Climate Change in Context – 2. Rightly Weighing Our Risks

Most of us would think nothing of standing beneath a huge cliff overhang.  Some of us have even camped overnight in the “shelter” of an overhang.  However, we might be wary of standing or camping there if a huge fallen tree had precariously angled itself against the cliff edge.  Would you take that risk?

Our assessment of the level of danger might change when we factor in both the cliff and the fallen tree.  It’s a matter of perceived risk.  We judge that the biological processes decaying the tree will soften and dislodge the tree more rapidly than the geological processes of weathering will loosen the rocks.  Therefore, we conclude that we are at greater risk of being crushed beneath the decaying tree than being crushed by fallen rocks.

We make many of our choices based on the apparent level of risk, imminence of danger, and our personal threshold of fear.  I remember dressing in a protective honeybee hat and long sleeves with “bee smoker” ready to help my grandpa capture a bee swarm high up in a tree.  As I climbed the ladder, I immediately performed a risk assessment as to which would be the greater threat to my life—getting stung, or falling from the ladder while trying to avoid bee stings.  I decided to hold onto the ladder no matter what.

Divided Over Our Risk
Today, we are confronted by multiple threats to our lives.  Some seem remote; others may appear imminent.  For example, studies reveal that passengers of large-size cars are more likely to survive a crash than those riding in small cars.  However, those concerned about carbon footprint and the threat of climate change encourage us to drive smaller cars, even hybrid or electric cars.  Once again however, we must prioritize among the three risks to decide which is most urgent:  risk of dying in a car crash, risk of going broke from buying the more expensive car, or risk of a global climate crisis.

Speaking of the “global climate crisis,” Americans have been divided for several decades among “climate deniers,” “non-deniers,” and “disavowers” (i.e. those who accept the climate data but don’t take action).  Such a deeply divided culture needs an atmosphere of civility in which open dialog and sound reasoning can occur among climate scientists, ecologists, politicians, social scientists, and the general public.  We emphasized this point in a 2020 Oikonomia article, “Climate Change in Context – 1. Getting the ‘Atmosphere’ Right.”  

Now, in Part 2 of our series on climate change, we focus on “Rightly Weighing Our Risks.”  Our purpose is to assess the relative influence of three spheres of influence on popular opinion and behavior related to the “climate crisis;” namely, (a) science, (b) politics, and (c) religion.  We understand that any of these three can influence the others, but we will try to address them separately.

Can Science Persuade?
In 2017, our Oikonomia article entitled “Paris Accord: Wrong Climate for Creation Care” reviewed climate science data and various interpretations in considerable detail.  We raised important considerations related to the following:
(a) reliability of climate data,
(b) validity of scientific interpretations,
(c) predicted benefits of climate policies toward planetary and human health; and,
(c) influence on behavior of world leaders and their followers. 
Please click HERE to revisit our earlier analysis.

According to recent polling, voters are not convinced that climate change is the most urgent threat.  For example, polling by a progressive think tank, Data for Progress [Click HERE.], revealed that nearly half of Americans (48%) rank the faltering economy as their greatest concern compared to only 6% for climate change.  That the majority of Americans rank the economy and other issues at higher risk than climate change suggests that, in spite of dire predictions, they have adopted a utilitarian ethic.  Utilitarians pursue what they believe is the greatest good for themselves, and secondarily, the greatest good for the greatest number of other people.

Michael S. Northcott, Professor Emeritus of Ethics at the University of Edinburgh, concluded, “Scientific prophecies of environmental crisis do not have the motive power to change the direction of a form of civilization which has become accustomed to courting risk and hazard as a way of life (The Environment & Christian Ethics. Cambridge U. Press, 1996).”  As we noted earlier, we all assess risk of danger in our decision-making.  But sometimes we are tempted to ignore warnings and plunge ahead in spite of danger.  At other times we are distracted by “shiny objects” that distract us or distort our judgment from realizing a great and looming danger. 

