God’s Love In Action from the Solid Rock

In our previous blog, “Thanksgiving for Multiethnicity – Part 2” [See HERE.], we featured Lapman and Ching Ching Lun and family who are demonstrating an obedient response to God’s Great Commission to go and “make disciples of all the nations.”  One of Ching Ching’s journal entries describes the ministry of Bileg Solid Rock Mission in Kampong Thom, Cambodia [See HERE].  Her description perfectly captures a local Body of Christ when it is on mission.

Love of Christ in Action
Today, we got to witness how village outreach and feeding centers change the lives of the local community.  In addition to their own Sunday morning service, every Sunday afternoon, the staff (along with the orphans at the home) from Bileg Solid Rock Missions would travel to multiple villages to preach the Gospel.  By modeling and practicing this together, these young people saw the importance of sharing the Gospel and living on purpose.

After the program, the kids that come to the feeding center all received a warm meal.  These kids came from poor villages, and many of their parents had to find work in a different city, or even in neighboring Thailand or Vietnam.  They came hungry of course, but the most important thing is that they are also spiritually hungry.  These same kids would be registered for the program and followed through and mentored all the way through school until they become adults! 

Pastor Yean Rith grew up in this village, and went to MANNA Worldwide’s feeding center as a young boy.  His family was poor, and the feeding center gave him food, but more importantly, they taught him about God.  He got saved, and years later, came back to serve his own village.  This is just a beautiful example of God’s amazing grace!!   
[From:  Ching Ching Lun, 12-15-24 in Kampong Thom, Cambodia]

Bileg Solid Rock Missions
At the heart of Jesus’s teaching both by His example and His Word in Scripture are His Great Commandment (Matthew 22: 35-40) and His Great Commission (Matthew 28: 18b-20).

A lawyer asked Jesus, “Which is the great commandment in the law?”  Jesus replied (emphasis added):

“ ‘YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND.’  “This is the great and foremost commandment. “The second is like it, ‘YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.’  “On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets.” – Matthew 22: 35-40

As the Risen Christ was preparing to ascend into Heaven, he spoke to His followers, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.  Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”  -- Matthew 28: 18b-20

The Vision of Bileg Solid Rock Mission is to carry out the Great Commandment and the Great Commission in Cambodia through various humanitarian services that will result in the improvement of the quality of life of the people in the areas of health, education and culture.

The Goal:  To significantly contribute to the delivery of medical and health services, education and livelihood opportunities to the people in the covered communities so that they may become more productive and useful citizens of their country and of the world.

How Will We Respond?
Ching Ching Lun’s account of the ministry of love and compassion at Bileg Solid Rock Missions reveals Christ-followers who are living and serving in obedience to Christ’s "two Great’s” in the Scriptures above.  God’s Great Commission, when carried out in the spirit of God’s Great Commandment, adorns the Gospel of Christ with His love in action.  Sharing the Gospel of salvation brings lives from spiritual darkness into the Light and Eternal Life through faith in Christ.  Sharing God’s love through provision of food, medical and health services, education and livelihood opportunities complements the mission’s evangelism and discipleship in practical ways that help meet the needs of the whole person.

A new commandment I give to you,
that you love one another, even as I have loved you,
that you also love one another.
By this all men will know that you are My disciples,
if you have love for one another. – John 13: 34-35

Our Cambodian brethren and the Lun Family provide examples of how members of the Body of Christ ought to respond to Christ's call to love one another as He loves us; and, to go and make disciples of all the nations.  During this Advent season and as we consider goals for the New Year, let us pray for 'God's Spirit to convict and lead us in using our time, talents, and treasures in ways that show the love of Christ. 

A Greater COVID-19 Danger: Misinformation

My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge.  – Prophet Hosea (710 BC) 

The financial firm, Franklin Templeton, has teamed up with Gallup to determine people’s behavioral responses to the COVID-19 pandemic.  Their hypothesis: What people know and don’t know about the pandemic will play a crucial role in shaping the economic recovery. 

Maybe you’d like to participate in part of the survey.   If so, write down your answer to three of the questions based on what you know about the COVID-19 pandemic.  Here you go:  What percentage of total COVID deaths have occurred among Americans…
(1)  …age 55 or older?
(2)  …age 44 and younger?
(3)  …age 24 and younger?

COVID-19 Risk:  Survey Results
Now, let’s compare your answers to the actual COVID-19 mortality statistics from US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), as of July 22, 2020.  First, in order to make you feel better in case your answers are far from the actual percentages, here is part of the conclusion made by authors of the “Franklin Templeton–Gallup Economics of Recovery Study:”

These results are nothing short of stunning.  Six months into this pandemic, Americans still dramatically misunderstand the risk of dying from COVID-19.

Maybe you will be "stunned" as well.  To compare your responses with the responses of Americans included in the survey when the three questions were asked, here are the results:

Based on this sampling from the survey, can you see the stunning discrepancy between perceived health threat of COVID-19 and reality?  Amazingly, in spite of Americans having access the best health care system in the world and excellent access to information at our fingertips, we demonstrate a stunning misunderstanding of the risk of death from COVID-19.  

As the table below suggests, Americans 65 and older are much more aware of the heightened risk for their own age group.  On the other hand, the younger the age group polled the more misled Americans are about their risk of negative health consequences from the virus.  Shockingly, school- and college-age young people (age 24 and younger) overestimated the danger of COVID-19 by a factor of 40!!

What is even more unfortunate and even frightening is the way in which the misinformation causes fear among us.  The table below clearly shows the increasing fear of negative health consequences among the younger age groups in spite of the lowered risk of death from COVID-19.

The following statement from the Franklin Templeton report summarizes how misinformation can be used to generate fear and influence partisan outcomes (emphasis mine):

Fear and anger are the most reliable drivers of engagement; scary tales of young victims of the pandemic, intimating that we are all at risk of dying, quickly go viral; so do stories that blame everything on your political adversaries. Both social and traditional media have been churning out both types of narratives in order to generate more clicks and increase their audience.

