Have You Heard This Problem? - Getting the American Herd to Understand Herd-Immunity

 I was watching today’s White House Press Briefing and there were once again questions about herd-immunity regarding COVID-19. You might think that there would be a respectable general level of knowledge and understanding about herd-immunity in the population since it’s been a topic for months. If you thought that, you would be wrong.

I do not know why we expect a good understanding of the public in general; when I am not convinced that the media, which “informs” the public, understands herd-immunity at a nominal or competent level. The most informative thing that the news media could probably do is conduct a survey on what the public thinks/understand herd-immunity is. Note: I did not use the term: poll, because it is and has been overly contaminated by our political parties.

A question asked today was: “When does the Administration expect the nation to reach herd-immunity?”

Now that question implies or assumes a meaning to ‘herd immunity’ that is not particularly applicable. This is not because one could not answer the question precisely enough. You could give a range or a referencing periods like a month, a season, or a year; but even then, that answer conveys a particular idea or notion about herd-immunity that is not truly informative to the nation.

What then is the problem? Partly, the problem is that the idea that ‘herd-immunity’ is a single point, state or condition which is known is misleading. So, it may well be necessary to better define what ‘herd-immunity’ means and make it clear that it is not a process or strategy that is being used to reach a goal but is a goal for the processes and strategies that are being followed to reach that goal. Even here, it will be important and necessary that the public understands that ‘herd-immunity’ does not stop, prevent, or eradicate the Corona virus.

Another facet of the problem, is that ‘herd-immunity’ once reached does not mean that treatment, mitigation, and prevention efforts are complete. This does not seem to be the concept that journalists have, else they might be asking better questions; or at least there ought to be one journalist who would ask a better question. Complicating this is the broad spectrum of differences in the population that may make reaching ‘herd-immunity’ a tad bit unbalanced. Herd-immunity will not be reached in every region simultaneously, or in every state, or within some states. It’s possible that herd-immunity will arrive in urban and rural communities at differ times. The nation may reach an aggregate measure of ‘herd-immunity’ but, in reality there may be some areas that are still far away from herd-immunity.

So, what is the “right” answer to this well-conceived question of when does the nation get to ‘herd-immunity’? I suspect that it might be the same time at which the news media understand what ‘herd-immunity’ really means. No, that can’t be right. America will reach ‘herd-immunity’ way ahead of when the bulk of journalist probably do. When with the public understand what ‘herd-immunity’ is and what it means to reach it? I can’t say that I am any more hopeful than I am about journalists.

A Momentous Biden Administration Opportunity from the Momentum of COVID-19

 To Xavier Becerra: Nominee for Health & Human Services (HHS)

As you prepare to take up your position as HHS Secretary, there is a relevant opportunity that depends upon quick attention and prompt action. With the transition to the Biden Administration, the fight against the COVID-19 pandemic will be a most significant and difficult challenge. It is thus imprudent to not recognize and seize an appropriate strategy to avert criticism and blame for results that are pre-ordained by the laws of physics and our STEM-based knowledge and understanding of the virus.

As surely as the sun rises in the east under the laws of physics; the continued transmission, hospitalizations, deaths, and other associated damage that will be done by the Corona virus will proceed according to the forces that have been at play for months. More importantly, given the dynamics of the disease, what will happen for the next several weeks and months are to a large degree set in stone. This points to a clear and key strategy in establishing smart and informed expectations for the Biden Administration’s goals in combating the virus.

The most effective way to do this is to provide a clear messaging on what HHS’s forecasts are for key COVID-19 metrics and to present them in terms of two or three delineated time-periods. The CDC and other public health agencies have forecasts for a number of the metrics that are monitored, reported upon and used to plan going-forward efforts and decisions. At a minimum HHS should provide a projections on key metrics based on these three categorizations. As an example, the number of ‘new’ COVID cases forecast for the next 3 or 4 weeks these should be termed as explicitly “Inherited From Trump” (IFT) projection, then a “Transition to Biden” (TTB) projection (perhaps 4 weeks, based on policy and plan changes that are put into effect), and finally after meeting key implementation conditions/requirements the metrics would fall into a COVID-19 “Biden Era Science & Technology” (BEST) policy(ies).

