A Strange & Unexpected Effect of COVID Vaccine-Hesitancy

Yet another milestone has been made in the US’s efforts to take control of the COVID-19 epidemic in the US. The supply of vaccines is now exceeding the demand. Now, there are undoubtedly some locations in the US where there is still a bit more demand than supply; but there are lots of places where there is supply and not nearly enough demand. This would sound good except for a couple of facts. The demand isn’t lacking because there are not sufficient numbers of unvaccinated citizens in many of those under-demand areas, rather it means there is a phenomena of self-induced under-demand which is referred to as “Vaccine Hesitancy”. This does not mean that there is only one contributing factor to Vaccine Hesitancy, but the end result is the same. Vaccine Hesitancy presents an obstacle to achieving or reaching the goal of “herd-immunity” for the nation.

Now, everyone has been hearing about the reasons for achieving herd-immunity for over a year now. But in any national effort related to a public policy there are going to be some who will object or refuse to support or comply with it. This is not unique to the COVID-19 vaccine. There are and have been people who oppose vaccination efforts and policies for previous vaccines. Some have religious objections, some are suspicious of the government or businesses promoting the vaccines, and there are plenty of conspiracy theories that are promoted for various reasons like generating revenue for the theories advocates. All these factors are at play with the COVID-19. But there is a new or certainly much less common factor with the COVID vaccines: political alignment. There is a significant portion of the Republican party’s constituency what is refusing to get vaccinated. Some of these Republicans are going to also overlap with the religious sub-group, some with those suspicious of the government or big Pharma, and some are entangled with various conspiracy theories. However, most appear to be refusing or rejecting for a political, ideological, or emotional reason.

Taken in total these different population segments appear to represent about 30% of the US population, where 5% are in a “Not Sure” segment and may or may not change their current decision of not acting to get vaccinated. If we hope that most of the “Not Sure” / undecided comes around, we have 25% of the US population at risk of being in the “No” column. This part of the Vaccine Hesitancy group are not really hesitant they are rejecting and refusing to overtly support the public policy and the herd-immunity goal. This doesn’t mean that there is no way to reach herd-immunity but rather that the process whereby it is achieved is different with different consequences and implications. It is these consequences and implications which are interesting to consider and assess. Consider for instance that herd-immunity is not a new concept, it is not dependent upon a vaccination approach as a public policy, and it can be achieved without our even knowing that there is a way to get to herd-immunity with less harm to ourselves and our society. Herd-immunity has been achieved many times in the past, but at great loss to various populations.

Now don’t look at COVID-19 through the lens of what the healthcare and government experts and leaders are advocating. Instead, look at what it means to the different groups if herd-immunity is not achieved. Are the outcomes to each group the same? Suppose you were a critical thinker and objective analyst that set aside the moral and humanitarian consequences, what happens to different groups? After you have estimated and assessed the results for each population sub-group would then there are differential implications not just to those groups but even to what decisions you might want to present as options.

If 25% of the population is rejecting vaccination and half of them are Republican men and their families then that 12.5% of the US’s 330+M citizens; that is 41.25M people. If half of them eventually become infected with COVID because herd-immunity is not achieved, the virus continues to spread to the uninfected, and they hold to their partisan position of refusing to vaccinate for political reasons that is 20.7M infected people. With a mortality rate of 1.0% we will have 207K more US deaths.

That 207K US deaths is just from the Republican aligned part of the US population. The religious sub-group that isn’t overlapping with them will have additional deaths, so will the anti-vaccine sub-group, and the conspiracy theorists. This is just a little objective critical thinking leaving out any consideration of the morality or humane aspect of these results. These 207K deaths also do not account for those who will suffer other consequences from their infection but not die from COVID.

But this is also just the start. There are implications beyond just 207K deaths. Each death will have consequences. There are implication upon implication that will flow forward from these 207K lost citizens.

Absent the emotional, moral, and humanitarian considerations, it would seem this is not a prudent decision because of one’s political views, ideology, or party. That Republican leaders (not all) are contributors to the Vaccine Hesitancy phenomena would seem to be self-defeating and doesn’t show much competency in forward looking leadership.

Adding consideration of the moral facet of how the US deals with the virus, factoring in humanitarian aspects of these consequences, and remembering our societal value of human life; there has undoubtedly been a huge misstep by the Republican party concerning it’s reaction and in-actions regarding supporting the COVID-19 Vaccination effort and goals. They may not be able to prevent the nation from achieving herd-immunity, but at what cost?

This brief assessment doesn’t even begin to look at all the other implications and consequences, which ought to give everyone involved vaccinated, unvaccinated, or undecided/unsure a reason to pause and ask: “What else happens that has import to me, my family, my community, my state, my country, and yes even your party."

There Are Two Choices in Politics: Both Are Bad

If you haven’t noticed, in politics there is a common view that one side has the ‘right’ answer on an issue and the other has the ‘wrong’ answer. [An aside: I would hope that the use of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ provided a self-evident meaning of these terms in the non-political sense. If you aligned either or both terms to a political entity, then the rationale for this aside is hopefully helpful.] This is seen daily in news coverage of our elected officials at the federal, state, and local levels. The partisan alignment of “truth, justice and the American way” that turns every issue, question, or policy into an “Either-Or” confrontation is particularly visible when the media provides politicians or their spokespersons with any bandwidth on a topic. But forget about the “Either-Or” of the topic on display, what is the reason, logic, or intelligence of the “Either-Or” perspective? That politicians use this strategy so predictably is, in and of itself, an almost self-evident proof that it is an ill-informed and inappropriate way to understand or deal with the issues.

