SoylentNews

Flag of convenience:

a flag of a country under which a ship is registered in order to avoid financial charges or restrictive regulations in the owner's country.

I've taken to flying Swedish flags on my vehicle, not because it's going to get me out of trouble for violating lockdowns and mask orders, but because I admire the nation's recent bravery and levelheadedness. Their policy has been dragged through the mud, but they've kept their hospitals, schools, and economy running with few restrictions. Excess mortality, after rising to about twice the rate of typical flu seasons, has begun to decline (All-cause mortality data, COVID-19 mortality data, graph). Now Sweden's neighbors are beginning to copy the country's policies and loosening restrictions (not visa-versa). As they say, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

Some media stories claim that Sweden's laid back approach is possible because Swedes trust their government and follow official guidance more than Americans do. Here is strong evidence to the contrary: The influenza vaccination rate in the US (67.5 %) is higher than in Sweden (49.4 %).

During this period of home-schooling, I've come to a realization about online math learning that applies specifically to ixl.com, but is probably general. The exercises are generated by computer programs, and it is trivial to generate new problems of the same type by re-randomizing inputs. So students have to solve dozens of problems of the same type, like:

If f(x) = x⁸⁷, what is the 86^th derivative of f(x)? [with minor variations]

Or,

y = (7/3)x - 4. Show the line by clicking coordinates on a graph.

After about three of each problem, boredom and sloppiness set in, but the drills continue again and again. In proper math textbooks, each problem is different, and you can't just apply the exact same methodology from the last problem to the next problem. I guess that's why parents are complaining about rote learning. Some repetition is ok for younger grades where kids are becoming familiar with numbers and their properties, but high school students should start spreading their intellectual wings. Instead, they are forced to do repetitive drills for the convenience of educational websites and teachers.

Half of hospital capacity in my shut down state remains vacant, and medical facilities are receiving government bailouts. Shade is being thrown on antibody tests as unreliable and non-FDA reviewed. But the PCR COVID-19 tests that led to the current shut down were also rushed through.

Nursing homes are reporting large numbers of fatalities. Maybe they are using this time (when the FBI is unlikely to come knocking) to clear the books of residents who died previously but were generating income. People are blase about defrauding the government and see it as a near victimless crime. Why fill out a death certificate and stop the monthly retirement & subsidy checks? Are there reliable inspections of resident lists at long-term care facilities? Is the much-touted high Mediterranean life expectancy actually a benefits scam?

The coronavirus is climate change, compressed and distilled from many decades into the 7 months between now and the November elections. "Scientists", at least those who have the microphone, demand bold action with a huge economic cost to fend off predicted horrors. Even though the ultimate risk is uncertain, and society will disagree about the significance of any ill effects, public experts and their sycophants are boldly taking action to "flatten the curve" and reduce CO2, with little regard for people's economic livelihoods. Universities have been leading the charge and are among those who went the farthest onto this limb.

Essential science is missing: What fraction of infected people is asymptomatic and undiagnosed? Cooler heads are not prevailing and the only choice in November for people who decide that the CDC, governors, local politicians and "experts" jumped the gun will be Trump. If people think that the country was shut down for bad reasons, Democrats will have hell to pay.

Helen Branswell (Boston Globe 3/27, "What do we know about the coronavirus?") wrote that this essential scientific data is being collected in China, but for unknown reasons it hasn't been made public. China is not America's friend...

These are known as serology tests, and the WHO has been urging countries to do this work for weeks. It is unclear why China has not yet published data on these types of studies. In the United States, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says it is developing the tests."

[I am still journaling in private, but spending less time on the web, and may not have a chance to participate in any comments.]

Live Free or Die is New Hampshire's motto, created in times of war and printed on every license plate.

A resident of the state took these words too close to heart and defied directions to self-isolate to prevent coronavirus transmission. Or maybe there were other reasons.

New Hampshire's first coronavirus patient, a hospital employee, went to an event tied to Dartmouth business school on Friday despite being told to stay isolated, officials say, and all others who went to the event are now being told to stay isolated. ...
The first patient is an employee at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, the hospital has announced. It is not aware of any patients being exposed in clinical areas and has identified any staff who might have been exposed.

New Hampshire's quarantine law (violation is a misdemeanor):

Isolation or quarantine shall be by the least restrictive means necessary to protect the citizenry which, in the case of an individual, shall be at a place of his or her choosing unless the commissioner determines such place to be impractical or unlikely to adequately protect the public health. The commissioner may, in ordering isolation or quarantine of persons, require that treatment be obtained.

If the Granite State follows its motto, residents will be phlegmatic when it comes to the new coronavirus.

Trump's chickenpox parties coronavirus rallies are 'very safe'.

Trump was asked on Monday if he thought it was "safe or appropriate" to hold campaign rallies while there's "a public health crisis."

"These were set up a long time ago, and others are," Trump said, before harping on the Democratic presidential primary contest. "You can ask that to the Democrats because they’re having a lot of rallies. They’re all having rallies. That’s what they’re doing; they’re campaigning."

The president was pressed for a more direct answer, to which he stated, "I think it's very safe, yeah. I think it's very safe."

At least he is walking the talk.
Others are more cautious about long-planned public events.

Update: I'm of two minds on the subject. Maybe it's better to rip off the band-aid quickly and let the disease run its course, rather than waiting in suspended animation (possibly for years) while vaccination becomes available.

The US government and also those of other countries keep saying that the risk from coronavirus "remains low". They may add that the situation is evolving and sometimes even that we can expect more cases in the future.