The purpose of these intervals is to establish for the public a connection between efforts and policies taken by the Biden Administration and the inherent delay required before these actions can show results in the daily data and news coverage of COVID-19. In relying upon the science to guide public policy, it is also necessary to place those decisions and policies into the context of a “cause and effect” perspective. Politics does not change the laws of physics and a change in Administration does not mean that the changes that it will make happen until those laws of physics produce their outcomes in the time-periods which they require. In releasing an arrow, the arrow doesn’t hit the target until the necessary time has passed; so it will be with actions taken by the Biden Administration.

This same reasoning and reality apply as much to America’s COVID-19 conditions as it does to a decision to any other changes that the Biden Administration brings about.

 It should also be noted that where there are regions, states or jurisdictions which choose to reject, resist or follow different policies then those differences provide a form of ‘natural experiments’ against which to measure the effectiveness of competing policies, decisions and actions. It would thus behoove HHS to require that regions or states that choose to follow paths that you see as contrary to the nation’s interests that those regions/states provide the appropriate forecast for their polices, efforts and goals. Just as the Biden Administration’s HHS should not be solely accountable for the first three to four weeks of ‘new’ COVID cases, HHS should not be the primary accountable entity for those who act on their own approaches.

If you and HHS do not seem the wisdom of providing a definitive forecast based on these three categorized intervals, then by default you are accepting the accountability for the COVID-19 data starting on Jan. 21, 2021. I can see no logic in such a decision or in the failure to have considered this aspect of the situation which the Biden Administration is inheriting.

How Not To Steal An Election

On January 6^th, 2021 the nation and the world witnessed the most visible demonstration of how not to steal an election. If you are one of the self-deluded people who believed in the “Big Lie” then I must warn you the attempted theft of America’s right to self-rule by Trump was the foiled crime. America should not be surprised that Trump attempted to rob Americans of their freedoms, it is completely consistent with his character, behavior, and corruption through out his life and businesses. Perhaps more surprising is that the Idolatry of Trump depended upon the acceptance of one Big Lie after another which were and are accepted as a matter of faith, not in the law but in just a severely flawed man.

While Trump’s efforts to steal the Presidency were fortunately thwarted, they have and will continue to damage and threaten America for years to come. In many ways, the cult of Trump provides numerous lessons about how not to steal an election. [Note: Learning how not to steal an election does not provide a one with a means to competently steal one. As long as America can maintain a minimal level of “informed citizenry” than stealing an election will be fraught with risks. This is of course was what Jefferson advised us, and Franklin cautioned was a condition to “keep it”.]

So, what are some of the lessons that we can learn, if we want to follow Franklin’s advice?

1. A.      The “Big Lie” can be difficult to get acknowledged if there is even a “Little Truth” that is presented in opposition to it. Thus, the necessity to maintain a free press, not controlled by the government, not beholding to political parties, and not in-service to those in power.
   
   
2. B.      The “Big Lie” can’t be something that is easily disproved or rejected due to facts that even the deluded can’t explain away except by repeating the “Big Lie”. Something is proven to be true because you say you “know” something but can’t provide proof of what you “know”.
   
   
3. C.      You cannot surround yourself with incompetent supporters. Ineptitude and stupidity demonstrated by those attempting to support the “Big Lie” degrades the effort and provides counter-arguments against the very lie they are struggling to push. Claiming over and over that you have proof of your assertions is typical, but not bringing that proof forward or even claiming the charge in judicial proceedings is sheer incompetence. Consider the sage advice: “When the law is on your side argue the law. When the facts are on your side argue the facts. When neither the law nor the facts are on your side make an ad hominem attack.” Even supposedly respected individuals (who may only receive such respects as a common curiosity) that are seeking to protect their own interests will demonstrate the incompetence of their support by being evasive, waffling, duplicitous, and weak-kneed in defending or arguing for the “Big Lie”.
   
