Fine-Tuning Infection Risks
We’re seeing lots of disagreement over whether to open society again, but I tend to agree with this Spectator USA headline, “Lockdown is over. Someone tell the government: Americans want to do whatever they feel like doing….”:
The virus is still spreading, people are still dying and, as Germany discovered, even a managed reopening accelerates the dynamics of contagion. What we are now seeing is two approaches to risk management. The cautious and technocratic reduction of risk at scale is issuing orders, but large numbers of people, by necessity or habit, prefer to play the odds.
In short, it’s going to happen whether the government approves or not. So I thought the following piece (by a professor at The University of Massachusettes Dartmouth, expert in immunology and infectious disease) helpful at this moment. Professor Bromage, first, regretfully accepts that society will be opening up so soon, and second, offers a careful analysis of what activities are most risky and why (HT to Katie).
When you think of outbreak clusters, what are the big ones that come to mind? Most people would say cruise ships. But you would be wrong. Ship outbreaks, while concerning, don’t land in the top 50 outbreaks to date.
Ignoring the terrible outbreaks in nursing homes, we find that the biggest outbreaks are in prisons, religious ceremonies, and workplaces, such as meat packing facilities and call centers. Any environment that is enclosed, with poor air circulation and high density of people, spells trouble.
Some of the biggest super-spreading events are:
· Meat packing: In meat processing plants, densely packed workers must communicate to one another amidst the deafening drum of industrial machinery and a cold-room virus-preserving environment. There are now outbreaks in 115 facilities across 23 states, 5000+ workers infected, with 20 dead. (ref)
· Weddings, funerals, birthdays: 10% of early spreading events
· Business networking: Face-to-face business networking like the Biogen Conference in Boston in late February.
As we move back to work, or go to a restaurant, let’s look at what can happen in those environments.
Real Masculinity
Rusty Reno, editor at First Things, is deeply confused about masculinity, as Rod Dreher points out in “Rusty Reno Melts Down,” a response to Reno’s tweets that wearing a mask is a sign of cowardice and a failure of manliness. But confusion about masculinity is found on the left as well, which too often assumes that masculinity is toxic and encourages men essentially to become more like women. Neither extreme has much appeal for me. One person who is not confused and offers some sane advice about being a man in today’s world is Aaron Renn, who publishes a newsletter called The Masculinist. So read Dreher’s critique of Reno, and then read (and subscribe to!) Renn’s newsletter.
Real Christianity
In his latest newsletter, Renn points to an item of more general interest, a video of an interview with the historian Tom Holland (length 48:15, and well worth it), which includes this quote:
I see no point in bishops or preachers or Christian evangelists just recycling the kind of stuff that you can get from any soft-left liberal because everyone is giving that. If I want that, I'll get it from a Liberal Democrat councilor. If you're a Christian, you think that the entire fabric of the cosmos was ruptured when by this strange singularity where someone who is a God and a man sets everything on its head. To say it's supernatural is to downplay it. I mean this is a massive singularity at the heart of things.
And if you don't believe that, it seems to me you're not really a confessional Christian. You may be a cultural Christian, but you're not a confessional Christian.
So if you believe that, it should be possible to dwell on all the other weird stuff that traditionally comes as part of the Christian package. It seems to me that there's a deep anxiety about that, almost a sense of embarrassment.… If it's to be preached as something true, the strangeness of it, the way that it can't be framed by what seems to be mere reality, has to be fundamental to it. I don't want to hear what bishops think about Brexit; I know what they think about Brexit, and it's not particularly interesting.
Holland says he is not a Christian but now admits that his worldview, and actually the entire West, has been deeply influenced by the radical nature of Christianity. He lays out his argument in Dominion: How the Christian Revolution Remade the World —now on my must-read list!
