Fragwürdiges Interview über COVID-19 in "Profil" (Wien)

Was ist damit los? Profil veröffentlichte in seiner Printausgabe ein langes Interview mit Franz Allerberger, einem Arzt und Forscher bei der Agentur für Gesundheit und Ernährungssicherheit (AGES), das klingt, als würde er COVID-19 als nicht besonders ansteckend abtun und in dem er die Vorstellung, dass Masken zur Begrenzung der Ausbreitung des Virus sinnvoll sind, scheinbar abtun. Aber im Interview liefert er keine wirklichen Erklärungen dafür, warum er solche Positionen radikal im Widerspruch zu dem einnimmt, was die wissenschaftliche Forschung bisher zeigt. (Kurze Zusammenfassung Online: Franz Allerberger: "Dieses Virus ist nicht so ansteckend, wie manche annehmen“ 10.05.2020)

Das erscheint mir wie nachlässiger Journalismus und vielleicht geradezu unverantwortlich. Eine nützliche Richtschnur für die Betrachtung exzentrischer Meinungen zu medizinischen und wissenschaftlichen Fragen lautet: Außerordentliche Ansprüche erfordern außergewöhnliche Beweise. Allerbergers Interview klingt eher frivol als informativ.

Journalisten mögen auch Anekdoten und Allerberger stellt sie zur Verfügung. Aber die Wissenschaft braucht Statistiken und physikalische Messungen und medizinische Tests, nicht nur Anekdoten. Dieses Interview lässt mich denken, dass Allerberger eine Art zynische Kurbel sein könnte. Und es klingt bei ihm regelrecht egal zu sein, ob ältere Menschen in Pflegeheimen sterben oder nicht.

Die Profil-Interviewerin und Allerberger minimieren auch die Letalität von COVID-19, indem sie als Prozentsatz *der Infizierten*, die schließlich sterben, darüber sprechen. Eine sinnvoller Maßnahme ist, wie viele Menschen, bei denen die Krankheit *diagnostiziert* wurde, sterben. Infiziert zu sein bedeutet *nicht*, dass eine Person Symptome hat ("Zeichen und Symptome" in medizinischer Hinsicht). D.h., man kann infiziert werde, ohne die Krankheit selbst zu entwickeln.

Yuval Noah Harari on the challenges of the post-COVID-19 crisis world

"The coronavirus epidemic is ... a major test of citizenship." - Israeli historian Yuval Noah Harari

Not such a surprising statement, although none of us yet know the full implications of it.

In The world after coronavirus Financial Times 03/20/2020, Harari reminds of a long-running human problem: how a state of emergency (to use Carl Schmitt's infamous term) can be used to create more authoritarian government including outright dictatorship.

He makes a very valid liberal-democratic argument that a well-informed citizenry that has a government they can trust and that provides reliable information needs less surveillance and coercrion that one they don't or can't trust:

Centralised monitoring and harsh punishments aren’t the only way to make people comply with beneficial guidelines. When people are told the scientific facts, and when people trust public authorities to tell them these facts, citizens can do the right thing even without a Big Brother watching over their shoulders. A self-motivated and well-informed population is usually far more powerful and effective than a policed, ignorant population.

Consider, for example, washing your hands with soap. This has been one of the greatest advances ever in human hygiene. This simple action saves millions of lives every year. While we take it for granted, it was only in the 19th century that scientists discovered the importance of washing hands with soap. Previously, even doctors and nurses proceeded from one surgical operation to the next without washing their hands. Today billions of people daily wash their hands, not because they are afraid of the soap police, but rather because they understand the facts. I wash my hands with soap because I have heard of viruses and bacteria, I understand that these tiny organisms cause diseases, and I know that soap can remove them. [my emphasis]

In the immediate crisis he sees two important choices. The first is an individual one: "each one of us should choose to trust scientific data and healthcare experts over unfounded conspiracy theories and selfserving politicians."

The second is a more collective one for citizens and governments: "The second important choice we confront is between nationalist isolation and global solidarity. Both the epidemic itself and the resulting economic crisis are global problems. They can be solved effectively only by global co-operation."