Besides the inane strategy of force-fitting any and every issue into a choice between “this” side or “that” side, there is just no logical basis for why that concept would be valid in the real world on most issues. As often as we happen upon the “Either-Or” phenomena, how often is there an issue which is so simple and basic that it has only one of two choices? Take an issue where there is even some moderate degree of complexity and ask yourself: “Is it is reasonable to conclude that the laws of physics, principles of economics, or an area of scientific knowledge which would suggest that the issue divides into only one of two sides/cases?”

If you believe most of reality works on an “Either-Or” basis, then tossing a coin would be a good way to model most of the questions, issues, and policies that you have to make your decisions on. Consider applying that model to your life. If it does not work there, why would it work for larger issues and circumstances in your community, society, or government? Is buying a car something you could easily do by flipping a coin? Yes, you can do it that way, but do you actually? How about buying a house or renting an apartment? Surely when you go to the grocery store you can use a coin-toss to buy or not buy items. Unless you are planning to have something specific for a meal and require specific ingredients. Maybe deciding to have a baby is simple enough to use a coin to decide. Now I am not trying to claim that there are ‘no’ decisions, choices, or situations where a coin-toss would not work perfectly well. Who goes first in a two-person game for instance, or who’s going to pay for lunch (unless there are other factors that are relevant even to paying for lunch). There are some conditions and situations where a coin-toss (“Either-Or”) is fine, but there are many more where it just isn’t rational.

Reality requires dealing with more complexity than the simple-mined “either-or” tunnel-vision politicians force upon themselves and others with ideological blinders. On almost every issue, perhaps actually on every issue; it would be more intelligent for politicians to think in terms of the answers to an issue as being presented by a die. The die might be four, six, eight, …, or perhaps to keep the concept within a politician’s ken no more than a dodecahedron (that is a 12-sided die, for politicians). The purpose of this die-based conceptual approach is to encourage politicians, their political parties, and their advisers who may themselves struggle to see outside their own self-imposed blinders to try and see the world as requiring one to think about what the actual problem is rather than trying to fit it into a pre-ordained box.

The “Either-Or” problem is about how does one solve the propensity for people, especially politicians, to put every question into a forced “Either-Or” choice?  Applying this bifurcation rule is a foolish way to try and solve problems. Making everything an “Either-Or” question will rarely deliver a sound, reasoned and informed solution. Believing that you can force reality into an “Either-Or” choice in order to satisfy a “them vs us” political box is a pretty good definition of a “fool’s errand” or idiocy; and is thus quite reasonably to be expected of politicians. Solving the “Either-Or” problem has readily available strategies, and lots of practical methods and techniques.

The solution would be to do what any semi-competent STEM-educated individual would advise. Use STEM-based problem-solving. This begins with understanding the problem without bias, identifying/defining what your objectives and goals are (and not pre-constrained by an ideological bias), and then look for and at all the solutions and approaches that you are capable of thinking up, and then assess which solution options are best able to satisfy the objectives you have. Once you have at least one option to solve the problem, and for which you can see a path that can be implemented to achieve those goals, then you can determine what would make your choose among alternative solutions to guide your selection (hopefully while still avoiding a pre-set because of an ideological preference).

This will be a herculean challenge for any politician, since it requires that you remove the blinders, open your eyes to all the ways in which an issue can be solved, and then perhaps most importantly assess the benefits and costs without regard for whether they conform to and confirm your ideological principles. When ideological principles contradict smart and intelligent solutions, it would be best to follow the advice of John Maynard Keynes. Or, if you have heard this phrase recently: “Let the science guide us” then you can hopefully prevent the pre-conceived answer, solution, or policy from degrading or preventing get to the benefits you were seeking.

What validates the need to avoid or solve the “Either-Or” problem? Just think of some of the issues that occupy our nation regularly or constantly. Who, beside a politician, actually thinks that any of the following issues, problems or topics can be answered or solved with an “Either-Or” answer/solution?

•   ·       Lowering taxation policies are better for an economy. Or its counterpart: Raising taxation policies are worse for an economy.
•   ·         Gun-violence or Gun-control laws are a violation of the 2^nd Amendment.
•   ·         The government (federal or state) cannot require the public to get vaccinated.
•   ·         Climate Change is real and humans contribute to it. Or, its counter-claim: Climate Change is not impacted by human activities.
•   ·         Abortion policy: It is either total legal or totally illegal. Or an obscuring issue: No federal tax dollars can go to any activity with any connection to an abortion related event.
•   ·         Tariffs: Either the other party pays the costs, or you do.
•   ·         Other issues: Perhaps your favorite issue meets the “Either-Or” category.

Now as nice as clear, simple and opinion-confirming “Either-Or” answers are to a problem there is no requirement that a problem has a clear, simple or opinion-confirming answer and especially not an “Either-Or” one. Certainly, there is no Law of Physics that requires this, and our experiences from the STEM world is that even what seems simple can become quite complex and not so “Either-Or”-based as thought.

The reason that it is important to question “Either-Or” answers, solutions or decisions is that it is in those questions that we can learn something that might be critical to what matters. After all, just because you have an answer, solution or have made a decision that is no guarantee that the answer is right, or that the solution will accomplish your objective, or that the decision will serve your interests.