Media and Partisanship Blamed
The more access we have to information about risks to our health and well being the greater the likelihood that we will make decisions that favor our safety and minimize our fears.  If this claim is true and the survey data is accurate, how can Americans make good decisions based on risk to personal health if they misunderstand the risk.  The same applies to making good policy decisions on the part of policymakers.

For instance, if the risk of death among school and college age young people is less than 0.2%, how can we justify closing classrooms and canceling sports?  If the survey results are accurate, the current debates about whether or not to open classrooms and schedule school or college sports this Fall are being made by poorly informed administrators, educators, students, athletes, parents, and policymakers.  But never mind the actual data.  If the media and political actors can create the “perception” of greater risk than reality, then they can use a falsely generated fear to manipulate us to follow unrealistic guidelines.

Proof of media involvement in creating a misinformed public is seen in the differences in responses between those who identify as Democrats and those identifying as Republicans.    “People who get their information predominantly from social media have the most erroneous and distorted perception of risk.  Those who identify as Democrats tend to mistakenly overstate the risk of death from COVID-19 for younger people much more than Republicans.”  Most cable news watchers are aware of the vast difference in messaging between CNN or MSNBC and FoxNews.

The Franklin Templeton/Gallup survey predicts that if “…those who can afford it are willing to pay significantly more for extra perceived safety, we might see a significant rise in inflation down the line.  Again, misinformation can lead to unwarranted fear which in turn makes a population vulnerable to manipulation in directions that fit partisan priorities and visions for a restructured American government and society.

It is becoming clear that misinformation and resultant unwarranted fear may be the greater threat from the COVID-19 pandemic.  Consider the following statement from the survey report:

From a public interest perspective, we believe the top priority should be better information and a less partisan, more fact-based public debate.  The fact that a large share of the population overestimates the COVID-19 danger to the young will make a targeted public health response more difficult to agree on. We think it is also likely to delay the recovery, causing a deeper and prolonged recession.

We Need to Be Informed
Maybe it is time we devote some extra time to becoming accurately informed by doing our own research and making decisions accordingly.  At the same time, we who are called to love our neighbor as ourselves (Mark 12: 31) need to deal graciously with those who are more fearful of negative health consequences whether or not their fear is warranted. 

Hopefully, readers who look in more detail at the Franklin Templeton and Gallup Survey will be better informed and able to articulate truth to neighbors who are misled or confused.  Otherwise, the greater risk may not be COVID-19.  Instead, we may experience very dire consequences to our culture and nation from those who seek to use the virus for selfish political motives.

Remember the words from the Prophet Hosea, My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge (Hosea 4: 6).  If you’d like to stay informed as the survey continues to expand over the coming months, you can receive ongoing updates on the project's findings by signing up here.  

What Do You Think?
Do you consider yourself well informed about the pandemic?  How well did you score on the opening three polling questions?  If you’d like to respond to this blog with comments or questions, just use the “Comments” link below, or contact me at silviusj@gmail.com   Thank you for reading, and may God honor your efforts to be informed, make good decisions, and inform others as we try to learn how best to respond to the pandemic and the politics surrounding it.

COVID-19 News: “Batteries Not Included”

“Batteries Not Included.” 

We’ve all read these disappointing words on the package of a newly purchased product.  It is especially unsettling when the package contains a toy, and your child or grandchild has just unwrapped it excitedly on Christmas morning.

Friday, I “opened” a different kind of “package”—an article reporting new COVID-19 cases in Ashland County here in Northeast Ohio.  With all due respect to its author(s), I selected this article because it resembles many other articles I could have chosen to illustrate the points I hope to make here. 

Like a toy that comes with “batteries not included,” this Ashland Source article comes without an important “power source”—good journalism.  But there’s also a second “battery” missing— “good science.”  The third “battery” must be supplied by educated readers who can exercise sound critical reasoning.

Good Journalism

I’m not an expert in journalism.  However, I located a list seven qualities of a good news story provided by pivotcomm.com.   A well written story should include good sources (e.g. data from “good science”) and provide the necessary focus and context that enables well-educated readers to reach accurate conclusions.  With these criteria in mind, note that the headline of our “example article” reports the occurrence of 5 new positive results of COVID-19 infection in Ashland Co.  This heading would grab attention and maybe even elicit fear among those who think a second wave of the virus is likely.

The Ashland Source article goes on to explain that 4 of the 5 COVID-19 cases “were exposed to the virus at mass gatherings – a wedding, church service, and auction – where safety precautions were not observed.”  Can you identify at least one “red flag” here?  If so, you may be asking how the 4 individuals could have known the exact place and person responsible for infecting them.  (My record at doing this is dismal.)  And finally, who verified that safety precautions were not observed at each of the events--wedding, worship service, and auction?

In spite of limited information, the article includes a stern reprimand from Heather Reffett, Ashland Co. Health Department (ACHD) Commissioner:  “If safety precautions had been in place…at least four of these new infections could likely have been avoided.”  There is no mention of how individual #5 was infected. 

Clearly, the ACHD is faithfully conducting its civil duty.  But in so doing their message through this article suggests that the citizens of the Ashland area should remain isolated and locked down much as they were in April.  But does the larger context of the pandemic in Ashland Co. support this policy?

The article would have been more helpful if it had informed the readers that the 5 new cases bring the total number of cases in Ashland Co. to 27 as of June 12.  According to the last paragraph of the article, of these 27 cases, 22 have recovered and 5 are still recovering.  Although the article dutifully lists the dates, beginning March 18, when each COVID-19 positive case was reported, it does not mention that there have been no deaths in Ashland Co. to date.  No deaths in Ashland Co!  This statistic is quite striking considering that, according to my research at the Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center, neighboring counties ranged from 1 to 61 deaths (average = 21) attributed to COVID-19.  And what about death rates statewide in Ohio?