How to shoot yourself in the foot while being right - yes, of course, I mean the Democratic Party

Establishment Democratic leadership is so inept even at being right that it's sometimes painful to see.

Here's the Democratic Senate leader (Richard Cowan, Democratic leader Schumer criticizes Trump's call for $1,000 checks Reuters 03/18/2020)

“The coronavirus is slowing our economy to a near standstill and we are almost certainly anticipating a recession,” Schumer said in a speech on the Senate floor. He added that expanded unemployment benefits would be a more effective way of helping workers than a $1,000 check from Washington.

He's right. At least a small bit right. Expanded unemployment insurance would be a more effective, targeted way to provide assistance immediately to the many, many workers who are being hammered by the Trump Virus Recession that now seems to be underway. And the distribution system is there in every state. You just expand the coverage.

The very capable economics journalist Frances Coppola recently explained why $1,000 drops of money to everyone is suboptimal, even in this moment, in Is 'helicopter money' the answer to the looming economic crisis? OpenDemocracy.net 03/17/2020.

Noting that in the 2008 crisis, she advocated for such a response at the time and still in retrospect thinks it would have been an appropriate response in that situation:

There are two specific reasons why I think helicopter money is the wrong policy for this crisis. Firstly, the amounts of money proposed by Furman, Roubini and Mankiw, and by Prime Minister Morrison in Australia, are totally inadequate. $1000 isn’t even a month’s wages for Americans, and nor is AU$750 for Australians. Those who lose their jobs, or are self-isolating, or are ill, need their incomes maintained. Unconditional basic income, not discretionary handouts, is the right solution for them.

The second reason is that spending more is actually the last thing we want people to do right now. Prime Minister Morrison’s proposal to give pensioners additional money is particularly bad. Pensioners are the highest risk group, and therefore need to retreat into their houses and protect themselves, not take the grandchildren to Disneyland. Giving them money to encourage them to spend sends completely the wrong message and is potentially dangerous for them.

But it’s not just pensioners for whom helicopter drops right now would be a bad idea. The companies worst affected by the pandemic are those that provide leisure services – airlines, cruise ships, travel companies, restaurants and bars, event organisers. These businesses all bring people together in one place for relatively long periods of time, increasing the risk of infection and potentially turning those people into disease vectors for the rest of the population. This is why countries are shutting restaurants and bars, banning events, closing borders, and advising vulnerable groups not to travel. Yet these are exactly the sort of activities on which people might want to spend their helicopter money. If they were able to do so, then helicopter money would not only be completely counterproductive, it would be dangerous.

She adds, "And if people couldn’t spend the money on leisure activities, what might they do? Well, they might stockpile goods. There is already a run on loo rolls, pasta, baked beans and flour. Why do we want to fuel this?"

She favors the helicopter-money move "when the virus has passed and people start emerging from their cocoons." Right now - presumably speaking for the US and Europe - she argues: "The top priority must be healthcare, not money. Countries that don’t currently have free universal health care need to provide it. And countries whose healthcare services are underfunded and overstretched need to throw money at them. Staffing and equipment shortages urgently need to be resolved."

And this is how she would like to see governments address income maintenance:

Gig economy workers and the self-employed are particularly vulnerable, since they are always the first out of the door when hard times arrive and many live hand to mouth. It will be some time before the incomes of these workers recover, and many are not eligible for existing benefits, or if they are, the benefits are wholly inadequate. They need unconditional basic income.

Government also needs to support business cash flows as sales fall, so that they can continue to pay workers and maintain supply chains. Some countries are already heading in this direction: for example, Ireland is introducing a scheme to enable companies that have ceased to trade due to the pandemic to continue paying their workers at least the unemployment benefit rate, and Denmark is proposing to support workers’ wages at 75% of full pay in return for companies agreeing not to lay them off.

Maintaining people’s incomes protects landlords, banks and utility companies from defaults. And helping companies to maintain employment and supply chains should enable them to recover quickly when the virus has passed.

But, why, why, can't the Democrats put out a message that doesn't come across as, Trump wants to give everyone $1000 right now and we're against it? Matt Lech dramatizes the problem on Twitter:

That Common Dreams article is by Eoin Higgins, Refusal by Pelosi to Consider Universal Cash Payments in Response to Coronavirus Pandemic 'Maddening,' Say Progressives 03/18/2020.

