Category Archives: thoughts

current affairs, medical, science, thoughts

Coronavirus: Attitudes to Panic

This post has originated in all the fuss surrounding the Coronavirus situation. In it I’m not interested in the science of how the Coronavirus works, or how it is being treated. I’m more interested in our reactions and the way we (individually and collectively) are approaching the problem.

The post is constructed around quotes from four comment articles [1-4] (referenced below) which have appeared in the last few days.

What’s interesting to me, from a rational standpoint, is the psychology and attitudes behind what is happening.

In the new coronavirus, we see a world that is more connected than ever by international travel, but that has also succumbed to growing isolationism and xenophobia. We see a time when scientific research and the demand for news, the spread of misinformation and the spread of a virus, all happen at a relentless, blistering pace. [4]

For example: The number of people travelling by plane every year has more than doubled since SARS first emerged, in 2003 [4] and we now have 24 hour rolling news both online and on TV.

On top of that

People are often optimistic about risks [called] “optimism bias”; people may think they can control their own exposure to diseases, that they don’t need a vaccine because they aren’t susceptible to flu, or that they won’t transmit their cold to others. [1]

It’s entirely normal that there are still many uncertainties [4]. We don’t yet know enough to be completely certain about the risks of COVID-19 … no one really knows how bad COVID-19 is, and how much damage it could eventually lead to [3].

For instance: How transmissible is the virus? Once infected, how much time passes before people show symptoms, and how likely are they to die? Which people are most at risk? [4].

It appears that on average, infected people spread the virus to two or three others [4]. This the Basic Reproduction Number (what epidemiologists call R0). It is about the same as that for flu, but way lower than for measles which has an R0 of 12-18 [5].

Current data suggests that COVID-19 kills around 2% (the Case Fatality Rate) of those infected [3] (although expect this number to change). However flu with a Case Fatality Rate of 0.1% kills more people [3] (presumably because although it is more widespread, we have a vaccine).

Even the normally cautious epidemiologists don’t know the answers. Harvard epidemiology professor Marc Lipsitch [says] “I think the likely outcome is that it will ultimately not be containable” [2].

In fact

Lipsitch predicts that within the coming year, some 40 to 70 percent of people around the world will be infected with the virus that causes COVID-19. But … this does not mean that all will have severe illnesses. “It’s likely that many will have mild disease, or may be asymptomatic”. [2]

That doesn’t sound good, so no wonder the uncertainties that academics are used to dealing with, about fatality rates or transmissibility, are stoking fear [4] because when we’re uncertain about something, we often rely upon our feelings and prior experiences in place of information. Surgical face masks offer the sense, however illusory, of protection [1].

Indeed

According to experts, the value of surgical masks depends entirely on the context in which they’re used: a surgical mask won’t work unless it’s worn consistently and properly. If worn incorrectly, their utility quickly plummets … Though face masks may provide the feeling of security, masks are most valuable in situations where they are necessary – such as among front-line health workers … We touch our faces, noses and eyes many times a day, making it difficult to completely avoid contact with infection. [1]

[If you want more on face-mask efficacy, see my post “Coronavirus and Face Masks” of a few days ago.]

While

researchers can share data and refine ideas faster than ever … they’re doing so in full view of a concerned citizenry … [and] … preliminary data that might once have run the gantlet of peer review before being published can now be downloaded by anyone, sparking misinterpretations and conspiracy theories. [4]

A climate of uncertainty can cause misinformation to flourish [1] and create fertile ground for mixed messages and inconsistency, which in itself can breed mistrust and fear [3]. And as we all know false reports readily cascade through channels that amplify extreme messages over accurate ones … Hoaxes and half-truths are huge problems during epidemics [4].

But of course we’re often required to make decisions based on having incomplete information [3]. I would actually go further: we never have all the information we need to make the decision; all we can do is to make the best decision we can at the time with the (limited) information we have.

This is why clear messaging from trusted sources, and guidance on what to do and how to do it, is essential during a pandemic [1]. Especially communicate often, communicate what is and isn’t known clearly, and provide simple action items for individuals to take … like hand-washing [and] acknowledge that [all of this] may change quickly [3].