We can see this aspect of human self-awareness (on those rare occasions when humans show self-awareness) just by how they make statements regarding an answer, solution, or decision. How often have you heard something akin to the following:

·         Given the information available, this is the best answer we can get.

·         We do not know how else to solve this problem.

·         We do not have time to find another solution.

·         Based on what we know today, this seems to be the right decision.

I am sure that you could generate your own ‘qualifying’ statements about facts you have heard that are more semi-facts than absolute “this and only this” facts; or answers that you are not so sure of, a solution that has other paths that might work as well (or even better), and decisions that you had to make but not between what was ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ but where it was just necessary to make a decision (like in voting in an election).

At this point, lets drop back to one of the oft heard “Either-Or” issues fought over between our politicians and political parties: Taxation policy.

Is the economy better with lower taxes or higher taxes? Simple question, right? Then there must be a simple ‘right’ answer and therefore a simple ‘wrong’ answer. This has been a long-standing “Either-Or” issue. Some assert or shout that “Taxes are too high.” And there are others claiming and haranguing that “The wealthy need to pay more taxes.” [Note: “more taxes” can mean higher in a number of different ways but the net meaning is a greater amount than is currently incurred by this sub-group of the population.] One can get a sense of the “Either-Or” positions from these opposing views. There would apparently be some point between them that would satisfy both sides if there is an “Either-Or” solution. Except, we have never found it. Taxes have been higher, they have been lower, and they have varied in a multitude of ways across a variety of dimensions. Yet, none of the political parties and certainly not both have found a means to find the proverbial “Either-Or” sweet spot. The easiest answer is of an Occam’s razor type and would be: “There isn’t one.” For those who of are not familiar with Occam’s razor it asserts basically that the ‘simplest answer is often the right one’. What makes it relevant here is that contains an implicit warning about “Either-Or” answers; it contains the salient term “often”.

To ascertain the ‘right’ answer to the taxation issue one must understand the problem. Taxation policy is a solution to societal problems that are deemed in need of solutions: How should the costs of societal needs be accounted for and distributed? There is no answer to this problem unless you answer or define what the ‘societal problems’ are. There are some societal needs that even politicians and parties both agree upon. There needs to be some governmental entities and activities that must exist and perform their functions. The US Constitution itself provides simple proof is this requirement. But even the Constitution does not answer the questions about what all those societal needs are.

If what is required of a government is not self-evident. If the government and its responsibilities are not fixed and unchanging. If the circumstances under which the government must operate are not constant. Then the ‘right’ taxation policy(ies) surely must adapt to needs of reality; just as history has demonstrated over and over, despite the ideological positions of politicians, political parties and even economists some of whom cannot seem to adapt to failures in their preferred economic theories, models and principles.

Perhaps relying upon “Either-Or” answers is not something that an informed, rational, and democratic nation should aspire to be. “Either-Or” may be all that politicians or political parties are able to do; but like any other problem they can be solved. Politicians can be replaced with someone who is less bound to an ideological “Theory of Everything” that fails most if not all tests. Political parties can be forced to evolve by the proper exercise of Darwinian selection. And the public could benefit from having issues of the day presented and explained in terms of the reasoning and decisions that are being made rather than in “Either-Or” ideological themes of what ‘is hoped to be true’ rather than ‘what is true.’

BEWARE of the Other Implications of COVID-19 Vaccines

 

There are plenty of facts and non-facts spreading around about COVID-19 and its vaccines. There are also plenty of conspiracy theories used to support arguments against getting the vaccine, and then there is the politics which never adds any intelligence, value, or benefit to an issue. So, it should be of no surprise that no one thinks about what the consequences of various decisions, actions, and beliefs will be. I may be being a tad hard on the healthcare professionals in so far as they are being inundated with the reality of COVID and confronting the immediate crises, the changing conditions, and try and anticipate what needs to be done next. So, that they may not be looking at or thinking about some tangential aspects of the situation might be expected.

But not everyone involved is a healthcare professional. Not everyone is wholly occupied in carrying out COVID related tasks critical to handling or managing issues related to its transmission, or in executing the vaccination programs. There are some people who are engaged in conceiving how to get the public to want to or agree to getting vaccinated. Then there are the politicians. Some politicians spend some time doing the “get vaccinated” promotions. Some politicians try and walk the line between being an advocate versus an opponent. And some politicians are aligning with a denial mentality of the dangers, risks, and consequences of any effort which does not serve their political interests. So, you want to be wary of a healthcare decision based upon a political mind-set.

As easy as the obvious questions are:

•     Get vaccinated or not?
•     Wear a mast or not?
•     Wash your hands or not?
•      Socially distance or not?

There are some facets to the COVID-19 pandemic which are worthy of some contemplation from a broader and more nuanced consideration of implications and consequences that the virus will or might produce.  There are some facets that are self-identifying. Take the segment of the Republican party that is effectively an anti-vaccination sub-culture or the white evangelical groups that reject COVID vaccinations (Note: there is a likely high correlation within these two groups.) Let’s call this group: Republican Evangelical Deniers of Science (REDS). Are there any implications to the REDS anti-vaccination stance decision to that constituency? Are the consequences to the REDS population different than the consequences to other population segments?