We would expect the number of COVID-19 cases in Ohio to increase now that increased testing is occurring.  But if the virus is posing a threat to Ohioans sufficient to justify a total lockdown for nearly two months, we would expect to see a significant rise in total deaths in 2020 compared to deaths in previous years.  But, according to Dr. Mary Kate Francis, interim medical director at the Ohio Department of Health, quoted in the Akron Beacon Journal, “Despite the climbing death toll, though, total deaths are up by 1.2%, or 680 people, in 2020 compared to the previous five-year average, according to state mortality data.  It’s “hard to guess as to what could be the case or the cause” for a lack of an overall surge, though several factors have probably contributed, Francis said.

One factor to account for the absence of the predicted increase in deaths this year is the fact that epidemiological models were very misleading.  Based on modeling data, in early April, Gov. DeWine had predicted as many as 60,000 new cases in Ohio per day!  However, at the COVID-19 peak in Ohio, around April 19, less than 1,300 new cases were reported per day.  It is hard to account for this discrepancy (prediction was off by a factor of 46-to-1) based entirely on good public compliance to social distancing that “flattened the curve.”  Here is where we need “good science.”

“Good Science” Needed
I have been particularly interested in how the scientific data on COVID-19 is obtained and interpreted.  See “Pandemic—or Policy without “Good Science?” Our example article from Ashland Source refers to the basic reproduction number (or reproductive ratio, R_o) of a virus.  Please don’t panic here when you see the symbol, R_o. What follows is not beyond your ability to understand if you read slowly and stay with me.

In simply terms, R_o is the number of people that one infected person will infect in a population.  So, if one person develops the infection and passes it on to two others, the R₀ is 2.  The “0,” or naught, indicates a reproductive number (R) for a new virus in a population with zero immunity. Jeffrey K. Aronson, et al. of the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine , University of Oxford, explain in more detailed terms that R_o is “the number of cases that are expected to occur on average in a homogeneous population as a result of infection by a single individual, when the population is susceptible at the start of an epidemic, before widespread immunity starts to develop and before any attempt has been made at immunization.”

The article refers to estimates of R_o reported by Ohio Governor Mike DeWine.  According to the governor, “Ohio’s R₀ number was as high as 1.9 in March but as of June 1, it was slightly lower than 1.”  Gov. DeWine has attributed the decrease to the interventions implemented by his administration to “flatten the curve.”  Ohio’s Region 5, which includes Ashland currently has an R₀ of 0.72.

By this time, you may realize that, by definition, R_o applies only at the start of viral infection of a population.  In contrast, the  effective reproductive number, is the number of people that can be infected at a given time during the progression of the virus in a given population.
The R_e “changes as the population becomes increasingly immunized, either by individual acquired immunity following infection or by vaccination, and also as people die.”  Gov. DeWine and the ACHD seem to be misusing the R_o value (applies only at the start of viral infection of a population).  As noted in the previous paragraph, where Gov. DeWine reports changes in R_o, in all likelihood he is referring to R_e.

The estimated R_o for COVID-19 (or SARS-CoV-2) is given in the adjacent figure from CEBM.  Note that COVID-19 to date is not significantly more deadly than several prior influenza viruses.  Yet, because we adopted the policy of broad separation and economic lockdown, this pandemic may end up being much more devastating because of economic disruption, deaths from delayed health procedures, suicides, and drug abuse.

We should note that estimates of R_o, are based on complex mathematical modeling which incorporates estimates of susceptibility, infectivity, and rate of removal of individuals by either recovery through acquired immunity or through death.  As I have already stated, considerable variability has occurred among the epidemiological models largely because they are predictive and based on limited data.  Some of the modeling error may be attributed to the unexpected compliance of our culture to social distancing guidelines.  But there is still reason to doubt their accuracy.  George Box, the noted British statistician, has quipped: “Models, of course, are never true, but fortunately it is only necessary that they be useful. For this it is usually needful only that they not be grossly wrong.”  See “Pandemic—or Policy without “Good Science?”

In conclusion, I have noted the importance of good journalism, good science, and an educated population that can think critically to read and analyze articles such as the one from Ashland Source on the topic of the COVID-19 pandemic in Ashland Co., Ohio.  So far in Ashland Co., there have been no deaths and only 27 reported cases as compared to over 5,000 cases and 303 deaths in Cuyahoga Co. (Cleveland).  Obviously, reported cases and deaths vary greatly among different Ohio counties depending on population density.  However, in no case did number of cases and deaths reach those predicted by the models used to justify the total lockdown. Today, a more recent report in Ashland Source hints that the county's low number of cases (28 as of today) and their very well executed Continuity of Operation Plan (COOP).

Nationwide, it remains to be seen whether broad isolation instead of protection of vulnerable individuals was worth the great cost of economic disruption, unemployment, interruption of routine health care, and termination of most social and cultural events, classroom education, and spiritual gatherings. 

It is not uncommon that both toys and news stories come with “batteries not included.” But let us pray that our nation doesn’t suffer from news reporting that is poorly communicated, lacking in “good science,” and even biased to serve dishonest political or economic gain.

More Questions to Consider:
1.  Can you see how important it is that we exercise caution and think critically, especially when the journalism sometimes lacks sufficient accuracy, context, and helpful assistance to critical reasoning on the part its readers. 
2.  Ohio residents, how many COVID-19 cases have currently been recorded for your county.  You can go to various sources such as Akron Beacon Journal.  Here, scroll down to the Ohio map and click on your county for statistics.  Readers from outside Ohio can find similar data at the Coronavirus Resource Center under your state.
3.  How do deaths from COVID-19 compare to other causes of death?  You can look up a listing of DEATHS BY DIFFERENT CAUSES IN YOUR STATE.  Then, observe how the average deaths from each cause for the past few years compares to the deaths in 2020 (adjusted for the fact that we are only about six months into 2020).  Particularly, how do COVID-19 deaths compare to deaths from other influenza viruses?

