COVID-19: Pespective

In response to those who would discount the seriousness of the COVID-19 pandemic, or who would reduce the human death toll to a statistic or a percentage of the population, and then dismiss them as insignificant, it may be noteworthy to compare coronavirus deaths with deaths from the worst pandemics/epidemics in the United States since the early 20^th century:

Date	Pandemic	# Deaths	Length of Pandemic
1918	H1N1 Spanish Flue	675000	One Year
1921-25	Diphtheria	14000	Average annual deaths over 5 years
1916-55	Polio	1225	Average annual deaths over 40 years
1957	H2N2  Bird Flu	116000	One Year
2009	H1N1 Swine Flu	12469	One Year
1985-2013	HIV/AIDS*	24000	Average annual deaths over 28 years
2020	COVID-19** (Mar-Aug)	182818	six months

 I have no criteria by which to qualify the advance of medical science in the 102 years between 1918 and 2020; nevertheless, whatever evaluative criteria one may find, medical science today has advanced beyond that of any of the previous pandemic or epidemic eras. Yet, even with that advantage, aside from The Spanish Flu in 1918, The COVID-19 pandemic has claimed—in six months—more American lives than the total annual deaths (averaging the annual deaths from pandemics that lasted more than one year) from all the previous epidemics and pandemics combined!

Perspective.

I also am aware that America’s population today is larger than previous eras considered. Still, I am at a total loss to understand the blasé, casual approach of so many conservative Americans to a pandemic whose death toll in six months significantly outstrips the total combined annual deaths of previous major pandemics over the past 100 years! How is that insignificant?

While the research is yet too young to be conclusive, the evidence of long-term impact of the coronavirus increases with every study: heart and lung damage, neurological symptoms, and serious questions about immunity for those who survive. And the virus appears already to have gone through one or more mutations, making it even more difficult to pin down and treat. How is that insignificant?

The most difficult aspect for me to understand is how so many Americans dismiss out of had the recommendations of the leading medical authorities on the planet! [I know: liberal conspiracy. Right?]

Natural medicine has its value. I practice it, but not exclusively. It’s been my observation that not much of life comes to us in singular, neatly wrapped packages; nor does much of life present itself in a binary, right/wrong, black/white, good/evil format. Almost all of life is lived in relation to a balance of factors lived out on an ideological continuum. Life is comprised of the decisions each person makes in relation to the challenges and opportunities presented by that continuum. For the Christian, those decisions are informed by the way a person understands and follows Jesus of Nazareth.

To a significant degree, human problems begin when fallible persons or groups settle at one position along life’s spectrum and declare that position to be absolute and infallible.

“A 5% death rate is acceptable.” REALLY!?!?! There’s absolutely no way of discerning how many of those deaths could have been prevented had Bubba not been so pig-headed about wearing a mask and keeping his distance and avoiding social gatherings. Preventable deaths are not acceptable!

“But my rights…!!!” Baloney! Your rights stop where my nose begins; and you do not have the right to gamble with my health or my family’s health—or maybe even our lives, just to make your statement. And, of course, Bubba seems incapable of considering the possibility that he may be wrong. [see comments above about making one’s position on life’s continuum absolute and infallible.]

Neither 882,818 deaths, nor any percent thereof, can be dismissed flippantly —especially by any who claim to be a follower of Jesus Christ, and especially when the overwhelming majority of respected medical science has indicated that some of those deaths could have been avoided by compliance to some simple precautions (acknowledging that the precautions can be somewhat incongruent with our comfort zones.)

How many rallies, sporting events, church re-openings, face-to-face on-site school re-openings (including major universities), parties, and concerts have been followed by spikes in the incidence of infection? How is that insignificant?

From Bubba to the White House, a major subset of the American population has never taken the pandemic seriously, and continues to refuse to follow the simple guidelines established by medical science, in effect dismissing medical science’s virtual elimination of smallpox, polio, and other pandemics as a liberal conspiracy.

And as a result, America once again is #1! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA!

That’s the way it looks through the flawed glass that is my world view.

Together in the Walk,

Jim

____________________

*The HIV/AIDS pandemic involved primarily a specific sub-culture, as compared to the general population included in the other pandemic deaths in this study.

**I found four different figures, with a variance of almost 3,500 deaths from the lowest to the highest. The difference in each case was the starting date, which varied from January 1 to January 21 of this year.

High Stakes Gambling

In America one has a right to believe, and to proclaim, and to live by the belief that Dr. Anthony Fauci, Johns Hopkins Medical Center, Mayo Clinic, The American Medical Association, the Center for Disease Control, and the World Health Organization (and others) are engaged in a national, or maybe even a global liberal conspiracy to control the world. One has a right, in America, to believe that the COVID-19 pandemic is a ruse—a tool being used by said liberal conspiracy to take away our freedoms and liberties and rights, and that it is no more threatening than last year’s influenza season.