The chart below highlights a few of the potentially disturbing changes in American culture.  Some have much larger and immediate implications than climate warming.  We recognize that these data are but a small subset of much more data on each subject.  However, based on these data which would you rank in the top five needing most immediate attention? [Click on chart to enlarge.]

Maybe we should be asking ourselves whether we’ve been too distracted by the “shiny objects” of climate change and the Green Revolution at the expense of other more imminent and dangerous trends.  On the other hand, maybe the distraction has kept us from marveling at the amazing near-constancy of many of the life-sustaining conditions of planet Earth (See blue portion of chart.).  Certainly, politics and the media have a persuasive influence on how we judge risks among the various threats we face.  We go there next.

Political Persuaders
Many politicians and policy makers emphasize the “imminent threat” of climate change.  To them, the climate threat justifies drastic reductions in fossil fuel usage. The resulting limits have hiked energy costs and triggered economic inflation.  Together, these changes cause additional emotional and spiritual challenges to the health of our culture.  Nevertheless, in efforts to convince climate-deniers and disavowers of the imminence of the “climate crisis,” some call for more aggressive re-education.

In the Journal of Environmental Thought and Education (Japan) [See HERE.], John P. Clark writes (emphasis added) “we need to work harder on creating good environmental education so that the public can engage in more effective environmental thinking.”  But Clark’s view of “good environmental education” calls for aggressive indoctrination.  He recommends “reorganizing our social world into networks of awakened and caring transformational communities that are dedicated to undertaking whatever actions are necessary to put an end to the Necrocene (“era of death”) and initiate a new era characterized by the flourishing of life on Earth.”

Clark’s approach to environmental education, and that of many others who support “Green Energy” policies, involves integrating ecological principles with the social and political sciences.  Education ought to include integration across disciplines.  But education can quickly become forced indoctrination when it includes, in Clark’s words, “undertaking whatever actions are necessary” to bring about their envisioned transformation.  Not to be alarmist, but history has shown that individuals and followers who vow to “undertake whatever actions are necessary” have given rise to much suffering, destruction, and death.  Already, we can see signs of trouble on the horizon.

For example, the agenda for 2030 of the World Economic Forum (WEF) [Click HERE] calls for a one-world government.  As we wrote in Oikonomia during the pandemic in 2020, “power-seeking individuals of the WEF believed the COVID lockdown provided the model for the next global lockdown—one justified by the threat of climate change!  [See “Climate Lockdowns Coming Soon,” click HERE.]  A 2020 statement by WEF proposes that the responses by “political institutions” to the COVID pandemic could serve as a “crucial dress-rehearsal for a transition to a different economic model…”  Already, Senator Jeff Merkley (D-OR) has urged the initiation of a climate lockdown as follows:

The climate crisis is one of the biggest emergencies that our country has ever faced, and our time is running out. Americans are counting on Biden to lead accordingly. Let’s act boldly, and treat this crisis like the emergency it is.  [Click HERE to read more.]

Senator Merkley’s proposal to avert the predicted “climate crisis” is typical of many bold revolutionary proposals offered by scientists and politicians today.  Again, we must call for objective and civil discussion to assess the certainty and imminence of the climate threat and the likelihood that a given policy will bring about the intended result.  Building civility and community consensus at the national and global level is a tall order.

Lack of “Community” among Authorities
Authorities in both the scientific and political “community” would certainly be more convincing if they could reach a consensus that we are indeed facing a “climate crisis.”  However, in spite of the “Paris Accord,” there remains much “discord” among world leaders [See HERE.].  Many do not all take the climate data equally seriously.  Nor are they all equally committed to making good on commitments to reduce fossil fuel usage and resultant carbon emissions in the spirit of the Paris Accord.