Bring a Speedy End to the Pandemic Shutdown

Some baby-boomers like me remember a stressful part of our childhood:  having to get a penicillin shot, or waiting in line for “the needle” for vaccinations.  I’m not sure which was worse, the anticipation or the needle prick itself.  But afterwards, my fear and pain were eased by a warm feeling that I was protected from becoming ill.  Today, the results affirm the success of antibiotics and vaccines.  The anxiety and pain were a small price for a good outcome.

But what if, in order to protect us and our nation from a mortal enemy, we were required to surrender freedoms that we hold dear?  Such a request or demand would have a much more pervasive affect on our lives than the requirement to stand in line for a vaccination? 

Our COVID-19 Conundrum – Looking Back
As you know, my “what if” became a reality on March 15 of this year—the day that 65 Coronavirus deaths were reported in the US.  On that date, Dr. Anthony Fauci and the White House Task Force instituted a 14-day “national shutdown” with “social distancing” and limitations on our coming and going.  The purpose was to “flatten the curve” of daily hospitalizations and viral infections so that hospitals would not be driven beyond capacity.  But 14 days of shutdown was gradually extended to 1 month.  By that time, many voices in the medical and epidemiological fields were questioning the wisdom of this policy.

With all due regard for any loss of life due to the Coronavirus, many of us asked whether the national shutdown was actually saving lives.  Or, was it simply flattening the curve of infections and hospitalizations and delaying inevitable exposures and infections with uncertain future consequences?   By mid-April it had caused thousands of small businesses to close, millions of people to be unemployed, delays in scheduling of medical procedures, disruption of church worship and other human social interactions, and resultant mental stresses and suicides due to social isolation. 

Because of my own personal skepticism, I began to research the science and statistics related to the COVID-19 pandemic and shutdown.  At the same time, I wanted to assess my own attitude and faith in response to the pandemic threat on my life and family.  About this time (April 17), after one month of national shutdown, the US was approaching 40,000 deaths almost half of which originated in New York state.  I wrote a blog article entitled “Considerations for Our COVID-19 Conundrum” which outlines how I was personally responding to the pandemic and shutdown.  [I believe this article still contains valuable recommendations for readers who want to maintain their “health” in body, mind, and spirit.]

One week later (April 24), I had posted another article on COVID-19, entitled  “COVID-19 Policies &  Outcomes: Learning Online.”  Here, I cited experts who were concerned that the indirect effects of social distancing and the economic shutdown were having more devastating long-term effects than the COVID-19 virus itself.  The primary goal of “flattening the curve” had been reached in most parts of the US.  So, the rationale for remaining locked down shifted to a seemingly trumped up fear based on questionable predictive models and a philosophy that we ought to remain shut down until a vaccination is developed.  Fortunately, in spite of these dire warnings, several state governors began to aggressively follow the phase-in plan offered by President Trump and the White House task force. 

It’s Time to End the Shutdown
During the next two weeks, it became more and more obvious to those who followed objective media sources that the economic, social, and even medical costs of prolonged partial lockdown were exceeding the benefits in saving of lives.  Everywhere, hospital capacity and equipment to treat COVID-19 patients were all much in excess of demand.  As I wrote in “COVID-19 Policy Ignores ‘Good Science’,” “some experts such as Dr. Dolores Cahill called the lockdown policy “anti-scientific” and “anti-nature” because it has ignored the importance of the human immune system and how we need to beef up our immunity through good nutrition and vitamins.”  [Dr. Cahill’s informed logic is featured in a video interview accessible in my article, “COVID-19 Policy Ignores ‘Good Science’.”]

Today, opposition to the lockdown from professionals is being joined by an increasing chorus of Americans who want to get back to work.  Dr. Scott Atlas, MD. and senior fellow and experienced policymaker of the Hoover Institute, argues that there is no reason not to move more quickly to reopen our society with proper precautions for the elderly and other at-risk individuals.  In his op ed article published May 18, in The Hill, Dr. Atlas wrote,

The total lockdown may have been justified at the start of this pandemic, but it must now end — smartly, without irrational, unnecessary requirements contrary to medical science, common sense and logic. The goal of the strict isolation was accomplished in the overwhelming majority of places. We have direct data on risk and extensive experience, individually and as a nation, with managing it, even as new cases arise. We know that gradually relaxing total isolation will lead to more infections, but that’s acceptable, given that we know whom to protect and this disease is not harmful to the vast majority of infected people.

What Do COVID-19 Data-by-State Suggest?
Yesterday, I devoted many hours to pouring over data from multiple sources.  I chose 15 states that represent 62% of the US population but which are responsible for approximately 85% of the COVID-19 deaths in the US to date (see Table).  The data by state is ranked according to “% Recovery” from lowest (top) to highest—i.e. the percentage of individuals who were “Reported Cases” who recovered and were not tallied in “Deaths.”  Note that Michigan currently has the lowest percent recovery at 90.5%.  All other states range above this percentage and reach as high as 98.3% recovery in Tennessee.

The 7 states that make up the upper-half of the table account for just over half (51%) of the total reported COVID-19 cases in the US to date but account for 67% of the total US deaths.   It is also noteworthy that nearly all of the 7 states in the upper half of the table have governors who have been slower in opening up their state than most of the 8 states in the lower half.  This suggests that governors who have been more aggressive in opening their state have not been unwise.  Both % recovery and mortality rates are lower in these more aggressive states.  More comments on my Data Table will come below as they relate to several claims by Dr. Atlas.