Assessing what consequences there may be depends upon what we know about the REDS target-group that is also different from the rest of the population. Are the REDS a younger, average, or older age group? If REDS are an older group than there is an implication that goes with the age factor. If they get infected with the COVID virus they are more likely to experience more severe outcomes including the one that they hope leads to a journey upwards rather than downwards. So, one implication should be quite simple, it’s just numeric. I suppose the here-after may be worth the risk, but then that’s guaranteed to happen eventually; and it comes at the cost of diminishing what can be done in the here-and-now. It’s giving away something for nothing. That is not to say that there are not some positives, just not for you. Most people probably can’t figure out the positives but if you know someone who has any experience in doing business cases, they can probably provide some insights.

What about the non-dying implications? Well, because COVID is a test, a test from God as the creator of all things, there are consequences to the decisions that everyone makes on this test just like on every other one. Some people don’t die but they also don’t exactly recover. If you decided to not get vaccinated, it’s like a long-lasting reminder that you may have failed the test. But that is just for starters. You also may get to the opportunity to pay more for your medical expenses. You may not be able to do some of the things that you use to do just a little while ago. These implications are more of the personal/individual ones. But remember we are discussing a sub-group of the population. This means that there are implications that come from the aggregation of the individual consequences.

That aggregation can come in many flavors or layers. There is the family group(s), the community group(s) both religious and civic, the political group(s) local, state, national, and party; and of course, there is the American group (all of us in total). With each decision by every individual the small consequences combine along one or more of these layers. When some of the consequences become large enough in aggregate, they produce their own consequences. This is where things get interesting and important[TB1] . This is where tipping point events can happen without anyone see them coming or ever tracing back their source back to small decisions made by many individuals. It’s why the mountain range that once was is now a beach of fine sand.

Now the REDS are just one of the aggregations and even they come in multiple layers; but there are others who can contribute to their own tipping points or merge together where there is a commonality of consequences. The mountain does not just fall to the rain, but the wind can bring it down also.

What might be some of the consequences from these small individual decisions? Look for aggregation points.

COVID has a mortality rate and that rate differs along several factors. That means that it aggregates along those factors differently. If the REDS as a group also coincide with one or more of those factors than the potential for disproportionate outcomes emerge, and even tipping points can occur. As a population REDS are older on average than the rest of the nation. These two factors: age and political-religious sect alignment have potential to create differential outcomes if the decision to get vaccinated or to not get vaccinated produces a differential COVID death rate for those vaccinated or not. The same aggregation has implications which can extend to the non-fatal consequences that derive from being in groups that get vaccinated or not.

All this would seem to be an: “Oh well, that may all be true but it only affects those who die or are impaired, and don’t impact the majority of the group who don’t.” Unless the implications have implications. If your political-religious sect aligned group loses more than other groups, then the aggregate political influence is diminished. If the diminution is just large enough you get a tipping point.

Not all the consequences are by default negative, there can also be beneficial consequences. These consequences may not be to the particular sub-group that experiences the negative outcomes but to other sub-groups or to the larger population. The increased deaths among the older population that COVID has produced and will continue to produce will result in consequences that are positive in their impacts. For example, if the average lifespan is the US is temporarily reduced and concentrated at the higher age ranges then costs associated with that age group is reduced. It is not a benefit that the population would approve of given the cost in lives and human impacts, but it occurs irrespective of what would be desired.

What other aggregation points may be relevant to understand? How about:

• ·        Insurance: Life and medical insurance businesses will be impacted. Whether the net from a business perspective will be a business loss or profit will have to be determined by how each different company and their respective customers aggregate under each company.
• ·         Politics has already been impacted from how the nation has responded to the crisis, how it has disrupted virtually every aspect of life and the nation. The change in the composition of constituencies and their changes in political views and issues will carry into the future. Tipping points.
• ·         Education has changed and there could be consequences which persist and more changes that will come about. Again, different groups may experience the consequences of those changes depending upon different factors that aggregate differently in their outcomes.
• ·         Religion could be an interesting arena which is impacted by aggregation consequences. Part of this could be a simple result of a connecting factor that links people and their religion to the decisions that they make related to that religion just through having closer association because of local community. You physically aggregate with your aggregate group locally. If your faith community promotes getting vaccinated and another faith community promotes not getting vaccinated, then there can be different outcomes. At some point some savvy economist, social researcher, insurance actuary, or government statistician will determine that some religious alignments resulted in better outcomes and other produced worse results.
• ·         As a last thought, there are future implications that will come the decisions people make. The difficulty here is that they include situations and events that are like the current COVID-19 event. No one will know that they are coming, even if there are a few individuals who study and work to be prepared for the unexpected. We were very fortunate that there was a level of STEM-based knowledge, expertise and capabilities that were able to respond quickly and effectively to the COVID virus. This is not guaranteed to always be the case. The choices that sub-groups make create opportunities for future implications. The emergent variations in the COVID-19 virus are examples of future implications. Choices related to getting vaccinated or not can result in implications which are just another opportunity for different population sub-groups to experience different outcomes.

At this point you might be asking, so what is the point?