Part of what's going on is that Congress is trying to push through emergency measures to address the current crisis. And that means the tactical manuevers that are a standard part of Congress doing business suddenly get more public attention than usual. The Democrats need to manage this better.

A lot of longtime loyal Democratic voters are soothed to think that we're now likely to have Joe Biden as the Democratic Presidential candidate campaigning to Make American Boring Again and don't much notice when the Democratic leadership does things like this. But less diligent Democratic voters and actual swing voters are likely to perceive this kind of thing in a different way that Democratic Bidenistas do.

Michael Brooks talks about this issue on The Hill's Rising podcast in the second video below. This is the introductory report, Krystal and Saagar BLAST Pelosi for holding up cash to workers 03/19/2020:

Michael Brooks issues DIRE warning to Establishment Dems:

Overlapping crises: COVID-19, eurozone, refugees

Wolfgang Münchau, who was one of the best commentators on the eurozone crisis in the Great Recession is hearing new alarm bells going off. (Eurozone stability is under threat again Financial Times 03/15/2020)

The last ten years showed that there were two big issues that could blow up the EU: the flaws in the structure of the euro currency and the refugee crisis on the southern border. Both in practice promoted nationalistic attitudes that encouraged anti-EU sentiment. Neither has been adequately addressed. Now the COVID-19 crisis is showing the cost of kicking the can down the road on both issues. The scandalously overcrowded refugee in Greece are particularly vulnerable to COVID-19 outbreaks, which Doctors Without Borders have been sounding the alarm about. (Immediate evacuation of migrant camps in Greece needed to contain coronavirus, says MSF Euronews 03/14/2020)

And that makes both the current refugee emergency and the COVID-19 pandemic more difficult to address.

The "social distancing" that is requiring a massive reduction of immediate economic activity in EU countries, along with the lack of EU-wide fiscal policy to compensate for it, could very well bring a new round of the euro crisis. Which is what Münchau focuses on here:

Taken together, the national policies will constitute a stimulus of sort, but they will end up increasing the eurozone’s internal imbalances. The fiscal deficits of Italy, Spain and France will increase a lot. Those of Germany, the Netherlands and Finland may go up too, but by a lot less. The fiscal gap between the north and the south will widen. ... we are back to arguing about Italy’s solvency, which depends on low bond yields.

In other words, it can set off a new euro crisis. "Italy has not forgotten the reluctance of other EU member states to take in Syrian refugees who landed on Italian shores. Italy will emerge from its Covid-19 nightmare to a different world. It is not good for the EU to antagonise a founding member state."

Yanis Varoufakis talks about the economic repercussions of the COVID-19 crisis in Yanis Varoufakis on the economic and political impact of the coronavirus DiEM25 03/15/2020:

Videos for a quarantine day

Bernie Sanders previews debate strategy against Joe Biden in 'fireside chat' The Hill 03/15/2020. The next couple of days will presumably be either the height of Sanders influence, or a big turnout in his Presidential campaign. And he's in top form. "You can't be a President and just talk off the top of your head. Especially when you don't know anything."

Yanis Varoufakis: The fight against pandemics can only be won with free, public health care DiEM25 03/13/2020 (Greek with English subtitles). Yes, the global economy is largely riding on a private debt bubble right now. And the yield curve was already strongly signalling recessions for the US. Varoufakis is pretty much in full Cassandra mode here:

For a music break, Ina Regen feat. Helene Fischer-Heast as net 12/30/2018:

Here's a video by Richard Wolff. TRIGGER WARNING, especially for corporate Democrats. Wolff identifies as a MARXIST. So if your reaction to that is "OMG!! VENEZUEEEEE-EEEELA!!!", you should probably skip this one. I think he tends to be a bit melodramatic anyway, but staring straight into the camera enhances the effect. AskProfWolff: COVID-19 and the Stock Market Democracy At Work 03/11/2020:

And, for good measure, the Steve Earle song from the 2000s that suddenly has new currency, And I'll show a little solidarity with the Bidenistas and suggest this should be Joe Biden's campaign song, Amerika V. 6.0 (The Best We Can Do) (Live):



Okay, that's kind of thin solidarity, I know. But, hey, "it's the best that we can do."