Supportive Data But Poor Communication
Dr. Atlas argues that neither policymakers nor the public have received several key messages that are both critical in alleviating public fear and valuable as a guide to safe reopening of society.  In his article Monday, in The Hill, Dr. Atlas lists four policy failures at the state level, each with scientific data from the CDC and other sources to support his claims.  The four policy failures he lists are as follows (emphasis mine):

1.  There has been a failure to remind everyone that the stated goal of the policy — total lockdown and whole-population isolation — has been accomplished in most of the United States, including the epicenter of New York.

2.  There has been a failure to reassure everyone that we fully anticipate more cases will occur, whether we test or not, with continuing relaxation of today’s isolation.

Many Americans are gripped in fear when they hear that more reported cases of COVID-19 are appearing daily with even more cases reported in some areas.   But remember, we are doing more testing—more testing means more reported cases!  But notice from my Data Table above that 90 to 98% of reported cases recover. 

3.  There has been a failure to educate the public that the overall fatality rate is not only far lower than previously thought but is extremely low in almost everyone other than the elderly.

Allow me to elaborate on failure #3 as it relates to the relatively large percentage of COVID-19 deaths among the elderly.  According a New York Times article, May 11, one-third of all US deaths to Coronavirus (est. 26,000, May 18) are from nursing home residents and workers.  Notice from my Data Table that nursing home deaths vary widely in percentage of total deaths by state.  

It is now believed that the large number of deaths of nursing home residents and workers in several states including NY, MA, and PA was due at least in part to the negligence or incompetence of state government officials and nursing home administrators.  The unfortunate higher number of nursing home deaths in some of these states is reflected in their higher “Mortality” rates (#Deaths/100K) (see Data Table).  The clear implication is that we dropped the ball in protecting our high-risk seniors while focusing instead on social isolation of the rest of us who are at low-risk.

4.  There has been a failure to clarify to parents the truth about the extremely low risk to children, and that has accompanied a gross failure to offer a rational medical perspective regarding schools reopening.

The #4 failure on Dr. Atlas’s list is the unfortunate lack of clear information provided to parents of young children—information which might have relieved much anxiety, and hopefully still can.  According to a Journal of the American Medical Association article cited by Dr. Atlas, “Of the critically ill children with COVID-19, more than 80% had significant long-term underlying medical conditions. Overall survival and outcomes from critical illness in infants and children with COVID-19 in this series was far better than reported for adult patients.  At the present time, our data indicate that children are at far greater risk of critical illness from influenza than from COVID-19.” 

Lack of good information and its dilution with misinformation threatens to drive school and college administrators to consider delaying reopening of classrooms in the fall of this year.  Dr. Robert Hamilton, pediatrician and founder Pacific Ocean Pediatrics, stated in an interview on The Ingraham Angle that only around 1.7% of people infected with Coronavirus are children up to age 18.  The majority of these are asymptomatic and don’t even realize they have a virus.  Meanwhile, we are learning about the negative impacts of school shutdown on adolescents and on their parents as they adjust to online courses while being deprived of spring sports and traditional commencement observances. 

Conclusion
Every human life is of great value to our Creator.  Therefore, policies dealing with the pandemic should be designed to do the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people.  However, given that we live in a culture where the definition of “good” is so often rigorously debated, policymakers have a difficult time.  This is especially true when we allow our definition of “good” to selfishly dominate our political agendas to the point where we allow biased interpretation of data and media reporting to create an unreal world that is far from the truth.

While I have not escaped the world of pride, selfishness, error in computations, and bias, I have tried to deal accurately and honestly in compiling my Data Table and in presenting the arguments of notable scientists and policymakers.   Based on what I have gleaned from my study, I cast my small vote with those who recommend opening our culture as speedily as possible. 

Returning to my analogy of the anxiety I felt while waiting in line for my vaccination as a boy, I gladly remember that painful experience with no regrets.  However, I believe we will all have great regrets after our current painful pandemic if we don’t soon make it a priority to reopen and restore our economy, health services, family togetherness (especially with our beloved elderly), worship opportunities, education, and recreation.  Death from disease is a reality, but life and health depend on many aspects of our culture that have been restricted or ignored all too long.  As always, I welcome your “Comments.”

Acknowledgement:
This article is a joint effort between my wife, Alvadell ("Abby"), and I.  I thank her for her patience, helpful research, and critical suggestions in the writing.

COVID-19 Policies & Outcomes: Learning Online

As the third month of the war against the COVID-19 pandemic draws to a close, we are learning more and more about our “invisible enemy” and how best to defeat it.  Many will acknowledge that the strategy of “flattening the curve” of infections and hospitalizations has bought us time to manufacture or otherwise acquire and distribute necessary medical supplies and equipment, and time to organize the medical front lines to cope with the number of COVID-19 cases.  It appears that this strategy is preventing hospitals, dedicated doctors, and nurses from being overwhelmed. 

How Fast to Restart the Economy
However, as scientists obtain more and more data, sharp disagreements are emerging about how we should proceed from here. The Coronavirus Task Force Team, and in particular, physicians Dr. Anthony Fauci and Dr. Deborah Birx, recommend a gradual startup of the American economy.  They are concerned that if we are not cautious, our gains in curve flattening could be reversed quickly. However, a significant number of influential people are questioning the wisdom of a prolonged, gradual startup.

Like many Americans, I am concerned that the indirect effects of social distancing and the economic shutdown may have more devastating long-term effects than the COVID-19 virus itself.  So, I have been wondering which strategy for restarting our economy will be wisest.  This decision requires answers to many questions, many of which need more data.  Especially, we need to know the extent of COVID-19 infections already represented in the US (and in other nations) and the rate of spread.  Thankfully, answers appear to be coming almost daily.  

Online Learning in Science, Technology, and Politics
There is no doubt we are living in a high-anxiety period.  As elderly, “at-risk persons,” Abby and I can easily feel anxious.  From a distance, there is anxiety within the homes of our son and daughter.  We have talked about our faith and how we need to draw upon our belief in God and His Word and learn how to apply it daily.  The Judeo-Christian Scriptures teach us that the wise do not “bury their heads in the sand.” 