However with public health that’s not easy. The risks of sending the “wrong” message can have devastating consequences – unnecessary anxiety on the one hand … and thousands of unnecessary deaths on the other [3]. And confused citizens might forgo sensible measures such as hand washing in favour of inefficient ones like panicked mask buying [4].

What’s perhaps worse is that border screenings and travel bans have historically proved ineffective and inefficient at controlling diseases. If anything, they can make matters worse. People will find a way to get where they want to go [4]. For example, although the Iran/Afghanistan border has been closed, some 3000 people cross that border illegally every day [6].

What’s more

bans can also break the fragile bonds of international trust … If countries know that they’ll be cut off during an epidemic … they may be less likely to report future outbreaks, leading to costly delays. [4]
Waiting too long to sound the alarm can be disastrous. [3]

As with many things this leaves us with a spectrum of possible reaction and attitude.

On the rational end, we must ask ourselves about … the effectiveness of [any] solution … [and how individuals can use that] solution effectively. On the emotional end, we ask ourselves about … how severe might it be if we … were infected [and] how likely we might contract it. [3]

A lot of the expert discussion (or at least discussion quoting experts) in the media has been at the rational end about the effectiveness of various actions, while I suspect a majority of individuals are inclined to work more towards the emotional end of the spectrum – often because they’re not presented with clear, concise, factual information; whether deliberately by the less reputable press and politicians, by omission, or because it is just packaged in a way they can’t understand.

At the end of the day we probably have to move individuals quite a long way (probably further than is possible) towards the rational side, while at the same time ensuring that the experts are doing as much as possible to make the right solutions effective and have some understanding to allow them to meet the individuals part way. That’s probably a circle that can never be made fully square. Nevertheless the experts have to work their socks off to square the circle as best they can, and take the people with them in supporting their solutions. And that ain’t ever going to be easy.

[1] “When it comes to coronavirus, we shouldn’t let our feelings trump the facts”; 26 February 2020; https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/feb/26/coronavirus-feelings-facts-face-masks-covid-19

[2] “You’re Likely to Get the Coronavirus”; 24 February 2020; https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/02/covid-vaccine/607000/

[3] “Uncertainty in a Time of Coronavirus”; 26 February 2020; https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/uncertainty-in-a-time-of-coronavirus/

[4] “The New Coronavirus Is a Truly Modern Epidemic” 3 February 2020; https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2020/02/coronavirus-very-2020-epidemic/605941/

[5] “Basic reproduction number”; 27 February 2020; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_reproduction_number

[6] “Coronavirus in a war zone: Afghanistan braces for outbreak after first case”; 26 February 2020; https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2020/feb/26/coronavirus-in-a-war-zone-afghanistan-braces-for-outbreak-after-first-case

amusements, arts, memes, personal, pleasures, thoughts

100 Days of Haiku, Episode 14

So here we are at the penultimate instalment of our 100 Days of Haiku challenge. The 100th day is Tuesday 8 October and I’ll post the final results in the middle of next week. Meanwhile here is this week’s offering.

Monday 30 September
Felines emitting
zonkons. No wonder I sleep
all the afternoon.

Tuesday 1 October
Autumn eastern sky;
only two stars, just visible.
Too much urban light.

Wednesday 2 October
Life is suffering
but filled with such wonders:
blue sky and lightning.

Thursday 3 October
Sink and ye shall find,
the tap it is a-dripping.
Plumber required.

Friday 4 October
2AM. She sleeps.
I enjoy a quiet wank.
Ah! So much better.

Saturday 5 October
Three eager felines
awaiting their bowls of cod.
No need to wash up.

Sunday 6 October
October tolls the knell
of distant summer days, and
winter soon to come.

Here’s the tally of progress by week:

Week Haiku
Written
1 16
2 28
3 33
4 26
5 26
6 27
7 28
8 24
Week Haiku
Written
9 28
10 18
11 26
12 22
13 27
14 23
15  
Total 352


Final instalment in a few days.

amusements, arts, memes, personal, pleasures, thoughts

100 Days of Haiku, Episode 13

Now for the next instalment of our 100 Days of Haiku challenge.

