This blog is designed specifically for education purposes and includes writings on History, Science, Reason, Teaching, the Philosophy of Life and a bit of sports and entertainment. All of the writing is my own original work unless otherwise stated with the Voyage into History category highlighting my latest writing on the topic. An AI editor is used for grammatical purposes only. Please feel free to comment.
What is the most dangerous aspect of COVID-19 that is never really talked about?
For me the most frightening aspect is that we have never been able to make an effective vaccine against a coronavirus. Now ‘never’ does not mean impossible nor does it imply improbable but it does mean that the task ahead will be on the tough end of the biological equation.
Vaccines for both SARS and MERS (similar diseases) have had very limited results and no vaccine against any coronavirus has ever been approved by the FDA.
Our strength right now though is that in the case of COVID-19 there is a concerted effort involving teams across the globe so we may indeed strike gold, however it could take a great deal of time before that is realized. Until then we will have to rely on repurposed drugs and continued practical distancing strategies to lower the impact of this disease and control its likely spread.
The World Health Organization have released a report arguing that 2-3% of the world's population likely shows antibodies for COVID. I suspect that the number is higher in the developed world but lets for argument sake go with a value of 2.5%. At present the world population is estimated to be 7.6 billion so that by the WHO estimate a total of 190 million people at present have been infected.
Coronavirus worldometer (as of April 21st) places the number of COVID dead at 176K. this of course is an underestimate. In fact it could be off by 30% in most western countries and by a factor of five or so in many developing countries.. So lets multiply this number by 5 to obtain a figure of 0.88 million.
Now disease lethality = number who have died/number infected expressed as a %. This gives a value of (0.88/190)*100% = 0.46%.
An earlier Dutch study estimates that the lethality rate is 0.67%. However the Dutch have a population with an average age of 41 compared to the world average of 29. The disease is known to fall more severely on older populations. The US average is 38.
Suffice it to say the lethality of this disease is looking more and more each day as though it is around 0.5%. This is still significant although far less than earlier lethality values of 3-4%
The original intent of the lockdown was to flatten the curve to buy us enough time to increase resources at our hospital care facilities. Thankfully this resource strain is no longer the great concern that it once was about a month ago. Cross board mobilization efforts (both private and public) have helped immensely in this regard. While there still are troublesome hotspots the movement of equipment to locales where they are needed appears to be picking up steam and the wherewithal to defeat a likely crunch point exists. We have bought the time to build the capacity.
So where do we proceed from now? To begin with we need to re-examine our original lockdown rationale and take it into a less extreme phase two. As a strategy the full lockdown was always a patch not a fix. Its prime driver was winning us necessary time in the COVID-19 fight. In that regard it has succeeded. However on a biological front it offers less utility. If anything it is slowing the time to build a broader immunity. A vaccine is at least a year away from seeing the light of day and even if it is developed sooner mass production will take time to be realized. The better strategy on a go forward basis would be to lock down the most vulnerable and allow the rest of us far greater latitude.
Now it is true that we will see more infections but it is also true that the lethality rate for the disease in the general population is extremely low. Yes there are risks but we can mitigate against those. We have seen this already with the production surge. Repurposed drugs are another avenue which we are tapping with regularity.
In any case the present situation is not tenable. The forced shutdown of the economy is an unprecedented move whose consequences will likely be daunting for the future. Unemployment could hit Great Depression type numbers with many businesses operating close to the margin forced into failure. Stimulus injections will only take us so far as we attempt to squeeze more money out of virtual stones, while leveraging the financial security for future generations.
In addition the impact on a social level should not be understated. We are not a species that can live with spatial constraint. Push back will grow and we cannot afford to become increasingly authoritarian as a society in order to stifle dissent.
The break point is approaching. This should not be a left-or-right political battle. It is far more important than that. What we need are bold decisions that incorporate the broader picture beyond the disease.
Let us see if our leaders have the fortitude to make this happen.
I teach in Ontario which used to have an extra year of high school known as the OAC Year (once upon a time this was called Grade 13). The OAC year was removed in 2003 so that the province aligned with the other Canadian provinces (not including Quebec which has its own CEGEP system) in having four as opposed to five years of high school.
As a consequence of this change the high school math curriculum was altered. Changes undertaken included the removal of both the more rigorous Euclidean Geometry units as well as Integral Calculus. The net effect in my opinion is that the curriculum has been made substantially easier. Nevertheless students in various high schools can choose to supplement their mathematics (at least as far as Integral calculus is concerned) by electing to take an AP Calculus course. Many do.