But anyone with half a brain who thinks one or two months into the future sees a very real risk from the virus. That's especially true of voters, whose median age is over 50, because age is a big risk factor. A lot of people don't have great insurance and will have huge co-pays if they are hospitalized. Even if people don't get sick, schools may close, causing major disruption to working families.

By risk, officials seem to mean today's risk, or maybe tomorrow's, not that they have actually been testing widely for viral spread. Of course, even if someone picks up the virus today, symptoms take a while to develop. So maybe the risk of illness today is low.

Here are some definitions of risk:

Merriam-Webster: possibility of loss or injury : PERIL
Wikipedia: the potential for uncontrolled loss of something of value
dictionary.com: exposure to the chance of injury or loss; a hazard or dangerous chance
Collins: If there is a risk of something unpleasant, there is a possibility that it will happen.

None of these include an immediate time-frame in the definition of risk. Smoking is considered risky, even though its effects take years to develop. Riding a motorbike is risky, not because an accident is likely to happen soon, but because of long-term probabilities. When most people think about risk, they have a long-term horizon. A future hazard is a risk today. The official talk is a real snow job.

The government and public-health community should drop their attempts at reassuring messaging, because being talked to like an idiot is not reassuring at all, and also because this talk is used to paper-over the government's own failures. The situation is in fact uncertain and dangerous, but we are adults and know that even in good times, disaster can strike. Actions speak louder than words.

Coronavirus is coming, and this is a presidential election year in the US. I remember how much criticism Bush got for Hurricane Katrina, even though he wasn't even standing for reelection. Katrina resulted in over 1200 deaths ("Heckuva job, Brownie"). The virus could easily kill 10 or 100 times as many and "disruptions to daily life could be `severe.' ".

Democrats are going to do everything they can to make Trump the owner of the response to this disaster. And why shouldn't they? He takes credit for any positive development, no matter what the cause. He also has a lot of power over borders and quarantine policy.

Hasn't Trump been saying that the US healthcare system is the best in the world? Then why are we 32nd in hospital beds per capita? That could become a big political issue if hospitals are overflowing with coronavirus patients.

How much protective gear has been stockpiled for an epidemic emergency? Doctors and nurses running out of bunny suits and masks will look bad.

Who here expects a well-coordinated and effective federal response?

That's probably just scratching the surface of Trump's political vulnerability.

[Good luck to everyone in dealing with the epidemic.]

[Update: Changed owning "this disaster" to "the response to this disaster". But I expect that in the end, people will consider the government response to be part of the disaster. Thanks, Knowledge Troll.]

Religion News Service reported: Russian Orthodox Church considers a ban on blessing weapons of mass destruction

MOSCOW (RNS) — Early one evening in May 2018, days before the annual parade celebrating the Soviet victory in World War II, a convoy of military trucks carrying long-range nuclear weapons trundled to a halt on the Russian capital's ring road.

As police officers stood guard, two Russian Orthodox priests wearing cassocks and holding Bibles climbed out of a vehicle and began sprinkling holy water on the stationary Topol and Yars intercontinental ballistic missiles.

Since relations between Russia and the West plummeted after the Kremlin’s seizure of Crimea in 2014, such scenes have become common here. Priests have sanctified S-400 surface-to-air missiles, nuclear submarines, tanks and fighter jets. Several years ago, a priest in Russia's far east explained that weapons, including nuclear missiles, were “perceived as a means of protection and salvation."

But the practice could soon be a thing of the past. Last month, a Russian Orthodox Church committee on ecclesiastical law recommended that clergy concentrate on blessing soldiers, rather than weapons.
[...]
Some critics have likened the role of priests in the modern Russian military to that played by Soviet-era political officers, whose task was to root out dissenting views. Russia is also constructing a vast Main Cathedral of the Armed Forces near Moscow, whose steps will be made from melted-down tanks seized from the Nazis.

According to Reuters:

Russian priests have long appeared in images sprinkling holy water on submarines, ballistic missiles, Soyuz space rockets and other pieces of hardware as part of rituals to bless them.

I'm not sure what to make of this, except that compared to Russian populism, America's does not look so bad. I support the separation of church and state.

from the inconvenient-truth dept.

[An earlier version has been in editorial limbo.]

Glacier National Park is replacing signs that predicted its glaciers would be gone by 2020

The signs at Glacier National Park warning that its signature glaciers would be gone by 2020 are being changed.

The signs in the Montana park were added more than a decade ago to reflect climate change forecasts at the time by the US Geological Survey, park spokeswoman Gina Kurzmen told CNN.
[...]
But the glacier warning isn't being removed entirely, she told CNN. Instead, the new signs will say: "When they will completely disappear depends on how and when we act. One thing is consistent: the glaciers in the park are shrinking.

Old sign

New sign

According to famous philosopher of science Karl Popper, scientific theories require predictions that risk being wrong. This was one such prediction. Another prediction about Mt. Kilimanajaro that did not fare well reads:

if current climatological conditions persist, the remaining ice fields are likely to disappear between 2015 and 2020

What concrete and risky predictions of climate science came true? It's clear that climate modelers can generate wrong predictions that people can see with their own eyes in real life, but can they also generate correct ones?

PS: I'm not asking for every prediction to hit the mark, but 0-for-2 is bad. And don't pretend that points lining up on a graph is in the same category. Accepting the conclusions of consensus climate scientists who judge each other's work (i.e. grade each other's homework) requires trust. For many people (including me), that trust was never established.

PPS: Someone wrote that "there is literally zero proof that could possibly" change my mind about global warming, and therefore I'm in "denial". But I asked the above questions because I am interested in evidence, not because I don't care.