Monday 23 September
Product of the cow
set between slices of bread.
Steak sandwich heaven.

Tuesday 24 September
Lazing along day.
No hurry, no rush, no stress.
Yet all is complete.

Wednesday 25 September
Gaze on a blank screen;
myriads of unborn words
at my fingertips.

Thursday 26 September
Pretty hairy pubes
wafting aroma aloft:
enticement to fuck.

Friday 27 September
Out of their depth the
bullies bully more, louder.
Government crisis.

Saturday 28 September
A painted lady:
pretty summer butterfly
or a pretty tart?

Sunday 29 September
Meaty piggy ribs:
marinade, oven barbecue.
Much yummy, Mummy.

Here’s the tally of progress by week:

Week Haiku
Written
1 16
2 28
3 33
4 26
5 26
6 27
7 28
8 24
Week Haiku
Written
9 28
10 18
11 26
12 22
13 27
14  
15  
Total 302


Next instalment, next Sunday.

beliefs, medical, thoughts

On Social Anaesthesia

I’ve long been worried about the trend towards mindfulness and similar “talking therapies”, so it was interesting to see many of my doubts echoed in an article, The Mindfulness Conspiracy by Ronald Purser, published in the Guardian back in June.

It is sold as a force that can help us cope with the ravages of capitalism, but with its inward focus, mindful meditation may be the enemy of activism.

Although the article is a long read (and American), for once I’ll refrain from providing edited snippets. However it did help me to crystallise why it is I find such therapies worrying. I’ll confine myself to my thoughts.

I’ve not only been concerned about mindfulness – and I come from having had some recent exposure to “mindfulness therapy”. I’m also concerned at the efficaciousness of Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) and indeed the new NHS trend for “social prescribing”.

Social prescribing CBT and mindfulness seem to me to be palliatives aimed at enabling people to cope internally and continue to fully participate in the greed economy. They are essentially “social anaesthesia”, to use Purser’s term. They do not help society as a whole sort out its fundamental ethical problems which give rise to the inability to cope in the first place. And that is the thrust of Purser’s article.

But I see the problem as deeper rooted, and emanating from the very causes which create the problems, the greed economy. Because these (mindfulness, CBT, social prescribing) are seen as “essential curses” they are peddled by the medical profession, and others, to consumers (aka. patients) in varying degrees of coercion and bullying. It’s the “we know what’s good for you; your views, desires and wishes don’t matter” attitude. Indeed the same is true of many medical interventions: eat well, exercise more, have bariatric surgery, etc. “Don’t think about it, just do it.”

That’s not to say that all of these aren’t useful interventions for some people, but if they are going to be truly effective they have to be done with the willing cooperation of the patient who understands what the “remedy” is doing and can make a truly informed decision. Only the patient can make that decision, based on the information they have, which includes their mental state and consideration of their quality of life – something the medical profession all too often lose sight of. The patient has to make the best decision they can, with the information they have, at the time; none of us deliberately sets out to make the wrong decision.

Mindfulness and CBT don’t work for me. Nevertheless they can be tremendously useful in allowing some people to calm their mental state and begin to cope with what’s happening around them. But they stop there. They don’t go on to help people understand the underlying problems of broken capitalism and the greed economy, let alone make them able to do something about it by addressing personal morals and understanding, nor society’s ethics. People are made once more into (barely?) functioning consumers, thus perpetuating the underlying problems.

As Purser says, in not quite so many words, mindfulness is a con. Especially compared with true Eastern meditation practices which are a way of life aimed at the individual’s inner self-understanding, realisation and morals; and are not “instant fixes”.

Or to put it another way, in a secular context:
Mindfulness = quickly quieting the mind to cope with society
Meditation = existing in society while deepening the mind over years.

It’s something I have long thought but never before been able to crystallise in my mind.

environment, natural history, thoughts

Alfred Hitchcock is Missing

The Birds. Or rather the lack of the birds.