In 1 Chronicles 12: 32, there is a praiseworthy reference to the sons of Issachar, men who understood the times, with knowledge of what Israel should do.  If we want our children and grandchildren to develop into men and women who “understand the times” and know what to do, we ought to encourage them to learn from the various media available and to help them to mentally and spiritually process the information.  The best medicine against anxiety is good information integrated with a biblical worldview.  In an earlier article, I discussed some factors that we need to take into consideration in an effort to understand COVID conundrums.

One lesson that primary school and college students, and all of us can learn from news broadcasts and online data is the amazing speed of progress in the “war” against the virus.  Within a few weeks, American industrial capacity has been harnessed into the manufacture of masks, ventilators, and other medical supplies.  At the same time, there has been an explosion of testing for infection, antibody and antigen testing, and distribution of equipment and methodology to thousands of locations across the country.  Reports and a great volume of data, updated in real time or daily in many cases, are available with the click of your computer mouse.

A case in point of science and technology in action was the excellent presentation by Bill Bryan who leads the Science and Technology Directorate at the US Department of Homeland Security. Bryan reported on the progress of laboratory studies in which suspended COVID-19 virus particles were subjected in contact with various media and subjected to treatments such as disinfectants, light, and ultraviolet light to determine how long it would take to kill the virus.  By watching this session, viewers can see science and technology in action.  A very interested and engaged President Trump and members of the news media questioned Mr. Bryan  about how their results should be factored into safe human practices and policy for restarting the economy.  If you are interested, go to C-SPAN recording of Mr. Bryan’s presentation (skip forward 20 minutes if you don’t care to watch the introductory presidential report).

Approach to Restart Economy:  Lesson from Sweden?
As part of my personal effort to learn more about how our economy should be restarted, I asked a question, “Which nation has followed the wiser strategy in dealing with the COVID pandemic, the United States or Sweden?”  Here’s some of what I am finding and some links for you to do more of your own research.

First, for some background on Sweden’s approach to combat COVID-19, check out this interview on the Laura Ingraham Angle, on April 23.  She presents virus mortality data from Sweden which has instituted a very loose lock-down policy compared to other European countries and with the United States.  Therefore, Sweden is considered an outlier in its policy but no so much in regard to the outcome.  While Ingraham makes it clear that the overall outcome remains to be seen, she advises against ignoring Sweden as the US decides its path to “normal.”

Then, Ingraham interviews Johan Norberg, senior fellow at the Cato Institute.  He points out that, in spite of a much more rigid tracking and data recording of deaths in Sweden, a larger percentage of adults at age 70 or older, and a large number of deaths in nursing homes, the mortality in Sweden, though slightly higher than that of the US, is much lower than neighboring European countries with more stringent lock-downs.  Norberg claims that the lock-down approach to “flatten the curve” may have the unfortunate effect of prolonging the deaths due to COVID-19.  In other words, in the final analysis, the disease is going to do what it does and the number of deaths will not be affected even if we try to affect the timeline by behavioral modification.  The prediction is that Sweden will reach “herd immunity” in approximately 2-3 weeks and then they will be finished with the virus.

Will Norberg’s prediction bear itself out?  Is “herd immunity” a factor that will also be verified by the passage of time and more antibody testing?   What can we learn from differences in how effective the reopening policies of different states (e.g. Georgia) are in avoiding infections and deaths.  I will leave you with these questions and refer you to excellent source of data to consult.  One source which is updated at least daily is the Our World in Data website for COVID-19.  This site provides abundant charts and tables with explanatory notes and commentary.  Another source is the Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center.

How About You?
Are you confused, anxious, or just tiring of the constant flow of information and not being sure what to believe.  I recommend that you be sure to maintain a strong faith by daily time in God’s Word and whatever connections that are possible with other people of faith.  In this way, you will not miss important lessons on the power of prayer and faith that God may want to teach you during this time.  Obviously, this pandemic is not the first great challenge Americans have faced.  A great book to gain a wider perspective on the hand of divine providence in American history is Michael Medved’s The American Miracle (Crown Forum). 

Also, try to stay informed by using a variety of news and online data sources.  Develop your own questions and do the research by examining the current data for yourself.  In this way, maybe we can exemplify and help our children and grandchildren to develop into men and women who “understand the times” and know what to do.

Website Offers a Window into Wooster History

Have you ever wondered what you would see if you could view your neighborhood through a time tunnel?  How would the view from your front door or apartment window change if you time-traveled back beyond the era of the automobile, before forests or grasslands were cleared for farming and cities, and then even before the entry of European colonists, settlers, and fur traders?

Thanks to an article by Dottie Sines in our Wooster Weekly News/The Bargain Hunter-Wayne (01-18-20), I discovered the Wooster Digital History Project (WDHP).  The WDHP was launched by Gregory Shaya, professor of history at The College of Wooster, for the purpose of compiling and sharing a comprehensive history of the City of Wooster.  Sines quotes Prof. Shaya as saying that WDHP is providing “…a great research experience for the students, and it produces a tangible result.  It also connects the students to Wooster in some really neat ways.”  Sines describes resources available at the WDHP website as follows:

“Exhibits are categorized by early settlement, cultural and religious communities, agriculture, economic development, conservation and the environment, society and social movements, civic development, wartime Wooster, and the college itself. Rare photographs and video interviews enhance the material, and links are provided for further exploration.”

Three noteworthy historic glimpses which I found interesting from the WDHP website are as follows:  (1) The importance of historical records in any study of land use changes and associated effects on soil, water, and biodiversity; (2) the role of philanthropy in helping to salvage The College of Wooster following a fire, in 1901; and, (3) the unusual civility of the Wayne County community following the Civil War which had so horribly divided America.

