Pandemic From 30,000 Feet Again

This is based on the NYTimes summary as of June 13.

It seems to me you can categorize states by the shapes of their case graphs:

• States with one defined peak, and a fairly consistent decline from that peak.  This would include the NY/NJ/CT/MA states, with early peaks, and a number of other states which were slower to peak.
• States with two fairly clear peaks, which might include FL, TN, KY
• States which have never reached a peak--i.e., their case load is still climbing. Includes CA, TX,  AL, UT, NC, SC, AR, KY,
• Small states with too few cases to evaluate.
• Mixed cases

Trying to create a story from this data, I go back to my previous pandemic post:  

• the East Coast states were hit early because they are both well networked with Europe and dense.  That meant they weren't prepared and got overwhelmed early, but they learned to take covid-19 seriously and adopted measures which reduced spread.
• other states didn't take the virus that seriously (i.e., even if they were officially locked down, public compliance was less than in the hard hit states), meaning if they were networked like FL, they could have an early peak and then a later one.
• possibly two peaks reflects a matter of luck, the virus hitting nursing homes, etc. once, then a slower spread to the more general population.

A Sad Photo of Joyous Wedding

The Post had a picture of a wedding today, which I can't find online.  It was illustrating a Lisa Bonos story on a convergence of BLM and the wedding in Philadelphia.  All very joyous and feel-good, except when you look closely at the one photo of the wedding celebrants.

If I counted correctly there were 18 women and 7 men in the party.  I can make assumptions about the cause of the apparent gender imbalance, but whatever the reasons IMHO it casts a shadow on the event.

Watching the Messy Process of Implementation in the Field

I'm enjoying watching the FSA field people administering the CFAP by logging into the FSA Facebook Group. 

I have to remember I'm lurking, and no longer have the knowledge nor authority to comment on anything.  Much of the discussions seem familiar from times gone by but what's more visible (probably not new but it wasn't visible before) is the networking among the program technicians as they're officially called today.  I wonder how many of the State and DC specialists are auditing this group?

NASCOE has had a system of "program" recommendations where they pass problems and suggestions from the field on to the DC specialists for possible resolution. It seems to take a while to make the circuit.  Some of the problems raised in the Facebook group are resolvable there--just a lateral flow of knowledge and tips.  Some of the problems may be tackled by people with special knowledge, particularly of the software. Since the group has maybe 1,000 members, and the field offices probably have 7K+ employees plus temps I wonder whether the lateral flow of info is reaching everyone it should. 

Children Born Racist?

CNN says they aren't.  I disagree.

Children are born human.  As such they have both the capacity to fear and flee from the unknown, and to know and love the known.   The family and social structures they're born into will guide them to things to know, and how to fear the things they don't.  Racism evolves from the interplay of the human abilities and the environment.  It's inevitable.

The Effect of Graphics

Both the NYTimes and the Washington Post have graphs showing the deaths due to the covid-19 virus over the days since Mar. 1.  The Post's graph is on the front page, spanning one column, which represents 1/6 of the width of the paper.  The Times' graph is on page 4, in their coronavirus update column, which is double width--two columns. 

I've not measured the height scale, but the general effect is that the Post's graph shows a steep decline after a vertical rise in cases while the Times shows a much more gradual decline.  Same data, different impressions.

Reboot the Police

That's my position.  I don't particularly want to reduce funding for police.  History says, I think, that the public overreacts to swings in crime, cutting police excessively in low-crime periods, ignore a period of increase in crime, then over-fund police in an attempt to catch up.  In other words, we overshoot both on increases and decreases.

What I do want is more research into policing-- we have so many different strategies proposed:

• tough on crime, lots of policy,
• community policing--cops on the beat knowing the community
• broken-windows
• social services--replacing cops on the beat with social workers
• etc., etc.

Why can't we take precincts which are matched in demographics, etc. and use one strategy in one and a different one in the other.  Keep the experiment going for years and learn. 

Instead of taking money from police for the sake of taking money, raise taxes on me and you to fund needed and useful government services.

Satisfaction With 911 Calls

What's surprising in this survey is the uniformity in responses across ethnic and gender lines.  Though  that's good, what isn't the percent saying the police improved the situation.  (Might be because the situation had dissolved by the time the police got there, at least in part.)