There’s something very odd going on near me. Maybe elsewhere too.

In the last couple of weeks almost every bird has disappeared.

We used to have several dozen feral pigeons around – I not infrequently count upwards of 20 at a time sitting on my neighbour’s roof. Yesterday I counted a grand total of four, and that’s the most for several weeks.

Similarly we used to have dozens of house sparrows. A few week ago they were around. In the last couple of weeks no more than a handful. And there isn’t the usual incessant chirping from the hedges.

Starlings? Not one. Wood pigeon? We usually have two pairs around; but at present just a single scruffy bird. And almost nothing else which uses the gardens.

Am I sure? Yes, because I contribute (every week) to the BTO’s Garden BirdWatch project, so I regularly count and log the local birds.

Now we know that the sparrow population crashed a few years ago, but it had generally recovered hereabouts. However I have seen an article from BTO that sparrows are susceptible to a form of malaria (the same genus as the malaria parasite which affects us, just a different species), and that could be one factor in their decline.

Also we know that once the breeding season is over, birds moult and grow new feathers, during which time they’re more vulnerable so they tend to hide up. All of them? And all species? Suddenly? At precisely the same time? That doesn’t make sense to me.

On top of that I haven’t seen a squirrel in weeks, when we normally have one around fairly constantly. And the local cat population (other than ours) are also conspicuously absent.

The cats, I can understand. It’s been either hot or wet recently, so they’ll likely be hiding up somewhere cool, dry and shady. I can’t blame them! But no squirrels? That’s unusual.

Now I have a hunch, which could of course be totally wrong. I just wonder if some id.10.t has been throwing rat poison around? That would take out the rats, and the squirrels. Likely the sparrows and pigeons too as they’re grain eaters and will be attracted to the rat bait. It could also take out the odd cat if it eats a poisoned rat or mouse.

It’s a murder mystery, without any bodies. But then I wouldn’t necessarily expect to find bodies. I’m mystified.

I guess I just have to watch and wait to see if the birds come back in the coming weeks.

It’s a puzzle.

current affairs, thoughts

They Don’t Get It

I’ve been working up to writing this for some while; today I’ve been pushed over the edge.

So when will MPs, and others, wake up?

While I agree with Lord Heseltine that imposing a No-Deal Brexit is an attack (“intolerable” was the adjective he used) on democracy, Parliament cannot block No-Deal just by saying they don’t want it – in fact they did this months ago. And Caroline Lucas calling for an emergency female cabinet to block No-Deal, is, frankly, pissing into the wind.

My understanding (which may not be complete) is that there are only two ways in which Parliament can prevent a No-Deal Brexit:

(1) By passing a motion agreeing to, and instructing the executive to ratify, the deal which is currently on the table.

or

(2) By passing a motion instructing the executive to cancel the Article 50 declaration.

Even so they could be ignored, but at the cost of an even bigger constitutional crisis.

The clock is ticking inexorably towards 31 October. Parliament and the Executive have effectively run out of time to do anything. So unless the Government come up with something radically new and (as a minimum) get the EU to agree to a further postponement of the leave date (all very unlikely in my estimation), then the UK will crash out of the EU on 31 October – no deal, no backstop, a hard border with Ireland, no transition period, no proper preparation, no international trade for months … and no international standing because having faffed around at nothing for three years who would trust us?

All of that can be averted by Parliament only by one of the above two actions. They can talk all they like, but they’re powerless to stop No-Deal otherwise.

When will they wake up?

Gawdelpus!

beliefs, current affairs, personal, thoughts

On Protest

A few days ago one of our favourite Zen masters, Brad Warner, wrote a blog post under the title What You Don’t Speak Out Against You Co-sign? He was responding to a comment that “what you don’t speak out against you co-sign” and taking him to task for not openly campaigning against Donald Trump and all that he stands for. Needless to say Brad disagreed, as I do too.

Let’s start off being clear. “What you don’t speak out against you co-sign” means “If you don’t speak out against something then you are supporting, aiding, facilitating, even encouraging it”.

