Good Morning;
Updated Sunday morning May 10th.
The other day my wife asked me about why I wrote about her changing her wardrobe from winter to summer. "Why do people need to know about me changing my wardrobe?"
It's a good question that I have been pondering ever since. It's one of the reasons I haven't been doing much else, and have had trouble spending enough time to revise a research paper I am working on. I also growled at the cat, and complained about the mess in the house. It's one of the reasons that my last Thursday seemed to last forever. Such was the confusion about the time and day of the week that I may have been directly responsible for my wife waking up that night and asking: "is it still Shabbat?" To make matters worse, this morning she complained that she couldn't get out of bed because I forgot to tell her whether it would be winter or spring, so she didn't know what to wear. All because I wrote about her changing her wardrobe.
It should be pretty clear to the reader of this blog that my wife never pays any attention to my weather forecasts, which are readily available on the web. Had she, she would have noted that we were predicting the recent "winterstorm" in springtime more than a week in advance. Fortunately, she was able to scrounge some winter clothes, so she survived the storm in good health (Thank God) and good spirits -- until this morning when she didn't know what to wear. Of course, she chose spring clothing, and had to later change back to winter.
The weather can change quickly at this time of year, which adds to uncertainty in the forecast. Still, the next two weeks look like spring will have finally sprung, with many days being warm and sunny, and by the time I write my next blog it will most likely be oppressively hot!
Yet, even when the global forecast looks to be certain (meaning the model ensemble shows a high probability of a weather event -- or not), one should always have a bit of skepticism. Weather models have certain set grid spacings between forecast points, and various physical processes represented in the models are based on assumptions that can over time lead to unrealistic forecasts (model errors). A good dose of skepticism is required in order to minimize the chance of being caught by surprise.
Skepticism is defined as doubt about the truth of something. Just type in "Define skepticism" and you'll find things like "what is the goal of skepticism," "what is the importance of skepticism," and "what is the role of skepticism in science?"
Perhaps quite important to the following discussion: "is skepticism an emotion?"
Skepticism can be a good thing. It can challenge prevailing theories, reinterpreting the facts to develop a new, better theory. For instance, Daniel Kahneman working with Amos Tversky (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Kahneman) both developed a rigorous way to study human errors that arise from heuristics and biases (simple strategies we use to cope with events and how our preconceptions affect our responses to them).
There is also a vocal group (including some scientists) who are skeptical about global predictions. At this point, we can say that the world has warmed in the last 50 years, but not as much as predicted by most of the climate forecast models. For instance, this page shows a warming of about 0.5 degrees above the average of the last 50 years (
https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_March_2020_v6.jpg), which is about 1 degrees Celcius above the coldest temperatures within this period. However, average warming predictions were for about 0.8 Celcius by this time (
https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/graphics/), and about 90% of the forecasts were warmer than the observed warming. One might indeed wonder where are we going when it snows in May in New York City (Saturday morning), the coldest May 6th since 1891. How this should affect our economic and social policy going forward is something that should be considered. It is important to consider skeptical argument, and rebut it if possible. For instance, we will have an additional 0.3 Celcius warming just in the next decade if we continue along our current trend. Is that a large and important change, even though smaller than the vast majority of forecasts?
But, then there are what we will call "Skeptics." One might think that these practice emotional skepticism, trying to influence others through the use of emotional rhetoric. But, an emotional skeptic actually involves being aware of how easily emotions, strong passions, and convictions, can influence our response to stimuli in ways that may not be for our best interest.
Rather, I am calling a "Skeptic" as someone whose worldview informs his/her interpretation of the facts rather than facts informing his/her worldview. Usually, these types of people will base their opinion on other "Skeptics," in a reinforcing circle of delusion.
This is most pertinent to our policy related to coronavirus.