Republikanische Gegen-Wissenschaft und asymmetrischen parteipolitische Polarisierung in den USA

Charles Seife schreibt über das Problem der politischen Zurückhaltung bei öffentlichen Informationsoperationen durch Gesundheits- und Wissenschaftsbehörden des Bundes in den USA in The Trump Administration’s Misinformation Machine Scientific American 08.03.2020. Er bezieht sich auf die ungewöhnlichen Maßnahmen, die die Trump-Administration ergriffen hat, um Bundesbehörden wie die Centers for Disease Control (CDC) davon abzuhalten, ohne vorherige Zustimmung politischer Beamter öffentlich über die COVID-19-Pandemie zu sprechen.

(Alle Übertragungen auf dem Englischen in diesem Beitrag sind meine.)

Die Bühne für Trumps Spiel, die Stimmen von Wissenschaftlern zu ersticken, wurde gesetzt, bevor er sogar einen Glanz in den Augen der GOP hatte. Seit Jahren beschweren sich Journalisten darüber, dass Presseoffiziere den Zugang zu Regierungswissenschaftlern blockieren, die etwas Wichtiges zu sagen haben, vor allem auch beim CDC. Auch andere Agenturen; Die FDA ging sogar so weit, eine interne Überwachungsoperation zu schaffen, um das zum Schweigen zu bringen, was sie als "verleumderisch" ansah - lesen Sie: peinliche - Informationen, die von einigen ihrer Wissenschaftler verbreitet wurden.

Wir haben jetzt ein neues Ballspiel betreten. Zuvor hatten wir halbherzige Versuche, Andersdenkende mundtot zu machen, bevor sie die Regierung in Verlegenheit bringen konnten; in normalen Zeiten war dies eher ein Ärgernis als eine große Bedrohung für die Demokratie. Doch jetzt müssen wir uns der Tatsache stellen, dass wir eine ernsthafte, erschreckende, umfassende Desinformationskampagne der Regierung – die bürokratische Unterdrückung der wissenschaftlichen Wahrheit zugunsten politisch akzeptabler Fiktion – in Aktion sehen. Und in einem Moment, in dem unsere Gesellschaft zuverlässige wissenschaftliche Informationen am meisten braucht, ist die gefährlichste Quelle von Fehlinformationen in den USA unser eigener Präsident geworden.

Wissenschaft ist nicht Opinion-Seite Ideologie oder politische Polemik. Es ist ein Körper von Wissen und Praxis, es zu erwerben, der Teil der menschlichen Zivilisation für mindestens ein paar Jahrtausende gewesen ist. Der institutionelle Rahmen von akademischen Institutionen und Publikationen, Berufsverbänden, Forschungseinrichtungen, und Wissenschaftsjournalismus setzt Maßstäbe für das, was als gesund gilt und was nicht. Wie alle menschlichen Institutionen hat sie Probleme.

Aber menschliche Gesellschaften führen nicht auf abstrakte sophomorische Argumente darüber, ob wir ihnen „diese komischer Wissenschaftler“ vertrauen können.

Damit öffentliche Universitäten als legitime Universitäten fungieren können, müssen sie rechtlich und organisatorisch geschützt sein, damit ihre detaillierte Lehre als PR-Operationen für das behandelt wird, was derzeit Politiker an der Macht wollen. Dasselbe gilt für andere öffentliche Wissenschafts- und Gesundheitsorganisationen, weil sie öffentliche Institutionen sind, die den Bürger gegenüber verantwortlich sind, und nicht in erster Linie für gewählte Beamte oder eine politische Partei.

Und es gibt auch umfangreiche Gesetze, um Qualifikationen zu definieren und erforderliche Ausbildung für Menschen, um sich als verschiedene Arten von medizinischen Fachkräften darstellen zu können. Andernfalls wäre die Praxis der Medizin und die Herstellung von Medizinprodukten und Arzneimittel ein „freier-Markt“ Wettbewerb zwischen dem Wirksamen und dem Betrügerischen, zwischen dem Hilfreichen und dem Gefährlichen.