As Brad says, this is a very common way of thinking. It goes along with the “if good men do nothing …” trope. But it isn’t true and it is (designed to be) divisive and create factions. It is nothing short of moral blackmail.

Many people see their target as some variant of evil. So if you don’t campaign, demonstrate or protest against Donald Trump, Boris Johnson, Brexit, pervasive CCTV, fossil fuels, or whatever, then you condone them and you are the work of the Devil. Not so.

In Brad’s words:

If someone characterizes you as evil, do you want to be friends with them? Do you want to support the things they support? Do you want to listen to their reasons for calling you evil? Or are you more likely to say, “Well screw you!” and deliberately support whatever it is they’re against?
… …
The stance that [such people] are taking will only drive more people to support the [cause] they hate.

So their efforts become a self-denying ordinance.

Also implicit in this is (a) that there is one right and one wrong answer, and (b) that there is only one way to protest. Some must choose to refrain from joining in with the noise everyone else is making. Protesting noisily is seldom effective. In general, protests and petitions work only to reinforce the determination to do whatever is being protested against. They may convince those who are already of like mind to join your bandwagon, but to many, like me, they are annoying and pointless – even if I agree with the sentiments.

Don’t get me wrong. I object just as strongly to the same things (see list above) as anyone else. But I choose not be be mouthy about it or jump on bandwagons. Like Brad I am not skilled in political rhetoric, and whatever I might wish to say has already been said a thousand times over by those more skilled (and likely more knowledgeable) than me. So I would largely be wasting my breath.

Everything goes through cycles and fashions; always has, always will. Ultimately “we are where we are” and “what will happen will happen” – although by “right action” we can indeed hope to affect the outcomes. But what is “right action” for you may not be so for me.

Essentially it doesn’t matter what I say. Brexit will happen or it won’t happen. North Korea will blow us all sky high, or it won’t. Rinse and repeat, with your cause du jour.

That’s not to say that we shouldn’t speak out about things we fundamentally disagree with, but there won’t be thousands not speaking out because I keep quiet: there is already plenty of discussion and debate. Your mileage may vary.

Like Brad, I believe there is a better way, at least for me. First of all staying silent (or maybe just quieter) helps protect my sanity – something which is precarious enough for most of us at the best of times. The Dalai Lama always talks about compassion, and self-care is only having compassion for oneself. Without self-compassion and self-care you are not able, and not there, to show compassion for others.

Keeping silent has other benefits too. It provides quiet space where other topics, perhaps of more immediate personal importance or urgency, can be discussed. And, when appropriate, it also allows controversialists and facilitators (as I like to think I am) help others see the wood for the trees and take an appropriately thoughtful and nuanced approach, rather than jumping on some blinkered, raucous bandwagon.

There’s more than one way to stop the crocodile running off with the sausages.

For another perspective on this see Silent Protests Are Still Protests.

amusements, arts, memes, personal, pleasures, thoughts

100 Days of Haiku

2 Comments

As I have nothing else to do (joke!), and wanting to add something to my woeful practice of mindfulness, I have set myself a little challenge:

To write at least one haiku a day for 100 consecutive days.

What are haiku? Haiku is a Japanese verse in three lines with 5, 7 and 5 syllables respectively. Traditionally haiku are mood poems and don’t use any metaphors or similes; however beginners, like me, are usually start with just the restriction of the number of lines and syllables. There are many online collections of haiku, for example here, including those of the Japanese master Matsuo Basho.

I started this challenge last Monday, so I’m now seven days in and it is time to record the first results. In total I have written 16 haiku in the seven days – some good, many not so good. Here is one from each day showing a variety of ideas and subjects.

Monday 1 July
Cicadas singing
Long through sultry summer nights.
Thunder before dawn.

Tuesday 2 July
Sunshine streaming in
windows open wide for air.
Why such depression?

Wednesday 3 July
Hickory dickory dog,
rough enough through cough, lough and chough.
Cork works porky quark.

Thursday 4 July
Useful man, Paddy:
Build, fix, repair, recycle.
Moonshine of the bog.