A Skeptic will say that the coronavirus is not so bad, no worse than a bad flu, and the policy of social distancing, shutting businesses has been a mistake - a colossal waste of money. Yet, both left (e.g, The New York Times) and right (e.g, the Wall Street Journal) newspapers have been reporting the perils of this pandemic. For instance, the WSJ reported that those who have been more susceptible to the virus have felt that the virus was akin to the "invasion of the body snatchers," (https://www.wsj.com/articles/coronavirus-hijacks-the-body-from-head-to-toe-perplexing-doctors-11588864248?mod=hp_lead_pos5). Moreover, Skeptics argue that the Pandemic is not really a pandemic or that hospitals were not really overwhelmed with patients. Yet, the NYTs has reported that there is no space to store the dead (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/30/nyregion/coronavirus-nyc-funeral-home-morgue-bodies.html) and that the death rate (death per unit time) has increased by more than 50% in many countries (
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/04/21/world/coronavirus-missing-deaths.html), and even increased six times in New York City (
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/04/27/upshot/coronavirus-deaths-new-york-city.html). See also:
Doctors are fed up with conspiracies ravaging ERsHealth care professionals are dealing with a flurry of misinformation and harassment from conspiracy theorists, some of whom press doctors for proof of the virus's severity.'What are we doing this for?'
Another supposition is that a person just needs to develop antibodies against the virus. Yet, it is not at all clear that these antibodies or even all antibodies will protect against the virus (https://www.wsj.com/articles/among-new-coronavirus-antibody-tests-limited-value-and-many-unknowns-11588877202?mod=hp_lead_pos6). Moreover, as noted, many of the testing kits are not reliable.
Lastly, there is the idea of "herd immunity." Herd immunity is the idea that when enough people become immune that the disease spreads at a lower rate than at first encounter with people (or animals), perhaps even disappearing: (https://www.healthline.com/health/herd-immunity). For a good review, see here:
https://www.discovermagazine.com/health/is-herd-immunity-our-best-weapon-against-covid-19.
Yet, herd immunity doesn't really work to protect us against the ravages of disease. That is why we need vaccines for measles, polio, mumps, etc. There are always new people being born, and there are always some who can infect the uninfected, or whose immunity has worn off. Moreover, the achievement of general immunity can come at a tremendous cost.
Here are some Skeptics to be aware of and why.
"The Failure of Expert Opinion"
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox/FMfcgxwHNMRZTdsdxBBdtVtgQGFHZtDw?projector=1 Here, the person admits he doesn't understand basic concepts about the virus. He is not a medical or biological expert. He claims that if the infection rate is really like the flu, then we have nothing to worry about. Yet, he overlooks the fact that this is the percentage of people infected, rather than the population as whole -- many of whom have been vaccinated. Yet, there is no vaccine for Coronavirus.
The second shows a speaker (a doctor) who claims to be one of many physicians who believe that social distancing doesn't work (
https://www.facebook.com/mari.barke/videos/10223167578641076/). You can tell these are true Skeptics because they denigrate those who believe otherwise by claiming they are "experts" and "mainstream media." Such ideas run counter to common sense, and counter to the experience of countries that practiced social distancing earlier compared to later (e.g., compare Israel and Belgium, or even Great Britain).
Then we have a long presentation from an epidemiologist who claims that we have reached a peak (
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/. Speaking about a peak implies that the number of new infections and deaths are moving downwards, or will soon will be, so we should immediately open the economy, without restriction. However, a plateau suggests otherwise. It actually implies an increasing number of total deaths (
https://covid19.healthdata.org/united-states-of-america); these projections imply that the length of stay on the plateau and how many deaths will depend on how people behave and observe social distancing in the coming months. There are other questionable assumptions, like counting on herd immunity, which are used to support the most likely incorrect conclusions of the investigator.
Ironically, many of the arguments about the effectiveness of social distancing overlook the fact there have (most likely been) lower death (and death rates) than projected because of social distancing itself! After all, one might just say that vaccines don't work because there are very few deaths from Measles, Chicken Pox, and Polio.
By the way, Small Pox is supposedly extinct, but this happened not because of herd immunity developing because of the disease, but because of the vaccine against small pox itself.
The irony is that the Skeptics are correct to worry about the effect of economic and social policy on the state of the economy. However, if you want to be heard and you want to heard in a serious way, it is first necessary to admit that there is a problem to be addressed.
Shabbat Shalom (and now Shavua Tov!)
Barry Lynn
