testing and contact tracing.  Trump feared testing would reveal the extent of infection and undermine his denial.  Poor voluntary participation and no national commitment to testing and tracing are two major factors increasing the severity of impact on the US.
    The scientific problem can be stated as: “what combination of mitigating behaviors, including isolation and limited restriction of commerce, will produce the best ratio of limiting deaths while preserving economic function”?  It is  assumed that a vaccine distributed to the entire society would solve this problem immediately.  It would certainly simplify the situation,  but the likelihood of such a “magic bullet” is at least months or years away.  And the results of the influenza vaccine indicate that it can reduce the overall risk, but not eliminate it.  The current situation does not have scientific evidence to support a clear strategy for balancing death and disability with economic preservation.  An approach this minimizes death and dissemination is definable in epidemiological methods,  but one that also minimizes economic impact at the same time is not available.  This leaves each region to find its own solution by T&E and different regions have had differential success as indicated in the article.  

ECONOMICS 101

   THIS IS THE FIRST IN A SERIES OF POSTS ABOUT THE FAILURE OF THE US ECONOMY, the failure to create an economy meeting the expectations of a rational society.  

Introductory economics courses emphasize how economies decide to allocate the society's resources:  do we produce guns or butter?  Supply and demand curves illustrate how the interaction,  and factors that modify them.  The supply of goods and services is decided by the society, which may reflect the demand curve,  but some are independent, as in military spending in peacetime.  The demand for goods and services differs throughout the society,  and a hierarchy of needs alters what different economic classes demand,  and the supply.  Theses and research papers are written to address special cases.  Economists avoid value discussions, claiming the principles are “value neutral” so true whatever the values of the society in they apply.  Yet economic studies may favor one value system over another, and are adopted as “correct” by the political group that is most likely to benefit from the plan.  The idea of optimizing decisions for the entire society is a political, not economic, issue, but the data to measure this requires an different approach to economics. The economic questions for a society (country): 
    1) Is there an “equitable” dispersal of goods and services?
    2) Are the available resources used efficiently?
    3) Is the production of goods and services “stable”, in the sense that disruptions of production or consumption do not result in major failures in 1) and 2)?    (To this might be added another goal based on the extensive development of globalization:)
    4) Is the production of goods and services efficiently integrated into broader global markets?

These metrics for evaluating the operation of an economy,  are not consistently achieved by the American economy, for most of its history.  The American economy, a “regulated” capitalist economy, is unable to fulfill those simple objectives.  Why?

    1) Capitalism is based on return on investment, ROI.  The rewards of the  society are dispersed based on how capital is invested.  It might seem that investing would favor those activities most likely to provide a significant return,  and that these would benefit the overall society.  But this is generally not the case. Predicting the likely return of investment requires knowledge of future demand an inherently risky problem.  So efforts are made to limit this risk by reducing competition, and choosing modes of investment like financial manipulations in which risk can be managed directly.  None of these adjustments are responsive to an "equitable distribution".
    2) Efficient use of resources does not occur because of the competition for consumer access.  A new neighborhood will have several supermarkets, gas stations, and other providers.  The excess building results occurs when companies seek entry into the region.  The ones that fail waste investment and create “dead” stores that must be repurposed.  This is often taken as proof that capitalism is efficient,  emphasizing the re-purposing and ignoring the losses of inefficiency of initial investment.  This has been accelerated by the recent transition to online marketing and sales.

This problem of waste in fair competition is managed by oligarchy. In development of American business from the “golden age” of the early 1900s to now,  achieving competitive advantage by monopoly has always motivated business.  Strong anti-trust laws emerging after the crash in the 1920s prevent some of this, but were weakened in the 1980-90s.  Once monopoly is achieved the society pays far more than what would be needed for the good or service and competitors are undermined and eliminated,  but this does not lead to reduced waste but instead to elevated prices when there is no optional alternative supply.   Capitalism attempts to lower the costs of business in every way possible and this means limiting labor costs where possible in the current competitive labor market.  At times  it creates labor “sweat shops” with poor return on labor for the worker and eventually demand for unionization and government regulation.  While efficient in using labor resources,  this interferes with achieving goal #1) equitable distribution of resources.    

    3) Every introductory economic textbook explains “business cycles” as an inevitable feature of capitalism.  The uncertainty in investment and inherent risk predicts failures in businesses, but it does not predict that these must be correlated and occur in cycles.   The “Chicago School” explains these cycles as variations in the “cost of money” or interest rate.  When the rate is low,  starting new ventures or expanding is less costly and more businesses attempt it.  The demand on money raises the “cost” (interest rate) and eventually the multiple businesses don’t all succeed resulting in defaults and losses,  and the rate falls.  This explanation does not take into account several external factors that have impacted over the last 100 years.  Technology innovation drives business expansion and exaggerated valuations, seen in the railroad boom of the 1870s,  the radio boom of the 1920s,  the computer hardware boom of the 1990s,  and the “internet” boom of the 2012s.  Each is a real advance in technology overvalued by a public seeking to “strike it rich” creating transient exaggerated values, "tulipmania"  (along with some fake businesses that exploit this).   The 2008 crash was the result of an intentional effort on the part of a government-financial industry partnership to create a false stimulus in the economy by driving the housing market beyond the capacity of buyers to afford houses,  with falsely valued mortgages,  and secondary insured collateral to cover this fake stimulus.  The collapse brought down Lehman Brothers,  and triggered a major contraction.  In 2020, another sort of contraction is occurring due to the collapse of consumption in certain industries related to the covid pandemic.  This is another test of whether an economic system can manage the external destabilizing challenge of an event.  And the crypto-currency collapse is another result.