Seifes Kolumne deutet vor allem darauf hin, dass das Problem, das er identifiziert, in den USA der Trump-Administration vorausgeht und damit vermutlich auch für die Obama-Biden-Administration gilt. Man könnte sich wünschen, dass er in dieser Punktstelle etwas konkreter gewesen wäre. Er macht aber deutlich, dass die jetzige Regierung es auf die sprichwörtliche next level (nächst-höhere Ebene) gebracht hat: "eine ernste, erschreckende, umfassende Desinformationskampagne der Regierung".

Eine Sache, die leider selbst amerikanische Demokraten in ihrem momentanen kollektiven tiefen Seufzer der Zufriedenheit über die Überlegenheit von Status Quo Joe Biden und seinem Make America Boring Again-Programm zu vergessen scheinen, ist, dass das Problem der asymmetrischen Polarisierung zwischen Zwei große Parteien in den USA sind eine der aggressiven Republikanischen Radikalismus auf der einen Seite und gedämpften Widerstand und sogar die Zusammenarbeit der Demokraten auf der anderen Seite.

"Rückkehr" in den mythischen langweiligen Zustand, den Biden-Enthusiasten sich vorstellen, würde es erfordern, den Fanatismus der Republikanischen Partei zu brechen und die kollaborative Passivität der Demokraten zu beenden.

Die Bärenumarmung der Republikanischen Partei mit Aberglauben und wissenschaftsfeindlichem Extremismus begann nicht mit Trumps Präsidentschaft. Bereits 1980, als Sankt Reagan sich dafür einsetzte, Präsident Jimmy Carter zu besiegen, berichtete Philip Hilts in Creation vs. Evolution: Battle Resumes in Public Schools Washington Post 09/13/1980:

Im heißen Sommer 1925, als William Jennings Bryan die alte Religion im gefeierten Scopes-"Affenprozess" verteidigte, war die fundamentalistische Politik eine mächtige Kraft. Die "Kreationisten", die an die buchstäbliche Genauigkeit der Genesis glaubten, fegten die Lehre der Evolution aus Amerikas öffentlichen Schulen.

Jetzt, 55 Jahre später, hat sich Ronald Reagan erneut an das Thema geklammert, mit seiner jüngsten Unterstützung der modernen Fundamentalisten und ihrer wiederbelebten kreationistischen Bewegung. ...

Der Präsidentschaftskandidat der GOP, Ronald Reagan, brachte das Thema kürzlich auf einem Treffen evangelikaler Christen in Dallas auf das Niveau der Präsidentschaftspolitik, als er behauptete, "große Fehler" in der Evolutionstheorie zu sehen.

Wenn Evolution in den öffentlichen Schulen gelehrt wird, sagte er, dann sollte "die biblische Schöpfungsgeschichte" neben ihr gelehrt werden. "Das religiöse Amerika erwacht", sagte er. [meine Hervorhebung]

Aber St. Reagan begann nicht nur, während seiner Präsidentschaftskampagne 1980 die kreationistische Pseudowissenschaft zu fördern:

Die neue kreationistische Bewegung erhielt ihren ersten großen politischen Schub in Kalifornien während der Regierung von Gouverneur Ronald Reagan. 1969 stimmte ein vor allem religiöser staatlicher Bildungsrat mit sieben von zehn Mitgliedern, die von Reagan ernannt wurden, für die Annahme einer Aussage, dass Kreationismus eine gültige Alternative zur Evolutionstheorie sei.

Der kalifornische Vorstand genehmigte zunächst die Lehre des Kreationismus Seite an Seite mit der Evolution. Dann, nach viel Druck von Kreationisten, beschloss das Board stattdessen, aktuelle Biologie-Lehrbücher zu überarbeiten, um anzuzeigen, dass Evolution nur eine Theorie ist und nicht überprüfbarer ist als die kreationistische Doktrin.