The website “Our World in Data” [Click HERE.] has an interactive collection of data charts on CO₂ emissions by region and by nation.  The data reveal that Communist China lacks a genuine commitment to lowering atmospheric carbon emissions.  Note that China’s annual carbon emissions are over twice that of the United States.  Furthermore, China’s carbon emissions continue to trend upward while the US and other western nations have achieved drastic reductions in emissions. 

In spite of this great disparity, the WEF and other authorities are pushing the notion of a global climate crisis.  Simultaneously, they are pressuring the US and western nations for drastic reductions in fossil fuel usage in favor of renewable energy, particularly wind and solar energy.  Efforts to restrict fossil fuel extraction in the US in order to force the switch from gasoline- and diesel-powered to electric-powered cars and trucks is well intended but experts believe, too fast for technology and the markets to adjust.  Already, restriction of synthetic fertilizer use by farmers disrupts agricultural production, resulting in food shortages and political unrest in nations like Sri Lanka and the Netherlands [Click HERE.]

Clearly, the so-called “global community” of nations is not behaving as a true community in addressing current ecological and economic concerns.  From a utilitarian ethical perspective, we can see that China’s “greater good” appears to be aimed at economic and political domination.  The governing Communist Party uses every weapon in its arsenal to achieve this goal with little apparent concern about the “climate crisis.”  Considering China’s effort to promote its prominence in the world through the Green Revolution, and before approving Sen. Merkley’s proposed “climate emergency” measures, we should remember the devastating effect of lockdowns during the COVID-19 (Wuhan Virus) pandemic on education, economy, education, exercise of faith, and overall well-being.

In view of China’s lack of cooperation in a “global community” approach to reduce carbon emissions, the recommendation of John P. Clark  to establish “awakened and caring transformational communities“ worldwide seems shallow and unrealistic.  Already, efforts like the Paris Accord and WEF are playing into the hands of Communist China, giving it the upper hand in its effort toward world domination, leaving the US in an increasingly weakened position.

Religious Faith Persuasion
Admittedly, the notion of a “global community” is not inherently wrong.  Each of our three spheres of influence-- science, politics, and religion attract people into community based on common goals, interests, or beliefs.  Like science and politics, our third system of influence, world religions, are systems of beliefs and practices believed to justify adherents in the eyes of some higher being or standard.

In recent years, many environmentally conscious people have integrated their love for nature into their preferred sacred, religious belief(s).  Many environmentally conscious people who have chosen to follow secular liberalism have rejected traditional the Judeo-Christian teachings of faith in God and the importance of marriage, family, and community.  Yet, as Sumantra Maitra writes,¹ their human instincts for faith — to believe, worship, submit, and fear — didn’t just go away but manifested in various other pre-civilized tribal ways.  For example, a liberal seminary encouraged its students to skip classes to pray and confess sins in front of potted plants.  In Switzerland, 250 people in full funereal garb mourned the apparent approaching death of a glacier.

Major religions include the monotheistic (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam), polytheistic (e.g. Hinduism, Confucianism, Taoism), and atheistic and pantheistic (e.g. Buddhism).  Historically, the creation or natural world has served as an inspiration within many religions, each claiming they represent “the Way” to follow.  What follows is a sketch of how some have drawn upon Buddhism as a basis for right living and caring for the Earth.

Buddhism and Christianity
John P. Clark’s call for an “era of a liberated humanity and a liberated nature,” described earlier, is rooted in Buddhism [See HERE.].  As Clark elaborates, “In this endeavor, we can find inspiration in the ancient Buddhist concept of Appamāda. “Appamāda” is a Pali word (“Apramada” in Sanskrit) that conveys the ideas of both ‘mindfulness’ and ‘care.’ The practice of Appamāda implies that we must be awakened to the world and all the beings around us, and that in such an awakened state we become capable of responding to and caring for them effectively.”