One has that right.

But, what if there is a slight chance—an ever-so-slight chance—even just a 10% chance—that one would be wrong in that belief? What if the coronavirus is as deadly as the evil, liberal conspiracy claims?

What if wearing a mask and social distancing really do reduce the risk [nobody ever claimed those actions would totally eliminate the risk] of contracting—or of transmitting—the disease? It’s one thing to say, “I’ll take my chances.” “I’m willing to gamble with my health, and maybe my life, on the belief that I’m right.”

One has that right.

Until…

…until that right violates my right(s). As the cliché goes, “Your rights stop where my nose begins.”

At some point it ceases to be a matter of one’s personal liberties and rights, and becomes a matter of cooperation, compassion, and common decency and respect.

So, while one can say, “I’ll take my chances; I’m willing to gamble with my health, and even my life, on my belief,” it’s NOT OK to gamble with my health and my family’s health on the basis of your obstinacy. And it’s not OK to dismiss my concerns as the incoherent mutterings of a university-brainwashed libtard.

What if you’re wrong? The stakes are terribly high.

That’s the way it looks through the Flawed Glass that is my world view.

Together in the Walk,

Jim

Crybaby

Maybe it’s my reaction to being self-quarantined, but I’ve gone beyond anger to grief. I’ve stopped responding to most Facebook posts (who knows how long that will last?), and often find myself weeping at what I’m reading. I guess I’m a crybaby.

Beyond my relatively narrow sampling on Facebook, the news on all media (and I do watch all media) extends my impression that our American culture is growing more and more angry and hostile—more filled with hatred and rage—by the day.

There has long been a tendency among some Americans to prioritize political ideology over human need and to focus on the miniscule percentage of fraud to justify not working toward meeting the multitude of need. Today on Facebook there was a photo of a couple carrying a banner that read, “I won’t sacrifice my rights for your safety.” What a rotten attitude! And there was that 2017 quote from a voter who said, “I trust Trump more than Jesus.” And it’s well established by now that at least part of one political party has declared publicly that the economy is more important than human life. Pro-life? Indeed.

Last week someone posted, “I’ll take my chances.” That’s fine if your chances are all that’s at stake. When you take your chances you also are gambling with someone else’s chances—including mine and my family’s; so, I tend to take it personally.

How is love demonstrated in any of the above? Or has the message of Jesus also become a hoax in this “Christian” nation? A conspiracy inflicted upon us by “liberal theology?”

And I grieve over the growing anti-empiricist mentality among a significant subset of a whole generation. Expertise of any kind is equated with idiocy and stupidity. Empirical evidence that can be seen and measured and graphed is denied as manufactured. It’s easier and more convenient to believe that the scientific and medical communities are lying—they’re involved in a conspiracy to take away our freedoms. One always can find somebody with a degree or a title to support one’s previous presuppositions; therefore, the information bubble is preferred over empirical evidence.

The upshot is that a large portion of the American public just refuses to believe that the CoVID-19 pandemic is real. It’s a hoax. It’s no more dangerous than the annual round of flu. I hope they’re right. I truly hope I’m wrong—that medical science is wrong. Maybe medical science was wrong about smallpox, too. And polio. And the Spanish flu in 1918. Maybe those killers would simply have run their course and life would have gone on, even without medical intervention. Maybe medical science didn’t shorten the duration of those pandemics. No big deal.

Maybe the bubonic plague would have simply run its course without a massive clean-up of heaps of rat-infested garbage in the streets. No big deal.

The really big deal that makes me weep is the number of deaths that could have been—that still could be—prevented. If the risk can be reduced by temporary inconvenience and discomfort, why would anyone refuse to accept those inconveniences? It’s not as if it’s forever.

What wrenches my gut is the haunting, tragic image of that photo I saw this morning—that banner that said, “I won’t sacrifice my freedom for your safety.” Is that really—REALLY—where we are? I wonder what would have happened if the government (whoever that is) had issued a proclamation demanding that everyone disregard the pandemic and carry on as usual. My suspicion is that those who flaunt their freedom today would have burrowed in while whining, “The government isn’t going to tell me what to do! I’m not going to risk my safety for your freedom!”

Maybe that’s really what it’s all about: “Nobody’s going to tell me what to do.”

When Jesus’ disciples were arguing over which of them would be the greatest, he got up and washed their feet. And then he said, “I have set you an example, that you also should do as I have done to you.” John 13:15 (NRSV)

But, yeah, don’t sacrifice your freedom for anybody else’s safety.