Seit der Überarbeitung der Biologiebücher für Kalifornien -- und diese kalifornischen Texte wurden im ganzen Land in ihrer überarbeiteten Form verwendet -- kämpfen Verleger, Lehrer und Biologen in praktisch jedem Bundesstaat gegen die Position der "gleichen Zeit für die Schöpfung". [meine Hervorhebungen]

Demokraten, die nostalgisch für den beruhigenden Balsam von Make America Boring Again sind, sollten sich vielleicht deutlicher an diese Tage erinnern. Reagans Biograph Lou Cannon schrieb 1991 in President Reagan: The Role of a Lifetime:

Reagan, der [im Wahlkampf 1980] locker lief, zeigte seine vertraute Neigung zu nicht überprüfbaren Anekdoten und die Bereitschaft zu sagen, was ihm in den Kopf kam. Was ihm in den Kopf kam, waren glückliche Gedanken über Kreationismus und Taiwan und Verwirrung über die Ursprünge des Ku-Klux-Klans. Anfang September waren die gaffes des Kandidaten so zahlreich geworden, dass die Reporter auf dem Reagan-Flugzeug schwer unter Druck standen, sie im Auge zu behalten, und die demokratischen Strategen waren optimistisch, dass der Wahlkampf in ein Referendum über Reagan und nicht in ein Referendum über Präsident Carter verwandelt werden würde.  [meine Hervorhebungen]

Ja, die Demokraten hofften, dass das Fieber (unter die Republikaner) schon 1980 brechen würde!

Cannon schrieb weiter:

Auf einer Pressekonferenz in Dallas versuchte Reagan, einen Fragender aus einer religiösen Publikation zu erfreuen und stimmte zu, dass Kreationismus als alternative Theorie zum Darwinismus in den öffentlichen Schulen gelehrt werden sollte. Bei anderen Gelegenheiten nahm er positive Hinweise auf Taiwan, während sein Laufkollege George Bush auf einer Mission in der Volksrepublik China war. Die Bemerkung, die die größte Klappe verursachte, ereignete sich am Tag der Arbeit, als Jimmy Carter seine Herbstkampagne offiziell mit einer Rede in Tuscumbia, Alabama, einem Zentrum der Ku-Klux-Klan-Aktivität, eröffnete. Als Reagan an diesem Abend in Detroit sprach, sagte er: "Jetzt bin ich glücklich, hier zu sein, während er seine Kampagne dort unten in der Stadt eröffnet, die das Hauptorgan des Ku-Klux-Klans hervorgebracht hat und ist." Die Menge gab Gas. Reagan wusste sofort, dass er falsch gesprochen hatte. "Ich habe es gesprengt", sagte er hinterher zu seinen Helfern. "Ich hätte nie sagen sollen, was ich gesagt habe."

In ähnlichen Situationen würde Trump heute nur sagen: "Fake News! Was ich sagte, war perfekt, genau wie der Telefon-Anruf perfekt war. Ich habe diese Situation perfekt gehandhabt!" Aber Spinnerei und anti-Wissenschaftsfanatismus, der vom organisierten christlichen Rechten Fundamentalismus unterstützt wird, sind definitiv nicht neu für die Republikanische Partei und sind nicht erst in 2016 vom Himmel gefallen.

Republican antiscience and asymmetric partisan polarization in the US

Charles Seife writes about the problem of political restraint on public information operations by federal health and science agencies in the US in The Trump Administration’s Misinformation Machine Scientific American 03/08/2020. He's referring to the unusual measures that the Trump Administration has taken to restrain federal agencies like the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) from speaking publicly about the COVID-19 pandemic without prior approval from political officials.

The stage for Trump's play to stifle the voices of scientists was set before he was even a gleam in the GOP’s eye. For years, journalists have been complaining about press officers' blocking access to government scientists who have something important to say, even - especially - at the CDC. Other agencies, too; the FDA even went so far as to create an internal surveillance operation to silence what it deemed "defamatory" - read: embarrassing - information circulated by some of its scientists.

We've now entered a new ballgame. Before, we had desultory attempts to shut dissenters up before they could embarrass the administration; in more normal times, this was an annoyance rather than a major threat to democracy. However, now we must face the fact that we're seeing a serious, terrifying, full-scale government misinformation campaign — the bureaucratic suppression of scientific truth in favor of politically acceptable fiction—in action. And at a moment when our society needs reliable scientific information the most, the most dangerous source of misinformation in the U.S. has become our own president.