   
4. D.      Don’t base your “Big Lie” on logical pillars that are tenuous, fragile and self-contradictory. If you had foreknowledge of your claimed act(s), if you had undertaken efforts to prove your claims and failed, if you had the opportunity to prevent the now claimed “Big Lie” but did nothing, and if you provide evidence against yourself of your own culpability in being engaged in the “Big Lie” then you are making the “Big Lie” a visible farce. It easier to believe in the “Big Lie” when all elements that it depends upon are kept in the dark; actively exposing the “Big Lie” to the light of day just results in the predictable disinfectant effect. These are all acts of incompetence at all levels.
   
   
5. E.       Do not allow supporters who present themselves in visually inconsistent attire with themes of the “Big Lie”, or who speak in support of your “Big Lie” with messages that undercut logic, reason, or intelligence. While the icon of the “Big Lie” is important, it is tarnished if the images tagged to it are incongruent with that of the idol’s.
   
   
6. F.       It is extremely important that you do not appear to be stupid on any front. You can’t make missteps related to the “Big Lie” and certainly not over and over. If every time the “Big Lie” is put forward there are more challenges to it, then you are exposing all the vulnerabilities of the ”Big Lie” to numerous points of attack. The “Big Lie” like any organism can die from many factors including “death by a thousand cuts”, even a thousand cuts self-imposed.
   
   
7. G.      Always remember that there is a high risk to your “Big Lie” when it also applies to your very own situation. It’s one thing to put forth a “Big Lie” that has not connection with yourself, doesn’t relate to the other side of the same coin, or can become an “equal and opposite” force applied to you. Being the lead on the “Big Lie” give you vulnerability but no plausible deniability.

While Trump will not and cannot benefit from these lessons, the American people could. It’s even possible, thought it is probably a remote possibility, that our elected officials could not just learn valuable lessons; Congress could act to deal with the many vulnerability that this “Big Lie” has put on display front and center. This would be relatively easy to accomplish, but you need a degree of competence in these efforts just as much as you should avoid the levels of incompetence demonstrated in the attempted execution of the “Big Lie”.

This may indicate one of the biggest lessons that the public needs to learn. It is actually important to elect officials who are competent. Why voters seem to fail at electing intelligent representatives in government is a remarkable state of affairs. How much this is the fault of and a failure of our political parties might be worth consideration.

It Is Not Surprising People Are Gullible; Hence Politics

There seems to be some astonishing recognition and amazement expressed by many in the news media and by many in the population about how many people are accepting the claims that the 2020 Presidential election was stolen via numerous methods. Why news professionals or even the general public should be surprised that such claims are believed is even more surprising to me. On what basis do they expect that people are not gullible, are not easily lead and deceived, or are predisposed to sound and reasonable judgement on the facts related to an issue?

Consider the ‘common wisdom’ of our culture and history that would inform and instruct us against such naïve notions. Consider the science of human behavior regarding how individuals, groups and communities deal with information and facts, not to mention they deal with scientific information itself. Consider what the news media and journalists themselves present and discuss on many issues and events that they themselves challenge individuals, groups and political parties on that does not conform to the facts, data or knowledge which is rejected or denied by those segments of the public. There is plenty of evidence that tells us that it is not just unlikely but that it is very typical for some people to be deceived, gullible or self-deluded about a topic.

I remember learning what some easily recognizable American figures have advised the public to be aware of as ‘informed’ citizens, consumers or just individuals. Abraham Lincoln provided a classic adage that applies not just to politics but to every aspect of our lives. When Lincoln said: “You can fool some of the people all of the time, all of the people some of the time; but you can’t fool all the people all of the time”, he was instructing the public that politicians (and others) will try to deceive you for their purposes. This has not changed since Lincoln said it. It was true before Lincoln, after Lincoln, is true now, and will continue to be true in the future. A consequence of this is that there will be people in the population who will believe what they are told is true, even when it is not.

P. T. Barnum also provided sage instruction to our society. He is noted for saying: “There’s a sucker born every minute.” This advice is not all that different from Lincoln’s in that it warns each of us that you can be fooled. A reasonable parsing of his adage is that anyone can be fooled [is a sucker] if you recognize that the ‘every minute’ conditions was how often a person was born, thus everyone. He based his assessment on his own success in his business enterprises, which while entertainment, remains valid and applicable to any other area of life, especially politics.