    4) Understanding the economy from the perspective of one country is no longer adequate.  The free transfer of goods,  services, and information across national boundaries makes the idea of a closed economy incorrect.  What does an effective role in the global economy look like and how should it be measured?  The current US idea that it is the “dominant” economy and can manipulate others is incorrect, in the process of failing, and weakening the US role in the broader economy.  The competition between countries try to draw investment from outside bringing capital for development into the country.  They try to draw capital by exporting more in $$ than they import.  This gives a favorable balance of payments and increases the relative strength of the currency compared to other currencies,  but that makes export goods more expensive and tends to equalize the effect.  Many corporations in the modern world are “multinational” and how they report their income  affects their tax and other liabilities to the countries in which they are located.  This confuses the economic national boundaries.  Is Apple an American company?  Much of its sales are in China,  and much of its manufacturing is done outside of US.  It reports income for much of the world in EU countries with lower income taxes.  Where is the “real” Apple located?  Natural resources including foods grown, and material commodities like oil and mined substances are local to the country in which they reside.  But their trade may be managed by companies that grow or extract them,  which are not located in the country of extraction.  Whose oil is it?  Few everyday Americans recognize the extent of the globalization of the economy.
What values should guide the economic regulation of a country? 
A The economy should produce sufficient goods and services to sustain all the population.  Everyone should have enough food to avoid starvation,  adequate clothing, and housing to avoid injury of exposure to elements, and facilitate protecting a family (if desired).  It might include basic healthcare and some non working time for recreation.  How the material goods are distributed, and what productive work is required to access them must be specified.  The term “economic inequality” indicates that in the US this goal is asymmetric:  significant numbers of the population who do not have adequate food,  clothing, or housing.  Many others live in  marginal security which any change in life circumstances will disrupt.
B The Country must decide if other values beyond economic ones are important.  These might include preservation of environmental features, opportunities for recreation and other social activities,  distribution of education across the population, etc.  Most of these other values have an “opportunity cost” that reduces the available capital to the society as a whole.  The US system of valuations is suggested as:
*Recreation activities including sports, gambling, hospitality travel, and alcohol consumption are major economic industries with high valuation. 
*The consumption of disposable consumer goods like stylized clothing, shoes, and music etc. are an important driver of the economy.  They are marketed as essential to defining personal identity of the user,  although they are mass produced and therefore actually not personal at all.  Their rapid loss of value after purchase creates an enormous burden of trash waste for the society. 

***Non-material values in the society are minimal:  Religion is an important value for a minority of the population,  but is closely linked to financial success.  Tradition, old styles and standards, exists in limited parts of New England.  Cultural interests are increasingly too expensive for most to afford,  and the educational experience that would prepare readers, viewers, and listeners is not provided.  

*The emphasis is on the experience of audio-visual media as primary recreation,  along with electronic competitive gaming is supported for its economic value, while creative audio-visual production is not distributed to the creative artists as the digital distributors take most for themselves.

*Preserving the natural environment is a conflicted value with a small group committed to this,  pitted against the majority who wish to exploit the environment for economic gain.

The political process must manage the economic decisions of A) and B).  Regulation of economic activity occurs at the private and government level.  Private companies have significant freedom to specify the work parameters of employees,  compensation, and other factors in the delivery of services.  These are generally regulated by competition between local entities,  or national competition in the case of airlines, etc.  The role of the state and federal governments in requiring private entities to abide by specific restrictions (think, non-pollution) is variable and strong influence is exerted by large corporations to limit this role of governments.  The orderly function of a society demands some structure of rules/laws which specifies individual relationships.   Although great emphasis is placed on the police in preventing theft, robbery and burglary,  the total amounts of these crimes is trivial compared to the massive fraudulent “white collar” crimes of the last several decades.  This represents a fundamental failure to manage the distribution of goods and services.

Future posts will suggest alternatives to our current dilemma.

THE FRAGMENTATION OF AMERICAN SOCIETY

   In November there will be an important national election.  A two party democracy has the challenge of coordinating important issues differently than a parliamentary one.  Parliamentary democracies have specific issue parties which must align after the vote to create a parliamentary majority and support a prime minister.  The coalitions are decided by politicians after the voters have selected party weighting.  In the US two party format, the issues must be distributed across the parties before the voting and the voters choose candidates by the overlap of issues in each party.  There are advantages and disadvantages to both.  Examining the current differences in values across the society shows some important guides to the coming election:

Feminism vs Patriarchy:  The #metoo movement has not sustained a strong political influence,  and although female candidates are being identified as "important",  the idea that women are exploited by men is not accepted across the society.  Most recently deVos made the identification of sexual harassment more difficult in educational settings.  The Right is strongly patriarchal, with a significant female component that supports patriarchy.