Science is not op-ed ideology or political polemics. It is a body of knowledge and practice of acquiring it that has been part of human civilization for at least a couple of millennia. The institutional framework of academics institutions and publications, professional associations, research institutions, science journalism sets standards for what is considered sound and what is not. Like all human institutions, thewy have problems.

But human societies don't run on abstract sophomoric arguments about whether we can trust them thar scientists.

For public universities to function as legitimate universities, they have to have legal and organizational protections from having their detailed teaching being treated as PR operations for whatever politicians are in power at the moment. The same thing is true for other public science and health organizations because they are public institutions with a responsibility to the public, not in the first instance to elected officials or a political party.

And there are also extensive laws to define qualifications and required training for people to be able to represent themselves as various kinds of medical professionals. Otherwise, the practice of medicine and the production of medical devices and products would be a free-market competition between the effective and the fraudulent, between the helpful and the dangerous.

Seife's piece notably indicates that the problem he identifies precedes the Trump Administration and so presumably applies to the Obama-Biden Administration, as well. One might wish he had been a bit more specific on the point. But he does make it clear that the current Administration has taken it to the proverbial next level: "a serious, terrifying, full-scale government misinformation campaign".

One thing that unfortunately even Democrats seem to be forgetting in their momentary collective deep sigh of contentment over the ascendency of Status Quo Joe Biden and his Make America Boring Again program is that the problem of asymmetric polarization between the two major parties in the US is one of aggressive Republican radicalism on the one hand and muted resistance and even collaboration by the Democrats on the other.

"Returning" to the mythical boring state that Biden enthusiasts envision would require breaking the fanaticism of the Republican Party and ending the collaborative passivity of the Democrats.

The Republican Party's bear hug of superstition and anti-science extremism did not begin with Trump's Presidency. Way back in 1980, when St. Reagan was campaigning to defeat President Jimmy Carter, Philip Hilts reported in Creation vs. Evolution: Battle Resumes in Public Schools Washington Post 09/13/1980:

In the hot summer of 1925, when William Jennings Bryan defended the old-time religion in the celebrated Scopes "monkey trial," fundamentalist politics was a powerful force. The "creationists" who believed in the literal accuracy of Genesis swept the teaching of evolution out of America's public schools.

Now, 55 years later Ronald Reagan has latched onto the issue again, with his recent endorsement of the modern fundamentalists and their revived creationist movement. ...

GOP presidential candidate Ronald Reagan raised the issue to the level of presidential politics recently at a meeting of evangelical Christians in Dallas when he claimed to see "great flaws" in the theory of evolution.

If evolution is taught in the public schools, he said, then "the biblical story of creation" should be taught alongside it. "Religious America is awakening," he said. [my emphasis]

But St. Reagan didn't just start promoting creationist pseudoscience during his 1980 Presidential campaign:

The new creationist movement got its first big political boost in California during the administration of Gov. Ronald Reagan. In 1969, a notably religious state board of education, with seven of 10 members appointed by Reagan, voted to accept a statement that creationism is a valid alternative to the theory of evolution.

The California board first approved the teaching of creationism side-by-side with evolution. Then, after much pressure from creationist scientists, the board decided instead to revise current biology textbooks to indicate that evolution is only a theory, and is no more verifiable than creationist doctrine.

Since the revision of biology books for California -- and those California texts were used all over the country in their revised form -- publishers, teachers and biologists have been battling the "equal time for creation" position in virtually every state. [my emphasis]

Democrats nostalgic for the soothing balm of Make America Boring Again might want to recall those days more clearly. Reagan's biographer Lou Cannon wrote in President Reagan: The Role of a Lifetime (1991):

Reagan, running loose [in the 1980 general election campaign], displayed his familiar propensity for unverifiable anecdotes and a willingness to say whatever came into his head. What came into his head were happy thoughts about creationism and Taiwan and confusion about the origins of the Ku Klux Klan. By early September the candidate's gaffes had become so numerous that reporters on the Reagan plane were hard-pressed to keep track of them, and Democratic strategists were optimistic that the election campaign would be turned into a referendum on Reagan rather than on -President Carter.