Well, one point is that the very popular issues about the COVID virus are simple-minded, short-sighted, and are mis-appropriated to the wrong context. COVID-19 is a national healthcare issue and not a political one. This requires that choices be made. Not just choices by individuals, but choices by the society. In the US this means that our elected officials and governmental entities have to determine what the “necessary and proper” public policies are, and deal with any obstacles that inhibit or prevent those policies from being delivered. This creates disagreements over the ‘my right’ versus ‘social obligation’ because America always has to deal with dissent. This is where the implications come in. The choices that people make have implications beyond their individual self. If the risk to the society is high enough our society, government and Constitution allows for the individual’s right to be subservient to the public’s right. Fortunately, COVID-19 is not so deadly that even politicians can determine that there is a societal imperative for public policies that give little to no leeway to individual decisions. However, COVID-19 is not so benign as to make individual choices inconsequential.

This renders the decisions about America’s public policies related to COVID-19 a quagmire of choices. In these circumstances the question moves more to one of “Who and based on what criteria are the policies to be decided?” In these situations, the answer should actually be what we constantly hear from political leaders, but which doesn’t seem to actually be the case. The “we are following the science” sounds fine but I don’t think “following the science” would tell us to go left, go right and keep going forward all at the same time.

This is why leaders need to look at the implications of the decisions beyond the immediate. When “the science” tells you something and you do not do it then what do you think is going to result? If you are good with that outcome, then you can defend it; but if you didn’t “know” that was going to happen “and implication” then did you “listen to the science”?

You are making your “personal choice” which makes you feel that you are accountable for what happens to you. But others are making they choices also. When your choice or their choice has implications beyond just you then you forgot about your ‘responsibility’ that is required for you to even have a “personal choice”. It’s the implications, not the choice.

---

 [TB1]

Section 230 - Solving the Gordian Knot

Everyone knows how huge and complex the internet is and how it has become entangled with virtually everything that defines modern society in the developed world. And along with this complexity and its tentacles reaching into all aspects of daily life, it has become a modern-day Gordian Knot. The knotty-ness comes from the difficulties that those seeking to solve it have encountered in their efforts to resolve the many problems that have come with the many advantages the internet has wrought. There is no disputing the internet brought a great many benefits; but that along with its highly desired benefits also came a set of problems is neither surprising nor intractable. There may be no way to introduce new technologies or means to performing some tasks without also introducing some related issues and problems. But this problematic side of technical advances is just another instance of finding a solution to the new problem. Learning to grow crops rather than hunting for them in their natural habitat was an advancement but it brought with it the problems of preventing ranging herbivores or insects from eating it. So it is with the useful tools provided by the internet. There too you need to protect yourself from the predators and infestations that pervade many internet environs.

Clearly some of the abusive and malignant problems enabled by Tech (big or otherwise) are harder than others to contend with, but that does not mean even the hardest of these problems is actually all that difficult to resolve. Just a cursory look at the various ills the internet has enabled include the old standards: spam, phishing, hackers, and identity theft; and who can forget viruses that use to be the plague we all worried about before COVID-19. Adding to this list are the culturally and politically charged problems: hate-speech & anonymous threats, ‘fake-news’, misinformation campaigns (foreign & domestic varieties), political interference by foreign entities, domestic terrorism recruitment & organizing efforts, and conspiracy theory propagation.  Now these problems have persisted for decades and constantly evolved with the internet; and new technologies are adding to the problems that can be created, “deep-fakes” for example. Not everything about all the problems has been bad, they have provided the justification for numerous companies & services to arise to deal with them. So, there is a silver lining for some in the dark cloud of internet scourges, but at a cost.

Of course, as we have integrated the internet more and more into our lives and society, the extent to which these ills have manifested themselves as actual significant risks to our society and nation have grown. As the technologies have expanded and increased the value that its tools/capabilities can provide has increased, but then those tools/capabilities have likewise also been used to ill-effect.

The Big Tech companies are not unaware of these problems. They lobbied aggressively for the Section 230 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to ‘protect’ themselves from the ‘problems’ emerging as issues a quarter of a century ago. By being indemnified and protected against liability from these risks, abuses, and dangerous actions operating via their systems and services, the internet technology companies have eliminated the risks to themselves and mostly removed the incentives to do anything to protect their users or clients. So, the predictable happened. Those who would take advantage of openings, weaknesses, and vulnerabilities learned how to do so. Additionally, some of the features that platforms provided even aided and enhanced the abilities for abusers to abuse.

Section 230 represents one of the areas of contention that the Big Tech companies, politicians, legislators, regulators, platform clients and users will disagree about what or even if anything needs to be done to resolve any of the issues/problems. The Big Tech companies will seize on arguments that support or help them prevent or reduce taking on responsibilities which will be of course the exact opposite of what politicians, legislators, and regulators will be seeking. And there will be other interest groups that will be advocating for whatever hot-button items they want or are afraid of losing. These different and conflicting interests will make coming to grip with the problems quite difficult. The difficulty does not originate from the problems being inherently difficult or complex, but that those involved are not able to see the problems for what they are and represent. No one involved is looking at ways to see the problems that simply change assumptions about what the problems require to be solved.

There’s an argument Big Tech uses which presumes that dealing with hate-speech, ‘fake-news’, misinformation, and other content issues requires that they engage in censorship or content moderation. If this were true, then Big Tech would be right that they need to be protected from some or all liabilities; but it is not true. There are solutions that enable hate-speech to be managed without the technology companies having to take on that roll. There are solutions to dealing with misinformation that do not require censorship or moderation. “Fake news” is easily handled, and no one (not even Big Tech) needs to be engaged in fact-checking, validating, or assessing content. Name a problem and the ‘red-herring’ obstacle can be dispensed with leaving Big Tech without a liability issue or risk.