Buddhism denies the existence of God and His salvation by grace through Jesus Christ.  Instead, “salvation” rests in human effort.  The Buddhist practice of Appamāda, in conjunction with extensive periods of meditation, can lead us to find within ourselves our own moral justification through enlightenment resulting in a greater mindfulness and a caring attitude.  Clark blames the “capitalist society of mass consumption” for generating “a certain form of selfhood that is inclined to obsessive desires, powerful addictions, and sick attachments.”  Clark goes on to suggest that capitalism generates “…an entire culture of consumption that socializes us into believing that a world of obsessive craving is the only one possible.”  On the other hand, as we are enlightened, we overcome the inclination to satisfy our compulsions and destructive behavior toward ourselves and the Earth.

In contrast to the subjectivity of Buddhism, Christianity is based on the objective revelation and authenticity of God’s Word (2 Peter 1: 20-21).  The inspired Scriptures reveal everything we need to know about our moral state, our responsibility before God, our justification, and our future.  God’s objective revelation culminates in the revelation of His Son, Jesus Christ, the Living Word, and His incarnate birth, sinless life, death, and resurrection.

Whereas, the Buddhist targets the material world and capitalist society as sources of our cravings, addictions, and unhealthy attachments, Christianity locates the source of our destructive thoughts and behavior within the sin-corrupted mind and heart of each person.  We are rebels in the image of Adam and Eve who yielded to Satan’s lies.  Romans 1: 21-24 reveals the pathetic path our ancestors chose (emphasis added to highlight progression): 

For although
(a) they knew God,
(b) they neither glorified Him as God nor gave thanks to Him,
(c) but they became futile in their thinking and darkened in their foolish hearts.  Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images of mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. 
(d) Therefore, God gave them over in the desires of their hearts to impurity for the dishonoring of their bodies with one another.

Unlike Buddhism which offers unending cycles of reincarnation, Christianity offers the free gift of eternal life beginning at the moment of salvation by faith.  Jesus said, “Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life (John 6: 47).”  Christian theology teaches that each individual is bound for eternal suffering in Hell unless justified by faith in the suffering, death, and resurrection of God the Son who paid the price for our justification (Romans 6: 23).  The Apostle Peter wrote, Christ suffered for our sins once for all time. He never sinned, but he died for sinners to bring you safely home to God.  He suffered physical death, but he was raised to life in the Spirit (1 Peter 3: 18).

The Christian is born again to new life and now has the power of the Spirit of Christ to enable him or her to produce “the fruit of the Spirit which is love, joy, peace, patience… self-control; against such things there is no law” (Galatians 5: 22-23).  This fruit is contrasted with works of our flesh which are “…sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry,” and other compulsions (v. 19-21) which John P. Clark named as the cause of environmental degradation. 

New Profession: “Steward’
The Christ-follower does not have to seek personal identity in materialism and excessive consumption.  Instead, he or she finds love, joy, peace, and self-control in his or her intimate walk with God.  Spirit-led Christ-followers reject the path of the first man, Adam, who was given dominion and stewardship of the Earth but rebelled, leading to the Fall of mankind (Genesis 1: 28; 2: 15).   

The Christ-follower is reborn and renewed in the Spirit of the “second Adam (Christ)” to serve as steward of God’s grace and God’s creation.  This stewardship is central to his or her keeping of the two great commandments—loving God whole-heartedly and loving neighbor as much as love for self (Matthew 22: 36-40).  The steward who focuses on loving God and neighbor is wonderfully positioned to balance his or her vibrant hope of eternal Heaven with a commitment to stewardship of the Earth which he or she serves for the glory of God and the good of neighbor.  In contrast to the ambiguity and subjectivism of Buddhism and all other man-derived religions, the Christian faith provides a clear, complete, and objective revelation through the Scriptures.  Environmental ethicist, J.B. Callicott, has written, The Judeo-Christian Stewardship Environmental Ethic is especially elegant and powerful.  It also exquisitely matches the requirements of conservation biology [by conferring] objective intrinsic value on nature in the clearest and most unambiguous of ways:  by divine decree².  