That’s the way it looks through the Flawed Glass that is my world view.

Together in the Walk,

Jim

Your Rights and My Nose

Rights. As a colleague said quite often, "Your rights stop where my nose begins."

My unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness do not take precedent over your rights, nor yours over mine.

Each citizen has the right to choose the sources and data upon which he or she bases his or her understanding of truth, whether it be scientific or medical, or supermarket tabloid, or something in between.

All citizens, in theory, have the right; indeed, the responsibility to vote in public elections, thereby giving voice and support to their respective positions.

Every citizen enjoys the right to assent or dissent in response to governmental action. Some do so based on socio/political ideology, while others stand on ethical principles. The former often place their ideology above human needs, while the latter stump for more humanitarian, idealistic results. The former see idealism as impractical and useless.

These are not hard dichotomies, but rather a continuum whose statistical curve peaks somewhere near the middle. As one moves toward either extreme the protagonists become more rigid and intractable, their intolerance of differences more belligerent.

The foregoing is neither new nor particularly keen insight. It’s sociology or political science 101.

Neil deGrasse Tyson is an American sceintist. Since 1996, he has been the Frederick P. Rose Director of the Hayden Planetarium at the Rose Center for Earth and Space in New York. He says there are three levels of truth:

(1) scientific truths or “objective truths” or beliefs that one can substantiate through objectivity, impartial science, facts, and reasoning.  

(2) political truths are inaccuracies repeated so often they become recognized and accepted as true. Examples of political truths include the belief that Thomas Edison invented the lightbulb, or that Christopher Columbus discovered America.  

(3) personal truths are perspectives that fail the test of scientific reasoning. He argues that individuals cling to these beliefs, even when presented with overwhelming evidence to the contrary.  One example of a personal truth is the belief that the earth is flat.

I do not present Tyson’s categories as in any sense final; indeed, I take issue at more than one point. I present them here as representations of a new relativism related to truth. I respect his categories as perceptions and/or applications of truth; but not of truth, itself. If one believes, as I do, in absolute truth, there are no relative truths or levels of truth.

As I have said and written many times (and am far from unique in this perspective), while I believe in absolute truth, I do not believe in the human capacity to comprehend truth absolutely. The best we can do is point to a “preponderance of evidence.” And always—ALWAYS—we are compelled by the limitations of the clay of which we are made to acknowledge our perception of truth as partial.

As a theologian, in making this point I almost always quote St. Paul’s dictum in I Corinthians 13:12 “For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then we will see face to face. Now I know only in part; then I will know fully, even as I have been fully known.” (NRSV) As you may have noticed, it is adapted into my blogsite name, “Flawed Glass.”

Given, then, that human perception of truth at best is vulnerable to distortion, I return to my opening focus, which is the perceptions and applications related to our rights as American citizens. The two topics, though divergent, are related, and the issue at hand is where we get the data upon which we base our respective positions.

Never in human history has more data be more readily available to more people. This presents us with a humongous dilemma because the data closely parallels the aforementioned ideological continuum. Compounding the dilemma is a growing tendency toward confirmation bias in far too many efforts to research available data.

If one looks long enough, and knows the ideological biases of enough sources, one eventually can find someone with a degree or a title who will validate virtually any thought or idea one has. I'm not a conspiracy theorist, and I am grounded in the scientific method, and I accept the findings of those who apply the scientific method.

For my entire life up to now I have accepted mainstream medical community's counsel (including the value of vaccinations—think "smallpox" and "polio"), and I have enjoyed good health and excellent health care. I especially give credence to their informed findings in contrast to sources outside the medical mainstream or the biased opinions of non-medical sources; therefore, I am concerned about the risks of opening up our culture too soon vis-à-vis the COVID-19 pandemic.

I have the right to determine my own risks and to gamble with my own health and safety, and maybe even with that of my household. But my rights stop where your nose begins, and neither I nor you have the reciprocal right to gamble with each other’s health and safety.

I hope I'm proven wrong, and that the COVID-19 pandemic is a tempest in a teacup and hasn't been much of a real threat to anything except to our economy. The preponderance of evidence from mainstream medical and scientific community doesn’t support that hope; therefore, until proven otherwise I choose to stay in my home, and to wear a mask when I venture out; and I will have difficulty not resenting those who discount the seriousness of the virus and are willing to trust their biased opinions and gamble with their own safety and the safety of others (including me and my family).

And, BTW, I also don't have a problem with the government stepping in and setting boundaries when the preponderance of observable evidence suggests too many people are not smart enough to be trusted to protect themselves or to not gamble with others' safety.

That’s the way it looks through the “Flawed Glass” that is my world view.

Together in the Walk,

Jim