Friday 5 July
Wispy cirrus cloud
Against Dutchman trouser blue.
Metal bird glides by.

Saturday 6 July
Sticky, sticky day
Energy drained away.
Starry, starry night.

Sunday 7 July
Seven round a table;
Friends’ dinner party makes mirth.
Mountainous paella.

Well no-one said that haiku had to make sense – at least not modern haiku; the traditional style seems more rigid!

I’m not going to post an offering every day, as some proponents of 100 day challenges do, but I shall attempt to post at least weekly updates. And I’m logging all the output, whether posted here or not, so who knows what might happen at the end.

beliefs, thoughts

Devil Worship

It is well known hereabouts that I am non-croyant, so when the God Botherers rang the doorbell the other day my thought processes were stimulated.

It occurred to me that believers in God(s) are fundamentally not just that. It is deeper. They are actually Devil worshippers.

“How so?” you ask. Well to me it is perfectly simple. If they didn’t believe in the Devil and revere his powers, they wouldn’t need God to save them from him.

This isn’t just Christians. It applies to all (major) religions as, in one form or another, all have a God(s) and all have a Devil figure – although they may not state it so explicitly. Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Sikhism (I think) and some schools of Buddhism (eg. Tibetan Buddhism) are all the same – all have God(s) and all have a Devil in some form – as do ancient “sun worshipping” religions and mythologies

[I don’t claim to know enough about either Taoism or Shinto to know if they are also included. The “purer” forms of Buddhism (eg. Zen) are excluded as they don’t have God(s) and are more of a philosophical way of life and personal development than a belief system.]

What I don’t understand is why people need to believe in either God(s) or the Devil. It is much easier without both.

So if you want a way to really piss off the next set of God Botherers who come calling, just remind them they’re Devil Worshippers and to “get thee hence”.

current affairs, history, thoughts, topographical

Notre Dame de Paris

Devastating though it is, Vulcan failed in his mission to reduce Notre Dame de Paris to a pile of ash and rubble. I enjoy watching disasters like this, and plane crashes, not from a a sense of morbid curiosity but from a forensic and analytical perspective; I’m curious about the how, why, what was the cause, and what next.

While one hates to see any medieval, historic, and important building – let alone a church – reduced as it has been, it is equally irritating to see Vulcan not finish the job! The Brigade des sapeurs-pompiers de Paris did an heroic job, against all the odds, and won. But let’s be honest, this fire is a grand calamity for the cathedral, for France, and for the French. And it is a truly sorry sight.

It could easily have been so much worse. As one Parisian official has said there was a critical 15-30 minutes, which I presume is referring to the time when the flames reached the NW and SW towers but was contained before it took hold there. If either tower had gone up in flames all bets were off as those towers contain the bells which would almost certainly have fallen, destroying masonry and probably bringing down a large amount of the stone structure if only through a domino effect.

The French government has committed to rebuild the cathedral and somewhere around €1bn of private money has already been pledged to help finance this. Such is the understandable, predictable, knee-jerk reaction. But should Notre Dame be rebuilt? I suggest that maybe it shouldn’t – and not just because of the horrendous cost.

Clearly the remaining structure has to be made safe. After that why not conserve what remains to preserve the medieval splendour. Then do something modern (but, of course this being France, tasteful) which will commemorate the fire as a remarkable event in the cathedral’s history and the heroic efforts of les pompiers. Why not install a transparent (glass, probably) roof so that light (the light of God?) continues to shine through the holes in the stone vaulting emphasising what very nearly didn’t survive. After all the photographic record, and existing skills, are so good that there is little to be gained from remaking the lost parts. Well at least that’s what I would be tempted to do.

I’ve been to Notre Dame twice, and I didn’t like it. It didn’t just leave me cold, I had a feeling of the sinister, even evil, there – and that’s unusual for me in a church (despite my lack of belief). So from an totally personal perspective I would not have been too distraught had the whole building been destroyed. But that’s not to be (at least yet) and a major rebuild of some form will happen. Which is probably as it should be.