Yes, the Democrats were hoping the fever would break already in 1980!

Cannon elaborates:

At a news conference in Dallas, Reagan tried to please a questioner from a religious publication and agreed that creationism should be taught as an alternative theory to Darwinism in the public schools. On other occasions he made positive references to Taiwan while his running mate George Bush was on a fence-mending mission to the People's Republic of China. The remark that caused the biggest flap occurred on Labor Day, when Jimmy Carter formally opened his fall campaign with a speech in Tuscumbia, Alabama, a center of Ku Klux Klan activity. When Reagan spoke in Detroit that evening, he said, "Now I'm happy to be here while he is opening his campaign down there in the city that gave birth to and is the parent body of the Ku Klux Klan." The crowd gasped. Reagan knew immediately that he had misspoken. "I blew it," he told his aides afterward. "I should never have said what I said."

In similar situations today, Trump would just say, "Fake news! What I said was perfect, just like the phone call was perfect. I handled that situation perfectly." But crackpot anti-science fanaticism backed by organized Christian Right fundamentalism is definitely not new for the Republican Party and did not drop from the skies in 2016.

Juan Cole on climate change and pandemics

A perennial problem for political institutions, democratic and otherwise, is that it's very tempting to postpone addressing real long term problems. Showing immediate results is more politically appealing. At least it's very tempting for politicians to see it that way.

Even cataclysmically threatening problems like nuclear weapons proliferation and climate change are difficult to address. Unfortunately for humanity, the laws of physics and chemistry don't put themselves on hold in order to save humanity from ourselves. So more attention to how such natural laws work would be advisable.

Juan Cole writes about Why Burning Fossil Fuels is to Today’s Pandemics as Fleas were to the Black Death (Informed Comment 03/14/2020).

Sheri Fink at the NYT reports that Center for Disease Control scientific modeler Matthew Biggerstaff estimated in a conference call that the coronavirus pandemic could last for many months or as long as a year and could infect half to two-thirds of the population of the United States. Between 200,000 and 1.7 million people could die.

The Trump administration could have avoided this prospect by swinging into action with testing kits, tracking cases, and selective isolation practices months ago. Instead, Trump did nothing, and indeed, tried to deny the severity of the threat. He has still been lying about it this week, worried about how the outbreak will affect the stock market or the economy or, apparently, his image. But his weird insouciance and clear cluelessness had the opposite effect of the one he was going for, tanking the market. It wouldn’t have been necessary to close down so many things and harm the economy so deeply if steps had been taken early on.

There is an exact analogy between Trump’s treatment of Covid-19 and his treatment of the climate emergency. In both cases, he and his surrogates attacked the science and took pride in giving the finger to reality. Trump actually promotes coal and petroleum, the dirtiest fossil fuels, as though he is impatient to see the lower floors of his Trump Tower in Manhattan under water. Likewise, he takes pride in holding infectious rallies and shaking hands. Last weekend, he met with another Covid-19 and Climate Emergency denialist, Jair Bolsonaro, the president of Brazil, whose government spokesman was along for the trip and was a carrier of Covid-19. So Trump and the Mar-a-Lago gang were exposed because of being damn fools. [my emphasis]

He discusses the ways in which climate change are likely to make pandemics like COVID-19 more likely and frequent. "If we go on heating the earth so radically and rapidly, pandemics could become a way of life."

Three high-level takes on the COVID-19 pandemic (Sanders, Biden, Trump)

Ranked in order from best to worst.

Sanders makes statement about coronavirus and the economy PBS Newshour 03/12/2020:

Joe Biden gives speech on coronavirus pandemic NBC 03/12/2020:

Joe Biden Speech Transcript on Coronavirus Rev 03/12/2020


Trump Addresses The Nation On Coronavirus From Oval Office 03/11/2020:

Read Trump's coronavirus Oval Office address Politico 03/11/2020


This Steve Earle protest song applies to the last two. Amerika V. 6.0 (The Best We Can Do):