What Are Your Greatest Risks?
Would you ever choose to stand beneath or locate your camp under a cliff overhang with a decaying log teetering above you?  We hope not; at least before you assess the risk of danger.  We also hope this article has helped you consider how you are prioritizing among the various social and global risks that pose a threat to you and your loved ones, community, and nation.  Shouldn't we all try to become more knowledgeable of how science, politics, and religious faith are influencing our leaders?   Then, we can be better prepared to exercise our voices and our votes in support of leaders who will make wise decisions.   

From our Christian faith, we conclude by saying, God offers Christ-followers the promise of life forever in the New Heaven and the New Earth in which righteousness dwells (Revelation 21-22).  Some of us may die from underestimating risk.  Others of us may be called by Christ our Savior to risk our lives for a person or for the cause of His Gospel.  Regardless, both the Scriptures and experience tell us our death rate is 100%.   After this comes judgment that determines where we will spend eternity (Hebrews 9: 27).  Risk of calamity from climate warming is worthy of consideration, but the risk of eternal damnation and separation from God is 100% if we reject God’s provision through the Cross of Christ.  About what risks are you most concerned?

Comments and Questions:
As always, we welcome your responses using the “Comments” link below to express your thoughts and questions about this article, or what you believe and why.  You may also write privately to silviusj@gmail.com
-------
Footnote:
¹ Maitra, Sumantra. "Climate Worship Is Nothing More than Rebranded Paganism.  The Federalist, September 26, 2019.

² Van Dyke, Fred. 2006. Cultural Transformation and Conservation: Growth, Influence, and Challenges for the Judeo-Christian Stewardship Environmental Ethic Perspective on Science and Christian Faith 58(1):48

Related Readings:
“Creation Care and Christian Character” Creation Care, Summer, 2007
“Calling for Stewardship Without a Master” July 2, 2013
“Fundamentals of Conservation, Part 3 "Serving with Our Neighbor” November 23, 2014
“Paris Accord: Wrong Climate for Creation Care”   Oikonomia, June 9, 2017
“Climate Change in Context – 1. Getting the ‘Atmosphere’ Right.”  September 21, 2019
“Earthkeeping and Character: Book Review” December 5, 2020

Hydroxychloroquine: “Good Science” Challenges Politicized Science

Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), for over 60 years a familiar antimalarial drug, has fast become one of the most popular subjects in daily news surrounding the COVID-19 virus pandemic  allegedly caused by Chinese Communist mismanagement of a lab in Wuhan, China.  Like any drug, the safety and efficacy of HCQ as a treatment for a new disease, ought to be thoroughly investigated.  However, in spite of numerous favorable reports of the life-saving benefit of doctor-prescribed HCQ, many influential people including Dr. Anthony Fauci continue to oppose its use.  Are there legitimate reasons for this opposition to a potentially life-saving drug?   Or are we about to see just how many lives will be lost simply because “good science” is being ignored or silenced by selfish political and economic agendas? 

So-called “good science” has been a frequent subject of my blog writing in Oikonomia (Greek = “household management; or, stewardship”).  To me, “good science” is an inquiry into the workings of the “household of creation” by those who recognize the necessity of and abide by a faith-based ethical foundation for their pursuit of truth [See “The Conscience of Science: Part 1 Ethics & Accountability.”]  A faith-based ethic enables the scientist to see that his or her pursuit of truth is good stewardship of his or her God-given intellectual gifts.  Scientists who view their science as a stewardship are more likely to contribute in ways that promote the flourishing of God’s creation.  In so doing, they bring benefit to all mankind.  Above all, “good science” ought to be guided by honesty in its inquiry and in reporting of conclusions.