Historical Records, Land Use Changes, and Stewardship

Every modern agricultural or urban community such as those which make up Wayne County and the City of Wooster have a history of prior land ownership, transactions when land is sold, and resultant changes in land use at the behest of subsequent owners.  The history of the changes in ownership and the way in which each owner managed the land determines its current ecological and biological condition.  We can see from this logic that the current state of a given landscape will tell us much about both its history and the extent to which the respective owners practiced good stewardship (conservation) of the soil, water, and biodiversity under their care.  Thus, land “owners” who view themselves as “stewards” (i.e. temporary caretakers with a long-term view) will manage the soil, water, and biological diversity (e.g. wildlife) as if they value not only monetary profit from their farm products but also the long-term sustainability of the soil and water so that it will be fruitful for the future.

Thanks to the Wooster Digital History Project, I have become interested in the history of one particular tract of land, known in 1873 as the Grandview Farm, owned by A.H. and B.C. Byers (see photo above).  Thanks to assistance from the Wayne Co. Historical Society, I was able to locate the farm pictured in a lovely artists rendition (pictured at left).  The farm buildings were located near what is now Parkview Elementary School.  The name “Grandview” will seem logical to any reader who has enjoyed the wonderful view while driving south on Oak Hill Road past the school. 

Site of the Byers (Grandview) Farm buildings, now Parkview Elementary

Grandview Farm eventually became a significant portion of what is now Country Club Golf Course.  Thanks to the historical and legal records, we can now gain insight into the history of past land stewardship and land use changes of a given parcel.  These data could then inform current ecological studies to evaluate the management strategies of the Country Club Golf Course to address storm water runoff, scheduling fertilizer applications to limit stream pollution, etc.  Interestingly, the WDHP provides a images and text accounts of the 1969 Flood.

Wooster Fire and Andrew Carnegie
Today, we often hear of the corruption and injustice of “big business.” According to Naomi Schaefer Riley, resident fellow of the American Enterprise Institute, and author of “The Givers and Their Attackers,” wealthy individuals and families are often the subjects of scorn and suspicion.  After all, they must have acquired their wealth through unfair business practice.  Indeed, there are many people who have amassed great wealth through unjust practices.  Yet free market capitalism is also responsible for raising millions of people from lives of limited opportunity and poverty to enjoy fulfilling lives that impact many others for good. 

The life of Andrew Carnegie is one of many “rags to riches” stories.  Carnegie amassed great wealth through expansion of the steel industry in America.  Although Carnegie is criticized for building his fortune through unjust treatment of workers, he believed that “those with great wealth must be socially responsible and use their assets to help others.” If they refuse, they practice “the worst species of idolatry.”  Carnegie practiced what he preached, and gave 90% of his fortune, estimated at $301 billion in today’s currency, to worthy causes.

Visitors to the Wooster Digital History Project can learn of Mr. Carnegie’s impact on this midwestern city.  In fact, Carnegie may be largely responsible for the survival of The College of Wooster following the fire of 1901 that destroyed the main academic building.  What could have been disastrous for the young college turned out to be a blessing.  The fire and Andrew Carnegie combined to elicit a generous effort by the Wooster community to raise $100,000 to match a challenge gift from Mr. Carnegie.  According to the WDHP account, “Carnegie originally refused to give to a Christian college, because he was not a member of any church. Yet, even in his first meeting with [President] Holden, Carnegie declared that if he ever gave money to a Christian college, it would go to Wooster.  The great philanthropist made good on his promise, in 1902.

Civility after the Civil War
There was a third snippet from Wooster history that reminded me of the importance of knowing more about our communities in years past.  This one was also of interest to Dottie Sines, the Wooster Weekly News article’s author.  She notes that patriotism ran so strong in Wooster following the Civil War that it became a force for unity between factions that had been at odds during the war.  This demonstration of post-Civil War unity as highlighted in the Sines article and quoted below ought to be a valuable lesson from American history for today’s divided America to consider:

“The Wooster Republican newspaper published letters sent home from Wayne County soldiers. At times even the Wayne County Democrat, which was never shy in displaying its opposition to the war, chose to put patriotism first. When praising the deeds of two returning officers, the paper guessed that they must have felt proud of both parties welcoming them home and doing honor to them as soldiers of the Republic. More unity of this kind would work miracles in the cause of the country, where the prosperity of all the people is contingent upon the unity of the country.

Thank you for “time-traveling” back in history with me to consider a couple of historic chapters out of the history of our town, Wooster, Ohio.  Maybe if you are curious enough to visit the Wooster Digital History Project, or a similar history resource from your geographic location on this Earth, you will gain a better appreciation for the ways in which your community has been shaped by past cultures, people, land uses, conflicts, and triumphs.  We ought not be ignorant of our history and the lessons we can learn from it, and from evidence of God’s providence through it all.

How About You?
May I invite you to respond using “Comments” to inform readers of  available resources on local and American history you would recommend?

Do You Have Faith in “Settled Science?”

“Science in America” is an online video commentary with over 1 million views.  It features Neil deGrasse Tyson, an American astrophysicist, author, and science communicator who begins with an important question:  How did America rise up from a backwoods country to become one of the greatest nations the world has ever known?

Tyson’s answer?  SCIENCE!  “Science is a fundamental part of the country that we are.”

But Tyson warns his viewers that we are in danger of losing the scientific momentum behind America’s rise (emphasis mine):  

...in this, the 21st century, when it comes time to make decisions about science, it seems we have lost the ability to judge what is true and what is not, what is reliable and what is not, what you should believe and what you should not believe.  And when you have people who don’t know much about science standing in denial of it and rising to power, that is a recipe for the complete dismantling of our informed democracy.