Racism vs racial equality: The US has never resolved its origins in exploiting minorities or killing them off for access to their lands.  The recent riots over policing echo issues in the Obama administration,  and this issue for African-americans is now center stage, but for Hispanics it is less clear,  and also for various Asian-American groups.  The reality that whites will be a population minority by 2035 makes it urgent to suppress the voting capacity of these groups ASAP, or be outvoted soon.  This is a defining issue of the Right, and it has roots that go back to the authors of the constitution, to the secession of the slave states in the civil war,  and numerous anti-asian laws in the history of the Western states.  Cloaked in the language of "racism" it is more about the loss of white political control.

Values of Christian religion vs a-religious views: The Christian values of preserving life, anti-abortion, the primacy of heterosexual marriage,  and a reinterpreted 10 commandments are challenged by accusations of hypocrisy, personal reinterpretation,  and the corruption of values within the churches,  and by political compromises.  This is complicated by the reactivation of old Christian-Moslem and Christian-Jew antipathies.

Unregulated capitalism vs economic equality: There is every evidence that unregulated capitalism leads to economic exploitation, economic inequality, monopolies, and cartel oligarchies.  This was demonstrated in the 1900-1920s era of "mogul" capitalism in the US,  which led to the dramatic market collapse of 1929.  Similar problems were observed in other developed capitalist economies.  WW2 led to European expansion of social welfare elements and the increased role of labor,  while in the US this was eventually undermined,  and by the 1980s less regulation of capitalism led to the 1999 and 2008 recessions,  and controls put in at that time have been removed by political influence,  and economic inequality in the US has dramatically increased.

Environmental preservation vs economic exploitation of the environment: Although much of the environmental position seems to be about "extinction" or other hot button focus,  the core issue is how much the environment should be utilized for economic activities and how much it should be preserved in a relatively "wild" unexploited state.  Industrial interests advocate having no limits on their impact on the environment,  and the deterioration of the world's environments is a clear result.  It is not clear how much this can be reversed,  and what the impact would be on human economic function as a result.

Heterosexual identity vs gender diversity: There is evidence that gender diversity in multiple forms in multiple cultures has always existed.  The Judeo-Christian-Islamic traditions strongly prohibit non heterosexual unions and persecuted those who practice these acts.  This has been challenged since the 1950s and world wide an increased tolerance of gender diversity has accompanied the weakening of control of the society by traditional religions.

Libertarian freedom vs Rule of Law:  The essential basis of any society is the "social contract",  the agreement to relinquish certain individual autonomy for the direction of the social group.  This boundary is fluid,  and the "bill of rights" of the constitution of US represented the explicit expansion of individual rights not specified in the constitution.  The recent evolution of these issues in US is ironic:  while Libertarians decry the power of the Federal government and seek to weaken the DC influence,  the current POTUS attempts to expand HIS authority in disregard of any constitutional checks.  And congress has not been able to challenge this.

Education and advancement vs "street smarts":  The educated elite were a tiny minority of the country before WW2,  but after the war the corporate economy encouraged education,  and education became highly correlated with economic advancement.   This value has been exploited economically by for-profit colleges,  student loan creditors, and other methods and has resulted in deterioration of education quality, impoverishment of ambitious students,  and a future burden on the economy which it cannot sustain.  There is a need for education reform that links it use to the ongoing intellectual needs of an advanced technical society.

There is a very clear linkage across these values for the Right:  Patriarchy, Christian religious values, control of minority voting, and unlimited capitalism have become linked in this political system.  This is true despite the reality that the POTUS does not embody almost any of these features!


For the Left the linkage is not so clear: Feminism,  racial equality, economic equality, environmentalism, gender diversity, and the use of national laws are not obviously linked,  though the Obama administration managed to coordinate they to some degree.  

The recent division of the country over Covid-19 reveals another split:  The  younger generation of Right and Left were less impacted by the health consequences than the economic consequences,  revealing a cultural split between youth and elder generation, which was typical of the 1960s social unrest.

The current demonstrations about police violence against African-americans demonstrates the developing coalition of especially younger groups against racial discrimination and the use of the police authority to maintain society conformity.  The large number of non African-american protestors and the recognition in some places that the police process must be reformed are indications of change.

In Jan 2020,  my  blog identified the following issues for the country:
Human resource issues:  Immigration, healthcare, housing, financial opportunity, education, minority rights(diversity).  
Social consensus: Cultural values and gender identity, regional diversity
Material economic: stable economy not based on disposable consumer goods, environmental concerns
International relations and globalism
Political integrity and the exposure of graft in politics in Washington esp

Most of these are identified in the current blog as issues splitting the country. 
The availability of social media should provide a broad channel for communication and discussion of these issues but instead has silo-ed the country into self-affirming information portals that distort information to support personal views.  This must be resisted if a meaningful change process can occur.  Otherwise the country will swing back and forth to unstable extremes and collapse.