US Pandemic from 30,000 Feet

It seems to me the general pattern of the pandemic spread was:

• the first to become ill and those who spread the disease were the well-off.  By definition if you were traveling between China and Europe, or between Europe and the US, or China and the US, you had money and an upper-middle class or upper class lifestyle.  And those you gave the virus to likely shared those characteristics.
• but second to become ill were the parents and grandparents of the travellers, those in nursing homes and assisted living homes.  My assumption is that most people in such homes are from backgrounds with above-average incomes, even though Medicaid may cover care.
• the final tier of victims were the vulnerable, those in meat packing plants, those in congested areas living in crowded homes, immigrants and the poor.

This is just speculation; I hope I live to see some good social research on the subject. 

I Remember: Space's Early Days

Watched the successful launch today.  Brought back memories of the pathetic early days of our space program, plagued by disasters and pitifully behind the Soviets in throw weight.  America certainly wasn't great in space in those days--1957 to mid 60's.

After Musk had his Starship blow up in the unmanned testing phase, I and I'm sure others of my age thought back to those early days, which increased my concern over today's launch.  But I've long since tried to learn not to obsess over what I can't control.  Today means the Starship event was just another instance of Harshaw rule, and we can all applaud Musk and NASA.

Our Pictures in the Head Are Wrong

Until today I had an image in my mind: people come down with some symptoms, they start to get worse, they go to the hospital to the ICU.  Sometimes they go on ventilators and likely die; sometimes they are able to recover and leave the hospital.  That to me was the normal course of events for people with covid-19.  It's wrong.

I started looking at data today.  One set of data was the rate of death, which turns out to be about .6 of  1 percent.  Then I tracked down CDC data on the rate of ICU admissions.  That turns out to be much smaller.

I should have realized: sometimes people die in the hospital as I was thinking, but sometimes they die in their nursing or assisted living home.  And sometimes they die in their home home. So dying in the hospital is not the majority experience. 

As is often the case,things are more complicated than the images you have in your head.

How Far Do Aerosols Carry?

Josh Marshall at TPM links to an article which seems to take aim at the science behind the 6 foot distance, arguing it's old science and modern instruments can offer more accurate measurements.

I'm no expert--Marshall repeats the suggestion if you're close enough to smoker to smell the tobacco, you're likely too close for covid-19.  That's the sort of layman's measurement which appeals.  Might not be right but appeals.  I'd offer another layman's measurement: in season 3 of the Last King some episodes are set in winter.  It appears they shot in winter, because the exhaled breaths of people and horses are very visible.  Hard to guess the distance traveled, but often likely over 6 feet.

Election Predictions

I was wrong in 2016.  Maybe I'll do better in 2020.

As of Memorial Day, I'd put the odds this way:

• 10 percent chance Trump wins a majority of the 2-person popular vote and wins back the House.
• 30 percent chance Trump wins a majority of the electoral vote and keeps the Senate
• 10 percent chance neither candidate wins with 48 hours of election day, including possibility it goes to the House
• 30 percent chance Biden wins a majority of votes, both popular and electoral but fails to win the Senate.
• 10 percent chance Biden wins a comfortable majority, and squeaks a Senate majority
• 10 percent chance Biden wins a landslide, taking House and firm Senate majority

Bottom line, I think the Dems have more upside than the Reps but it's currently a tossup.

Furman and I: Great Minds

Politico reports that some Democrats, led by former Obama economist Furman, are worried that the fall will see lots and lots of positive economic news, as the economy starts to recover from the pandemic shutdown.  That's similar to my post here.

On the other hand, a FiveThirtyEight survey of economists has a prediction of a relatively slow recovery, a slight majority predicting a Swoosh (i.e., Nike logo) recovery.

Revising the US Food System

In the wake of the pandemic I'm seeing calls for the US to change the way we produce and distribute food.  Some of the proposals are intended to make it more resilient to disasters, some just hope for environmental friendlier ag.  See this piece and this 

I've doubts.  The way our food system currently works was never planned, but evolved. The forces at work were economic,governmental, social--the market system meant rewards for greater productivity and lower costs; the government ensures uniform food regulations for the country, government programs have eased the dislocations caused by the growth of more productive agriculture, the society as a whole values education, science and technology and the new, people place less of a priority on the taste and provenance of food and more of a priority on fast, cheap food which they don't have to prepare themselves.

Can these forces be changed, even if you have a popular cause that supports government action? Tastes can change, norms can change, but I'm not sure how well any social movement can manage such change.