It is hard to say why Big Tech has not seen the solutions to any of these issues, but it could just be in assumptions that they made about what any solution required. They imposed a ‘tunnel-vision’ constraint on their innovative and expert problem-solvers. The same may apply to politicians, legislators, regulators, and other interested parties. They may only be looking at a solution or solutions that conform to some assumptions they made about what is necessary and required of a solution. Destroy the assumption(s) and the space of solutions may open to a vastly wider number of options.

The key to revising Section 230 is in solving the Gordian Knot of assumptions that block access to all the solutions that makes it much easier. The reasons to look at the problems afresh and without fear are many. Among the best is that there are better solutions which enhance Big Tech’s businesses, the services that they provide to their users and clients, and which eliminates some or all of the risks that politicians, legislators, and regulators would likely impose in their uninformed zeal to “do what they think is right” to redress the various problems.

All that is lacking is a leader in one of the Big Tech companies that can see opportunities where today they are struggling to find a path forward that avoid the predation of those who “are here to help.”

What Are Odds COVID-19 Is Political?

You’ve surely heard many people say that the COVID-19 virus does not care about politics, political parties or anything when it comes to infecting its next victim (aka host). From a STEM perspective, this is what any moderately informed person would know and agree with. This is not to say that there are not differences in terms of how the virus might affect the host. This is also by now a generally known characteristic of the COVID virus. It has higher risks for different age groups and different health conditions; but not because the virus chooses to act differently a priori but because once transmitted to the next host the virus operates based on the conditions pre-existing in the host. So, based on the basic viral transmission processes that COVID uses in its transmissions, none of them are targeted at humans because they are Democrats, Republicans, or any other political belief-system.

This political neutrality of the virus offers an unusual opportunity to learn and understand how capable our politics, political parties and political leaders are at effectively or ineffectively managing a non-partisan virus and national crisis in their respective jurisdictions. One could pose a simple scientific question and in a very STEM-based manner test the question. Now there are many possible questions so it may be prudent to select a rather simple one. Given the non-partisan orientation of the virus that factor presents an obvious direction to probe. If the virus does not operate differently because of political position, then how does one’s politics affect the results produced by the virus? That is an interesting question. How could it be tested? Perhaps the following question will suffice:

If we looked at each state as an independent test-bed case, then we could make predictions based upon the non-partisan virus. For instance, what are the chances that the performance of states’ infection levels would be random with respect to the political party controlling their state’s legislatures? This can be a hard analysis to make. Unless the results are so statistically compelling that one is left with a need to ask: “What the hell!?”

If we looked at an ordered ranking of states from worst performing to best performing than a random non-partisan virus would create a sequence that is within the realm of statistical probability. For instance, if you flipped a coin (an analog for a state) than what is the probability of seeing the sequence that we see? So, let’s look at the worst 20 performing states.

Here’s what we see. The worst state has a Republican dominated legislature. That’s a 50-50 coin flip. No big whoop.

The 2^nd state also has a Republican dominated legislature and the 3^rd state has a Democratic dominated legislature. There’s a 39% change of that. So, no surprise here either.

Now things get interesting. The next 17 states are all Republican dominated legislatures. So, of the worst 20 states: 19 are Republican legislatures and only 1 is Democratic. Do your coin flips and there are some chances of that happening. Not many but some. The odds of that occurring in a population of 51 states (District of Columbia is included as a state) are around 26 times in a trillion tries at flipping that coin. This is like winning the Powerball lottery about 130 times. Not at all likely, and as such a big whoop there must be some contributary cause due in some degree to this rather bizarre finding.

The virus did not react differently because of any state’s legislature. But this does not preclude that actions taken or not taken because of a state’s legislature didn’t cause differences in how the virus’ transmission processes were impacted. For example, a legislature may require or deny a governor the authority to implement a particular public policy. The state’s legislature in reflecting the political demographics of a state may reflect the attitudes and actions of its citizens in complying or not with public policies implemented in response to the virus. In essence a state’s legislature may be a direct factor or a proxy-factor for causal agents that impact the efficacy of policies and actions used or not used in how the state performs in protecting its citizenry.

Clearly there are things that could be learned here. For example, the public could learn that when politicians get involved in issues that these politicians/political parties do not understand, and there are a lot of things that politicians do not understand, they may turn a non-political issue into a political issue. When this happens, the public is placing itself at risk and placing the nation at risk if they just go along with what the politicians and the political party you align with are telling you. One of them may be right. But you cannot even take comfort that one side has to be right; both could be wrong. And, thinking that at least your side is ‘less wrong’ is just another version of the same risk (I did not want to say stupidity).

What might be worth learning is that you must constantly question your politicians and political party. I have assumed that you are already questioning the other party and its politicians. Do not trust you own party, its politicians, or the issues that they are harping to you about. Your patriotic duty and civic responsibility is to doubt those you are trusting to represent you. Consider the political party as just one side of a coin. If you flip that coin on every issue and problem, what do you think the chances are that your party or politicians will be right every time?

The Minimum Strategy for a Minimum Wage Bill

With the Senate Parliamentarian’s determination that the Democrats’ $15 Minimum Wage effort does not meet the Senate’s budget reconciliation process, this part of the bill passed by the House will have to be removed thus avoiding a no-win Republican filibuster from stymieing on the entire $1.9T COVID Relief/Stimulus package. The question now becomes “What to do?”