World Pandemic from 30,000 Feet

Looking at the world wide incidence of covid-19, I see the influence of networks--it's as if the virus is a tracking molecule, like taking barium before a CT scan. 

You start with Wuhan, which is networked both to Europe and the US. (I'm guessing it might have particular ties to Italy?) The US is more closely networked with Europe than China, so a majority of our virus imports seem to have come from there. Meanwhile nations such as Russia, India, and Brazil are less closely connected to China and, perhaps more significantly, are less networked internally than countries such as UK and US.

Within the US the  NYTimes map shows a correlation, in my mind at least, between the timing and volume of cases and the networking of the state and county.  Currently the Northeast states are on the down slope, while the Southeast states are on the upswing. 

The Police: Now and 1968

Lots of comparisons between the protests/riots of today and those of 1968. Lots of concerns about police.

IIRC in 1968 white liberals thought that integrating the police and establishing civilian review boards would solve the problems with the police.  With hindsight, civilian review boards, where established, have not done well.  The problem is likely the entrenched political power of police unions. Not only do police generally have a positive aura,but, like the NRA, they've the power of fierce unity.

And the police have been integrated, perhaps not as thoroughly and at all ranks in some places as they should be, but we know  now that police who are minorities themselves can be authoritarian and abusive.

There have been gains in 52 years.  The number of people killed now as opposed to 1968 is witness to that.  I suspect, but don't know, that the property damage has been of an order of magnitude less.  Part of that is learning from experience (though it seems we've forgotten a lot of the lessons of 1968) but much of it IMHO results from social trends.

Again, in IMHO, I think the problems we see with police today reflect continuing forces in society and economy.  It's inevitable when you ask people to risk their lives, whether military, firefighters, police, or Doctors without Borders they're likely to develop esprit de  corps, and an us versus them mentality.  It's inevitable in crisis situations police get lots of attention, much unfavorable, which further aggravates the us versus them.  When you add minorities to the mix, they'll often feel forced to do better, to go one step further in order to "prove" themselves.   It's inevitable that public attention will fade as memories fade, meaning that police unions, based on the esprit de corps, will gain leverage over the political process.  If you're willing to increase pay, you can chip away at union-enforced procedural rights.  If you aren't willing, as most publics won't be most of the time, you'll allow polices to gain job security in lieu of more money.

Tom Friedman in NYTimes

Last week Friedman had a doom and gloom op-ed in the Times, rather surprising given his past optimism.  He argues three trends have made the world more fragile:

Over the past 20 years, we’ve been steadily removing man-made and natural buffers, redundancies, regulations and norms that provide resilience and protection when big systems — be they ecological, geopolitical or financial — get stressed. We’ve been recklessly removing these buffers out of an obsession with short-term efficiency and growth, or without thinking at all.

At the same time, we’ve been behaving in extreme ways — pushing against, and breaching, common-sense political, financial and planetary boundaries.

And, all the while, we’ve taken the world technologically from connected to interconnected to interdependent — by removing more friction and installing more grease in global markets, telecommunications systems, the internet and travel. In doing so, we’ve made globalization faster, deeper, cheaper and tighter than ever before. Who knew that there were regular direct flights from Wuhan, China, to America?

Today he returns with an even more gloomy one, at least by title:

"I am not at all certain we will be able to conduct a free and fair election in November or have a peaceful transition of presidential power in January. We are edging toward a cultural civil war, only this time we are not lucky: Abraham Lincoln is not the president.

He goes on to segue into praise of local leaders, since he's given up on national leadership/Republicans.

The "doom and gloom" phrase dates back to the 1950's, when Ike attacked Democrats for spreading doom and gloom.  It's a hint that I think Friedman is unreasonable in his fears.   For example, the current pandemic will, I think, kill many fewer people than the 1918-20 one.  Why? Mostly because of our advanced science and communications.  The world is fighting it together, not as together as it could be, but much more so than in 1918.

Another example: the current riots are much less serious than in 1964-68--they don't reflect a racial division nearly as serious as then, mostly because conditions have improved greatly since then.