H. L. Mencken over half a century after Lincoln provided yet another insight into how human nature and their ability to be deceived, to be gullible, applies in throughout our society at that time. His advice was perhaps more a commentary on business in America but at it’s root it informs us about what once should expect of some part of a population. There is plenty of evidence since Mencken’s observation that suggest he was correct regarding what once can rely upon from some among us. Mencken noted that “No one has ever lost money underestimating the intelligence of the people.” This is just a reframing of Lincoln’s, Barnum’s and many others who have stated that people can and are fooled routinely. It’s just as true today as a century ago, perhaps even more so with the advent of the internet, e-commerce and social-media.

These three historic figures are hardly alone or even in a small and select group when it comes to assessing the vulnerability of people to be deceived, fooled, conned, deluded, and exploited by others based upon what people are willing or choosing to believe. There would not be the extent of scams and conspiracy theories pervading the nation or the world if the vulnerability to people being fooled were not as easy as it turns out to be.

If you don’t have much confidence in the views of past individuals, perhaps you might be amenable to the information and data that science provides. There has been ample evidence gather by STEM-oriented research that demonstrates that people can and are deceived on almost any topic or issue. Self-deception is studied by psychologists, economists, artificial intelligence & computer science researchers, marketing experts, lobbyists, political advocacy entities, and of course politicians & political entities. Knowing how individuals and groups can be ‘influenced’ is a valuable knowledge-set and service/product offering. Even if you don’t believe that many of these areas validate that there are ways to deceive people, especially particular groups in a population then you haven’t noticed how many different ‘information’ sources and programs there are today that focus on particular views. These entities don’t engage in their activities for purely selfless reasons. They are engaged because there is money to be made for those that they can ‘win over’ to the ‘context’ of the information they provide.

STEM has shown and uses what has been learned about human behavior to target their messages to their revenue sources. Just the phenomena that people are prone to interpreting information to conform to their views/beliefs is a scientific explanation for Lincoln’s, Barnum’s and Mencken’s observations. People are subject to their own ‘confirmation-bias’ when seeing, hearing or discussing the same information. When different people interpret the same information in a manner where both or multiple ‘interpretations’ cannot be right, true, valid or provable then there’s plenty of research that demonstrates that self-selection of information is occurring, that the information is being distorted by views of the individuals not of the reality of the information.

Now while there is no guarantee that any one, any group or segment of the population is right; because every one or every group could be wrong. Logically, if there are at least two differing interpretations of the information then one of them is closer to the truth than the other. Since the same information is used by both groups the difference has to come from how the individuals interpreted and used that information. If each individual had a different interpretation one could conclude that there is just to much variation in how that information was used. However if you have for example two major interpretations emerge from the same data than there has to be an underlying process that is driving and determining this ‘group-think’ consensus. One of those principles is ‘confirmation bias’. People are choosing what to believe and adjust their understanding of the data, the information and of reality to conform to that belief. This is one of the factors that creates the ability for people to be gullible, to be deceived. This is the factor that is used to manipulate people and groups.

Add to the ‘confirmation bias’, the principle of ‘belonging’ and you have another factor that causes people to ‘want to believe’ in something despite facts, truth or reality. Human being want to belong to groups, to be a member in good standing in their community(ies). They are happy to ‘go along’ to ‘get along’. Is this self-delusion, self-deception or being gullible? Yes, it is. You don’t have to do it consciously and with an intended objective. You just have to be subject to it’s influence over how you process and understand information. You aren’t necessarily doing it knowingly, though some may be for other reasons; but not knowing or being aware of how you are understanding the facts doesn’t mean you are not subject to the distortions and errors that they produce for you.

The whole purpose of this assessment on how people are deceived, gullible, and used by others was to point out that the news media and journalists who are ‘surprised’ by there being groups or portions of a population in denial about an issue just seems to be just another example of self-delusion. Do they really not know and understand that this happens all the time and on many, many issues?

Perhaps, journalists should wonder if they are doing their jobs sufficiently to confront this issue. There are things that they could do to help deal with this problem, and it is a problem. How does one defend our democracy if Jefferson was correct; that a free society depends upon its citizenry’s knowledge in that “whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government." If the people are to be ‘well-informed’ then self-delusion and gullibility would seem to be a corrosive force acting against defense of democracy.