degringolade | Rememberances

I figure that I am in pretty good shape all considered. My forced distancing has not effected my life greatly and I remain healthy. Walking is back on line and I will need to finish the week with a flourish. I did sabotage my eating yesterday with a Papa Murphy's pizza, I am not ashamed. Couple this with a sale on proper English pints of an excellent hopped cider for $1.99 and it was a fine evening. I am re-reading JMG's Weird of Hali cycle and taking notes and reading the places where he riffed off existing writers. I am almost considering doing a gloss of the electronic version in order to tie things together. What the hell, gotta have something to do during lockdown.

I did spend time yesterday looking at the VA remote sites (CBOC's). There are some nice smaller towns with clinics where I can spend my dotage. But on mornings like this sometimes I think that I just ought to sit tight here in PDX and watch the show. Who knows, a decision will come when it is right for a decision to come. There are still bills to be paid.

Screed:

Maybe it is time to talk seriously about death. Now I am going to go out on a limb here and say that this will be one of my least liked posts.

The Rona has broken our little mass hallucination that pretends that death is sterile thing that happens to others. Most notably, this seems to effect us boomers the worst. Which is odd, because as a group we should be the ones addressing this. The MMWR came up with a interesting study on hospitalization rates for Rona. Take a look at this here gem.

FIGURE 1. Laboratory-confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)–associated hospitalization rates,* by age group — COVID-NET, 14 states,† March 1–28, 2020 from
Garg S, Kim L, Whitaker M, et al. Hospitalization Rates and Characteristics of Patients Hospitalized with Laboratory-Confirmed Coronavirus Disease 2019 — COVID-NET, 14 States, March 1–30, 2020. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. ePub: 8 April 2020. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm6915e3.

Think long and hard on these numbers. Seriously. Remember the size of the American Population. Remember the age distribution here in the land of the free and the home of the brave. Most important, look at the scale of the Y-axis.

My genuine feeling about this is that we don't know enough to be doing what we are doing. I think that what we are seeing here is the last desperate posturing of old men who have spent their lives either ignoring death or thinking they can beat it. Both of those are very faulty thoughts, and our leaders, being in the "target demographic" have over-reacted thinking that "erring on the side of safety" is always the first and correct option to any situation.

Death stalks us all. I think that the current situation and the response to it are a denial of that truth. I am of the target demographic, my co-morbidities are low, I take my chances. I go to work at the hospital where the first Rona patient died in Oregon every day. But all I see is the idea that death can be delayed for the elderly so that they can die of something else.

I don't know what the correct mix of emotions and values should be for the Rona. I just don't know. But I am getting a sneaking hunch that we aren't going to be pleased with the blowback from the decisions that we have made and the values we have embraced.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

How much do the numbers mean given the extraordinary measures taken to make the numbers small? Are the extreme measures taken not the reason for the low numbers?

Conspiracy mongers and politicians that wanted to do nothing, and did nothing, for at least a month too long, will point to those low numbers to promote their theories and defend themselves, but they should not be allowed to do so without explaining why the extraordinary measures had no impact on the numbers.

The common view is that politicians overreacted because, being politicians, they did not have the option of underreacting and consequently being blamed for deaths. This view automatically degrades the decisions of a proactive politician, by suggesting that the holder of the view would have made different and better decisions, because they are not a politician.

What this view ignores, is the uncertainty that existed when the decisions to take extreme measures had to be made. One thing that politicians or news/entertainment personalities had in common if they were predicting outcomes at the time, was that none of them could possibly have known what they were talking about.

Three things that accumulate with age, if they accumulate, are wealth, wisdom and talent. Sure, many rich geezers were greedy bastards who might deserve little sympathy now, but much wisdom and talent reside among the old, while very little resides among the young.

So, it could be that the appropriate virus for a plan to do nothing in response, is one that kills the young while sparing the old – a virus that spares those most likely to possess wisdom and talent.

Note that the majority of those who earn, or try to earn, a Darwin Award, are not old people. A virus that kills the young will align well with any plan nature has to eliminate the unwise and the talentless.

PS: If you have any interest in what I think about coronavirus and low-wage workers who are declared critical natural resources, see my letter to the editor published today in the Seattle Times.

Can't say as I disagree. Can't say as I agree. All I know is that tragedy is aloways just around the corner and nemesis always follows hubris.

I think that the extraordinary efforts made to contain the virus have been effective. But as it stands now, the cost-benefit ratio has yet to be established. Quarantine is ALWAYS effective. Social distance is important. Masks and PPE are appropriate.

But, and there is always a but, how does one look at this? Does the salvaging of an individual or a population cohort always preempt the damage to the social structure. Is triage a moral act?

I don't know. I am not certain that I can know. The decision is being made now at a societal level. All I can do is wonder.

Rememberances

Defining a Better Virus

Re: Defining a Better Virus