Tyson’s dire warning is followed by a sequence of clips which feature what he believes are “people who don’t know much about science.”  The sequence includes Vice President Mike Pence calling for the teaching of “evolution, not as fact, but as theory.” It continues with parents who are skeptical of vaccinations, voters who wish to ban GMO’s, and people who consider climate change as “unproven science.”  Tyson remembers the difficult times of the 1960’s and 1970’s but does not recall people ever “standing in denial of what science was.”

With all of the progress we have made in America, how can there still be “people who don’t know much about science standing in denial of it..?”  After all, according to Tyson,

One of the great things about science is that it is an entire exercise in finding what is true.  [First] a hypothesis, you test it, I get a result, a rival of mine double-checks it because they think I might be wrong.  They perform an even better experiment and they find out, hey, this experiment matches.  O my gosh, we’re onto something here!

So far so good for Tyson’s explanation of our so-called scientific method.  It begins with stating a testable hypothesis based on patterns observed in the natural world, and is followed by rigorous experimental testing in one laboratory, and then corroboration by other laboratories who are skeptical of the validity of the hypothesis.  If the hypothesis is consistently supported, Tyson says, “what arises is emergent truth.  Something better than we’ve ever come up with.”  While “emergent truth” may be an ambiguous term here, we can generally agree with his summary of the scientific method.

But then, Tyson’s narrative makes a wrong turn—one that exposes the contradiction in his logic.  He leaps to the conclusion that “emergent truth” becomes “established scientific emergent truth”—truth that is guaranteed to be true even if some people dare to deny it.  Note here that Tyson dismisses his “rival” who “double-checks” experimental outcomes because he is convinced beyond a doubt that he has reached “settled science.” 

At this point, all of us who value “good science” should be hearing loud sirens going off in our minds.  Here is Tyson’s dangerous conclusion (emphasis mine):

When you have an established scientific emergent truth, it is true whether or not you believe it.  And the sooner you understand that, the faster we can get on with the political conversation about how to solve the problems that face us.  So, once you understand that humans are warming the planet you can then have a political conversation about that…every minute one is in denial you are delaying the political solution that should have been established years ago.

In other words, the double-checker’s and deniers of Darwinian evolution should be silenced.  Those who question the safety of vaccinations and GMO foods, or who doubt human-caused climate change must be prevented and eliminated from positions of influence.  Unfortunately, it is only a small step from “settled science” to a “tyranny of science?”  The latter assumes that science alone can and should guide the political agenda without consideration of moral and ethical claims.   An article by Brendan O’Neill in The Guardian suggests that Americans of all political persuasions ought to be aware of the danger of going down the path to a science dominated by politics, especially without morality and ethics.

Supposedly, only “people who don’t know much about science” are questioners of “settled science.”  But then, some of Tyson’s viewers, and readers here, may remember that scientific progress and discovery was greatly influenced by people who, in their time, were regarded as not knowing much about science—people like Galileo, Pythagoras (Earth not flat), Pasteur (living cells do not spontaneously originate from nonliving matter), Einstein (relativity), and Barbara McClintock (ridiculed until her “jumping genes” hypothesis was validated).  Tyrannical science has no place for those who question long-held theories and “think outside the box.”  [Note: Regarding “thinking beyond the box,” see “Halting the Demise of “Liberal Education.”]

Two “experiments” from the former Soviet Union underscore the danger of the “tyranny of science.”  The first, called the Lysenko Affair, occurred during the 1930’s and 1940’s.  Russian scientist, Trofim Lysenko (1898-1976), succeeded in duping the communist government under Joseph Stalin into believing in his experimental results based on the false notion of Lamarckian genetics.   Lysenko believed that, with repeated harsh environmental treatments, temperate zone crop varieties would produce offspring that “inherit acquired characteristics” –i.e. “toughen up to thrive in frigid Siberia.  Under the tyranny of the Soviet regime, Lysenko’s critics were silenced, Lysenkoism flourished, and Soviet progress in genetics was stunted for decades.

The second “experiment” to illustrate the danger of “settled science” came a few decades after Lysenko, and resulted from communist tyranny over science.  This was the nuclear disaster at Chernobyl in northern Ukraine on April 26, 1986.  A nuclear power plant suffered a ruptured reactor core releasing large amounts deadly nuclear radiation.  The disaster was popularized by this year’s release of an HBO movie, Chernobyl.  I have not watched this 6-episode series, but reviews have outlined several of the political and scientific factors that caused Chernobyl to be a much worse disaster than it should have been.

First, the communist party propaganda machine suppressed communication and stifled expression from concerned scientists.   Consequently, like the Lysenko Affair decades earlier, highly politicized science became stunted and fell behind that of the western world. 

Second, the Chernobyl incident was made much worse because of inadequate expertise and availability of equipment to handle an otherwise preventable disaster.  The cloak of secrecy and isolation from the West that typified Russian communism made it difficult for the Soviets to admit their need of basic assistance and technology to deal with something that their science and technology couldn’t handle. 

The severity of the danger was not realized until much damage was done to humans, animals, and ecosystems.  Unfortunately, the ineptness of Soviet science magnified the Chernobyl disaster which shouldn’t have occurred under a reign of “good science.”  Just as bad, Chernobyl has become a “poster child” to elicit fear of nuclear energy production that still haunts our world and discourages nuclear energy production as a viable option.

The horrific effects of the Chernobyl disaster highlighted once again the disastrous result of “good science” becoming a prisoner to a godless political philosophy.  “Settled science” becomes “stale science” when people in power adopt Neil deGrasse Tyson’s philosophy that a scientific finding is true whether or not you believe it.  And the sooner you understand that, the faster we can get on with the political conversation about how to solve the problems that face us. 

Not so fast Dr. Tyson.  Shouldn't you let “your rivals” keep double-checking the results?  The “informed democracy” that you value depends on “good science.”  It is stunted by “settled science.”  If you don’t believe it, just consider the lessons of Lysenko and Chernobyl.  And, moms and dads, commit to being scientifically literate and make sure your sons and daughters follow your example.