Trump Is Dyslexic?

Bob Somerby at Daily Howler is often repetitive and long-winded, but he offers a perspective I don't often find elsewhere (although he and Kevin Drum respect each other and Kevin's my favorite blogger).

Here's Somerby discussing Andrew Sullivan's attack on the president.

Buried in there somewhere is the suggestion Donald Trump might be dyslexic.  I've not heard that before, but it's an intriguing suggestion.

As Somerby notes, liberals would normally shy from attacking someone with some disabilities or mental disorders, but not DJT.  The possibility won't change my attitude towards him either.

[Updated: If you assume that Trump is starting from a position of no knowledge, it would explain why he's easy prey for the last person to talk to him, and why he's suspicious of people.  For similar thoughts,here's Friedersdorf.

Speculation on What the FBI Was Doing

I approach the Michael Kelly case with some preconceptions:

1. the FBI has never been particularly fond of liberals.  The head of the agency has never been an agency.  For a long time it was headed by J.Edgar Hoover, a great bureaucrat and no friend to liberals.  It was a struggle to get some diversity into the agency, both minorities and women.
2. as an entrenched bureaucracy with its own esprit de corps it's liable not to follow direction from the outside.
3. Kelly I knew from his association with Gen. McChrystal and the Rolling Stone article, which got McChrystal fired.  I may have seen appraisals like that of Sarah Chayes in Business Insider, essentially a loose cannon, as I was once called, innovative but needing close management.
4. Not being a lawyer I've no good way of judging between claims that the interview with Flynn where he lied had no "predicate" (the Barr position) and therefore the case was tainted, and claims that the charges were appropriate and well-based.
5. Being a Democrat I'd enjoy any embarrassment to the Trump administration.

So, what do I make of Kelly, his indictment, and the subsequent dropping of the case by Attorney General Barr?

1. He was totally miscast as National Security Advisor, particularly for a president such as Trump. His selection, despite the warning from Obama, was an early instance of Trump's incompetence.
2. I doubt the narrative that the FBI looking at Flynn was part of an Obama administration's plot to undermine the Trump administration.  I don't believe the FBI would risk good relations with the incoming administration just because Obama or Yates told them to. That wouldn't fit my picture of the FBI as sophisticated bureaucratic players.
3. Not being a lawyer, I've not carefully followed the arguments about FBI having a predicate for its investigations, particularly because the rules seem to differ some between a criminal investigation and a national security (counter-intelligence) investigation.
4. My vague suspicion is as follows: in counter-intelligence people are paid to be suspicions, overly so.  Witness James Jesus Angleton, about whom I've written a time or two. It doesn't seem totally unreasonable to me that FBI agents would look at Flynn, fired by Obama from his DIA job, and say to themselves: if I were a Russian agent I might try to exploit his hard feelings, at least feel him out.  Certainly the KGB would see that as a potential gold mine and certain to reap big bureaucratic rewards.  
5. If I'm an FBI bureaucrat, I think I'd believe that the Russian/Flynn investigation could offer big rewards--it'd be good for my reputation and promotion prospects.  (I'm assuming that the FBI culture is rather insular, and  agents would believe that their director still, as J. Edgar was, could insulate them from flak from DOJ and the presidency.  )
6. I like a summary of the Mueller report from Dana Milbank: the Trump campaign wanted to collude with the Russians but was too incompetent to.  The whole episode is murky, and I don't believe it could have been much clearer to FBI agents.
7. One known unknown: we don't know what covert sources of information were and are available to the administration.   Presumably there are some, the existence of which has been hidden from the public record.

So my bottom line is disbelief in any sinister plot against Trump and his people. I think a combination of bureaucratic motives, culture, and incompetence came together with Trump incompetence to produce one good result: Flynn's resignation as national security adviser and likely a bad precedent for the way the FBI should operate in the future.

Firing Inspectors General

As a good government ("goo-goo") type, I'm perturbed by the president's removal of several IG's and acting IG"s.  But this piece  suggests there's not much Congress can do to stop such actions by a president.  IG's are executive branch employees and as such are subject to the president's authority.

I wonder: could we look to sports, the NFL, for a solution:  There the tension is between getting the call right and keeping the game flowing.  Could we give the president a couple get-out-of-jail cards per term--allow her to fire two IG's but no more?  Arguably this would permit the president flexibility but not too much.

I'm afraid what will happen when the administration changes: the new president will use the Trump precedent to fire the Trump-IG's and goo-goo norms will suffer further erosion.