There are, as there almost always are, a variety of different strategies that could be chosen. There are even the strategies that there was and has been no evidence that Democrats or Republicans ever thought of for dealing with the Minimum Wage effort. Among the ‘known’ options are:

• ·    Abandon the effort, or delay it until they can find a strategy that they feel has sufficient support
• ·    Over-rule the Parliamentarian’s decision and proceed with the Minimum Wage in the bill
• ·    Put forth an independent Minimum Wage bill and see what happens
• ·    Make some modifications / compromise on the wage limit to be enacted, and see what happens
• ·    Look at, or for, solutions that haven’t been considered so far

Then there are the ‘unknown’ options, the approaches that neither political party has considered or thought of as a solution to the national issue of what the nation’s Minimum Wage should be. These ‘unknown’ solutions in a general sense would represent proposals, policies and strategies that were not used on the provisions that the Senate will eliminate from the Relief/Stimulus bill. Since the premise here is that no one in the Senate or House proposed an alternative bill that would have achieved the desired goals that none of the politicians had sound and reasoned solution which would have been a better strategic approach.

Now it is important to make sure that you know that the “goals” are when you are choosing your solution to reach those goals and the strategies / approaches that you believe will be key to the success of your plan. In that context, the “goals” are an essential element of what your solution both requires and will deliver. There were a number of widely publicized “goals” associated with the $15 Minimum Wage bill; and it is likely that there were some “goals” that may never have seen the light of day as they were the typical “behind closed doors” requirements and conditions that politicians of any orientation engage in. On the publicly presented “goals” list were:

• ·         $15 minimum wage limit
• ·         Bipartisan support
• ·         Economic stimulus effect & COVID recovery
• ·         Income equity/equality progress
• ·         Reduction in poverty levels

As to the “behind closed doors” objectives, one would have to have access to what deals were cut that have not been promoted, and of course, we don’t know these.

To have been successful where Congress and the Democrats appear not to have been at this juncture, it would seem the solution path, policy and strategies that where selected contributed to the failure of that task. This failure could be the result of poor problem analysis and problem-solving on the part of the bill’s proponents. To the extent that this was a causal element to the case, one tactic to moving forward in any attempt to pursue passing a Minimum Wage bill would be to:

• ·    Engage a critical thinking analyst or innovative problem-solver who can offer some alternative solutions.
• ·    Consider strategies that will enable the Senate & House to accomplish something on a bipartisan basis to the degree that is a ‘key’ requirement versus a ‘nice to have’ condition.

It is unlikely the Democrats will pursue a re-analysis methodology, and Republicans already demonstrated that they didn’t do such an analysis on the Minimum Wage issue. There is not much evidence that these are concepts that fit within the political mind and politicians do not appear to apply any reasonable level of problem-solving to other issues either. None-the-less, looking at the Minimum Wage issue through a problem-solving method would reveal aspects of the issue that might be what the Democrats ought to do now.

To start, is the $15 an hour rate the right amount? $15 was presumably picked in that it represented an amount that would produce an annual income level that would lift millions of people above the nation’s poverty level. Given this goal, compromising on the Minimum Wage rate that would be sufficiently acceptable to get it passed would be one approach. There was even some discussion about this idea, but it did not come to fruition so obviously as a strategy and alternative it was insufficient. However, this approach (finding an equilibrium point) is an old-strategy and an inept and enfeebled one in many situations. What is needed here is something with a little more nuance and intelligence. [Yes, something beyond the scope of a political mind.] A little thought and the question of a Minimum Wage could follow a couple of other routes to a resolution. The current proposal already contains a year-by-year increase until the $15 rate is reached. States already have different set minimum rates.  Overlay this with differing ‘Cost Of Living’ levels in different states and the number of options begins to expand geometrically. Finally, there is an accountability factor which no one has considered that could turn into the leverage that one might gain in attaining bipartisan support. In retrospect, it is obvious that the Democrats did not have a viable strategy. However, it was fairly self-evident that the likelihood of success was very much in question before this week.

Now take on “bipartisan support”. Was it a necessity, or just a desired but optional requirement? Facts would indicate the later. It is not that the Democrats did not want or were unwilling to engage with Republicans in order to obtain some support; however, it is not clear that either the Democrats or the Republicans, who were willing to find “common ground”, possessed the skill sets or competencies that might have been necessary to find a path leading to that ground. So, if one lacks the strategies to accomplish a task, it is hardly surprising that one would fail at it. There is also one or two assumptions regarding bipartisanship that are not a given and should either or both assumptions be invalid then the possibility of success is greatly reduce or in some situations prohibits the possibility of success completely. The assumptions are that the Democrats are willing to accommodate some Republican modifications, and that the Republicans are willing to engage in accomplishing Democratic goals. It is difficult to assess if it is the assumptions that are wrong, or that failure may be primarily a consequence of not possessing the requisite skills to achieve either compromise or better yet a superior solution that delivers more that is beneficial to the nation and acceptable to both sides, a near impossible accomplishment for today’s politicians.