Well for one it almost killed him. Thankfully for Joe he was forced to pull out of the race as a result of a plagiarism scandal, thus saving himself from what could have been more of a disaster. It was literally that bad. A three and a half month horror show.
Joe Biden circa. 1987 Source; ABC News
So let us backtrack to 1987, re-adjust our Walkmen and examine the sequence of events in context. In 1987 Ronald Reagan was nearing the end of his second term and the Democrats were relishing a chance to capture the White House. It was looking great for them - Reagan was limping through the Iran-Contra Scandal, the economy was over heating (the market would crash in October of the year) and George Bush looked too bland to be President.
Senator Ted Kennedy, having decided that a revisit of Chappaquiddick was too much, had turned down a decision to run and the leading Democrat in his wake, Gary Hart, had been gutted by supposed ‘Monkey Business’ on board an appropriately named yacht with femme-fatale Donna Rice.
It was Gary Hart’s race to lose in 1988 which he managed to do very well on his own with some assistance from Donna Rice Source: CBS News
Biden entered the race in June of 1987 shortly after the Hart withdrawal and like his current run he attached himself like a mini-me to a former Democratic President. In 1987 it was John F Kennedy. Today it is Barack Obama. Indeed in his opening speech, with an irony, around self-interest that still resonates, he called forth the ghost of JFK with these words:
"For too long in this society, we have celebrated unrestrained individualism over common community. For too long as a nation, we have been lulled by the anthem of self-interest. For a decade, led by Ronald Reagan, self-aggrandizement has been the full-throated cry of this society: 'I've got mine so why don't you get yours' and 'What's in it for me?' ... We must rekindle the fire of idealism in our society, for nothing suffocates the promise of America more than unbounded cynicism and indifference." Source: Biden Joins Campaign for the Presidency
However he was not purely idealistic. Biden’s platform championed domestic oil production and was resolute in going after other countries for unfair trade practices. If this sounds like Trump. It is hardly a surprise. Joe is notorious for changing his position to fit the political wind.
At the time Biden had raised more funds than any other Democratic candidate other than Michael Dukakis and until August of the same year it looked as though he had something to offer.
Then as the Brits would put it, the entire shebang went ‘tits up’. His lead pollster Pat Caddell, seemed to be loggerheads with several other members of the campaign as the nomination bidstruggled with a defining theme, that included an ill advised Pepsi Generation take. That went off about as well as New Coke.
Biden was not a Beltway favorite (how times have changed) and was derided for his long winded takes on key issues (although not necessarily bad habits). His campaign though would finally derail with the Kinnock Controversy.
Neil Kinnock was the Labour Party leader in the UK most noteworthy for losing the 1987 General Election to the Iron Lady herself, Margaret Thatcher. In May of 1987 Kinnock delivered a speech in the run up to the election that Joe Biden seemed to like so much that he was accused of plagiarizing it for his own campaign. He was called out for this in the August 2017 Democratic Party debate opening up a floodgate for other accusations.
Neil Kinnock Source: BBC
Reports came in accusing Biden of plagiarizing other speeches from Hubert Humphrey and both Kennedy brothers. It was simply too much. Joe was now on the ropes with an investigation opening up.
Later on it was revealed that Biden had indeed credited Kinnock for the original speech however it was too little too late. There were other examples of plagiarism. His campaign was damaged. It also didn’t help that as part of the investigation into the plagiarism charges his university grades were revealed and it was found that they not very impressive.
By mid September Biden was done. He withdrew and then offered a profound message for the future.
Joe Biden announcing his withdrawal. Source: C-Span.
However the lingering effect was not yet over. In February 1988 Biden suffered two brain aneurysms forcing him to undergo critical surgery. His life hung in the balance but thankfully (and with a nod to US healthcare) he recovered after several months of convalescence. There is sincere speculation that the stress of the 1987 campaign took a tremendous toll on him and indeed the situation may have been worse for his health had the campaign continued.Biden Resting After Surgery For Second Brain Aneurysm
Perhaps it was a campaign too soon for Biden. As we all know he bounced back from this setback but the presidential run in 1987 and his flirtation with the Oval Office was by no means his finest hour. Will it haunt him today? Some believe it will. It certainly spoke to his credibility. Flashback: 'Biden Admits Plagiarizing in Law School,' 'Academic Claims Inaccurate'
Unify the four fundamental forces, unite general relativity and quantum mechanics in a way that can be empirically verified within a short Framework of time and come up with a way of building the Infinite probability drive from Hichhiker’s guide. Pretty simple.