Covid-19 Commercials—We Get It Already
I am likely late to the party in noting this closing video, “Every Covid-19 Commercial is Exactly the Same.” It comes from Microsoft Sam, who seems to enjoy deconstructing commercials. In this case, he notes,
When a company or brand releases a Coronavirus Response ad, they might tell you that we're living in "uncertain times", but that "we're here for you". They may say their top priority is "people" and "families" by bringing their services to the "comfort and safety of your home". And don't forget: "we're all in this together!" #together
What's the deal? In reality, many companies have found themselves short on cash, almost overnight. They needed to get a message out - and quick. They asked their teams to throw something together. Since they can't film a new ad because of social distancing, they compiled old stock b-roll footage and found the most inoffensive royalty-free piano track they could find. This, combined with a decade of marketing trends dictated by focus groups and design-by-committee, released a tsunami of derivative, cliche ads all within a week of one another. It's not a conspiracy - but perhaps a sign that it's time for something new.
Grace and peace,
Mark Galli
markgalli.com
I am glad to see you write this. I am hearing too much about "conspiracy theory" and Christians, from local and global (e.g. CT) sources. I don't deny that there is a problem there, but the larger problem I see -- and understand first that I am no worshiper of science -- is that the scientific evidence regarding universal quarantine is being disregarded. The evidence suggests that this new form of quarantine does not significantly improve outcomes, and we have other evidence that it causes tremendous harm. We've hardly begun to see the fallout in our own lives, although millions have been hard hit by it already.
One trend that has been called out by those brave enough to talk about this is that scientists and medical professionals seem very reluctant to speak out about what they know and see happening. It is understandable because they know they stand to lose their jobs, their careers, and their lives as they know them if they do speak out. Consequently, most of what I have been able to learn that is new has come from retired folks (like us) that have less to lose.
The essential arguments that stand out for me are 1) that quarantine is effective for the contagiously ill, not for the general population, 2) that exposure to this virus is unavoidable, and 3) that our immune systems must be exposed to it in order for us to develop immunity. And yes, some will die, usually of other existing disease conditions sometimes complicated by this or other viruses. But death -- and even 'suspected death' -- "with" this virus has been merged with death "from" the virus, for reporting purposes, to whatever end we see playing out.
To #3 I will add that these are our God-designed-and-given immune systems and that they work extremely well for most people, even for those whose health (like mine) is compromised for one reason or another. It is also worth noting that when people stay home and avoid their normal exposures to outside microorganisms, it actively weakens their immune systems and increases the likelihood of a resurgence of the epidemic when they finally do return to work, just as the full consequences of the economic wreckage rain down upon us. On the positive side, the coronavirus season (yes, there is such a thing) typically lasts only into April, to about the time when we saw the epidemic begin to turn around.
Our immune systems protect us day and night from uncountably many microorganisms found around and within us, or we would all be quite dead. These microorganisms are not our enemies -- God put them there to sustain us, and our bodies work with and depend upon them. It is only in the denial of our Creator that we are misled to think we must treat them as invaders and make war on them. That life is a defective product of random evolution that we must improve upon in order to survive.
I am coming to better appreciate what modern idolatry is and what it means now to be blinded by God, to be "delivered … over in the desires of their hearts" and to exchange the truth of God for a lie and worship and serve what has been created instead of the Creator.
I can't help but notice a parallel between the threats that scientists and medical professionals face when they speak about these (and other) matters of health, and the dangers that some Christians have always faced when sharing the truth. There is a common enemy, and it isn't microbial.
Good stuff. About the quarantine issue, I think you may have suggested in your last last letter an Atlantic article that made the point that pandemics are not always declared over by any scientific standard, but by the general public fatigue at the imposition of restrictions. It would seem that is what happened to the world with the Spanish flu to our collective peril. It is happening now in the US (and other countries as well, although we are so oriented towards individual rights and entitlement we outperform almost all cultures in flaunting our detest for restrictions, even those that are for the public good). We seem to have passed a tipping point in that regard. Hence Prof. Bromage's article.
So as the article alludes to, whether we like it or not there is a gathering public consensus that we want the country open again, even if the result may be disastrous. I hope his analysis of the real risks (not elevator buttons, but extended proximity to infected people in enclosed spaces) will encourage those responsible for mitigating risks to enact policies and procedures that are more effective than washing hands. Requiring face masks in all work spaces may be "unmanly", but it is surely more effective than social distancing without them. Just think if the CDC would not have bought the Chinese propaganda that it isn't passed on through aerosol transmission, and thus no need for face masks. Sheer stupidity that one.