The economic stimulus and COVID-recovery objectives are a more ideological issue. Both sides want the same results at a theoretical level. They both want a robust, prosperous, and growing economy that restores employment and encompasses a competitive financial and business environment. Of course, the two parties have different views and approaches for how the end results are to be achieved. My perspective is that neither party is particularly adept or competent in this area, and since it is directly tied with the Minimum Wage issue, it is a central source of disagreement for the two parties. The issue seems to have boiled down to two views:

•        Raising the Minimum Wage will cost jobs.
    This is bad and will not be good for the economy.
  
  
•      Raising the Minimum Wage will lift millions of works out of poverty and enable the economy to make greater gains over time.

Since you probably have you own view and know what the answer is, it would seem pointless to state which is right (in the non-political ideology sense that is). But that does not mean either party is right or wrong. Mostly it means they do not really know because they have not so much assessed and understood the issue as just parroting the party-line. It is a tenet of faith for both. It must be true because they ‘believe’ it is true and they are ‘right’ because of that ideological requirement.

When viewing the Minimum Wage issue as a legislative effort with these diametrically opposed views, it would seem to render the potential for a bipartisan bill to be zero. However, the outcome of a purely Democratic bill would only be the result of not seeing the issue as an opportunity to take a different path than the ones the two parties follow over and over again and fail at finding common ground. If only one or the other could see the issue through a STEM perspective, they might find that rare path to success overlooked when one is wearing partisan blinders.

The goals of income equity and reducing poverty levels are targeted goals related to making the value of work which is part of a robust economy valued sufficiently to enable it to provide a living-wage. There is an economic, ethical, and humanitarian inconsistency in having a booming economy and also having members of the workforce that do not earn a sufficient wage to provide for a basic living standard.

The contest over the Minimum Wage bill could truly be a contest of ideas. However, for there to be contest there must be ideas. Absent ideas there is nothing to base a decision upon. Since there is no STEM-based proof of which, if either, of the partisan views is correct this points to an obvious STEM-type of solution. Incorporate into the Minimum Wage bill some unnatural ‘natural’ experiments. Attaining bi-partisan support ought to be quite simple. In truth, it should be almost impossible to prevent a stampede of Democrats and Republicans to support such a bill. The difficult of course would be for Democrats or Republicans to comprehend what such a bill would require and how to go about structuring and implementing it. While this solution is simple, it is not obvious. While beneficial, it is not ideological. And, while this would serve the nation’s interests it might also expose the truth about the competencies of political parties and those who claim to be leading us.

You Can't Get Back to Normal - A COVID-19 Parable

For somewhere around a year now, people have been asking: “When do you think we will get back to normal?” While I am sure there have been lots of people asking that question, the ones that I have any direct experience of doing so are journalists/reporters. The question comes up in many contexts, but it is the same question with the same thought concept behind it: When will the world be like it was before the pandemic?

Surprisingly at one level, and not surprising at all at another, the answer ought to be both simple and obvious. To keep you from what I hope is not anything like suspense, the answer is: Never. We will never get back to normal. This of course is not what anyone wants to hear, certainly not the journalists. And of course, it does and doesn’t answer the question because both the question and the answer are examples of a bad communication process. Thus, the parable.

When engaged in a communication process there are some requirements that just have to be understood. The “When” question is starting a conversation, but it is doing so without meeting the necessary requirements to do so successfully. The following mimics a song I heard decades ago but it provided the inspiration for my sad parable. If you are interest in the lyrics look up a song by Bob Gibson, titled: To Morrow. But back to the question of “When we will get back to normal?”  As you read the parable, it should become self-evident what the problem with the “When” question is.

 

“Getting Back To Normal”

By T. M. Bauer

 

It’s been a year or so I think, like for everyone,
since things have been near or close to normal.
When meeting a neighbor outside not to be out done,
we remain safely distanced as that is now what’s formal.

Even on calls with friends or family, someone is sure to ask
When do you think that it is that we will get back to normal?
It happened yet again today, and I just muttered in my mask,
This must stop. So I decided then and there I’d be abnormal.

You know, I said, that’s hard to say, when we will be back.
I don’t believe that you or I has been there less I’m a fool.
So getting back to Normal would be quite difficult in fact.
Perhaps to get to Normal we would have to go to a school.

They’d insist we would get back to normal once this virus goes away.
And in reply it seemed to me I’d have to take a stance.
Are you planning to move or just to visit Normal on that day?
It was clear to me the tune had forced us all into a semantic dance.

Which Normal are you going to then? I would ask as if confused.
They shrugged, looked at me. We don’t really know, we aren’t exactly sure.
But after so long, it will be nice to get back to normal, we’re enthused.
I am not going to Normal. I’m staying here at home. But tell a bit more.

Which Normal are you going to? Is it to Alabama or Illinois you go?
They stared at me in disbelief. No! No! We are staying here.
I cannot see how you will get back if you do not go, and so,
It is not normal to not go to Normal if you want to be back there.             

The parable, as poor as it was, hopefully made its point: It is important in a conversation (communication) to be talking about the same thing and sharing a common frame of reference. The question of “When” presumes that the concept of “normal” is understood in common but this is clearly not the case. Some people when answering even indicate in their response that “well, we will never actually get back to the way it was” and then proceed to give some time in which we will no longer be in the current situation.

I hate to say this, but we are never in the current situation after some period of time elapses. The Greek philosopher Heraclitus gave his perspective on this: “You can never step into the same river twice.” Returning to “normal” will thus require at least a brief discussion of what “normal” means. But it should be understood from the beginning that “normal” will be a different river from the one we had been in before; just as it should be.