We can only hope that current debate over the safety and efficacy of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) will be governed by “good science” and later remembered by the thousands of lives it saved.  Therefore, I am encouraged by an article authored by Dr. Harvey Risch, a Yale epidemiologist, published May 27 in the Journal of Epidemiology.  In it, Dr. Risch refutes an earlier article published in The Lancet which had caused the World Health Organization to halt trials of HCQ as a treatment for COVID-19 infections.  Dr. Risch’s critique is a classic lesson in careful scientific analysis of published results.  It also illustrates the importance of peer review in verifying scientific methodology and correct application of results.  I encourage you to read the article.

In order to provide context for this stage of the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Risch estimates that over 1.6 million Americans have been infected and up to 10 to 50-fold larger numbers of people carry antibodies to the virus.  In spite of “flattening the curve” through mask-wearing, social distancing, etc., Dr. Risch believes that over time

…very large numbers of people in the US may eventually get the infection.  The great majority of infected people are at low risk for progression or will manifest the infection asymptomatically. For the rest, outpatient treatment is required that prevents disease progression and hospitalization.  Exposures will occur as isolation policies are lifted and people begin to mix, even with various degrees of public isolation such as mask usage and physical separation still in place.

Dr. Risch also recognizes that, while we are averaging an estimated 10,000 COVID-19 deaths per week in the US, we are facing a greater risk of deaths due to policies that have created an unsustainable economic and social condition with over 36 million Americans out of work and disruptions in many essential services necessary to maintain our physical, emotional, and spiritual well-being.  He concludes: “We are rapidly reaching a breaking point in the ability to maintain the status quo; states have begun the process of lifting their restrictions, and we thus need to evaluate what evidence we do have for promising outpatient treatments.” 

Dr. Risch’s COVID-19 treatment recommendation may be summarized as follows (emphasis mine):

… the key to returning society toward normal functioning and to preventing huge loss of life, especially among older individuals, people with comorbidities, African Americans and Hispanics and Latinos, is a safe, effective and proactive outpatient treatment that prevents hospitalization in the first place.

Based on Dr. Risch’s analysis of the results of numerous treatments in which COVID-19 patients were given HCQ in combination with the antibiotic azithromycin (i.e. HCQ+AZ), his recommendation is as follows (emphasis mine):

HCQ+AZ has been directly studied in actual early high-risk outpatient use with all of its temporal considerations and found empirically to have sufficient epidemiologic evidence for its effective and safe employment that way, and that requiring delay of such general use until availability of additional RCT (randomized controlled trial) evidence is untenable because of the ongoing and projected continuing mortality. No studies of Covid-19 outpatient HCQ+AZ use have shown higher mortality with such use than without, cardiac arrhythmias included, thus there is no empirical downside to this combined medication use.

The strong support for the use of HCQ+AZ from Dr. Risch was accompanied by two other endorsements of its therapeutic value.  Last week, President Trump announced that he has been using a prescription of HCQ, demonstrating that he is willing to put his health on the line to support his belief in the safety and efficacy of HCQ.  Then, this week, Breitbart reported that HCQ will be administered by Britain’s National Health Service (NHS) to as many as 10,000 health workers representing up to 20 hospitals as part of a clinical trial.

In conclusion, the debate continues between those who favor and those who oppose the use of hydroxychloroquine plus azithromycin (HCQ+AZ) for early treatment of high-risk COVID-19 patients.  However, the May 27 publication of Dr. Harvey Risch’s thorough analysis as summarized here ought to make the prescription of these drugs the centerpiece of our COVID-19 treatment strategy.  

It remains to be seen which voices will have the most influence on policy makers and medical health professionals--the voices of "good science" or the voices of those with political agendas that seem to care little about either “following the science” or protecting individual lives.   Meanwhile, I am siding with the voice of “good science” and can only hope HCQ+AZ will be available to me in the event that I am infected with COVID-19 and require medical intervention.  

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.

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.

What to Do about ‘Fireworks’ in America

When I was an elementary school student, in the 1950’s, we were regularly asked to stand and participate in the Pledge of Allegiance.  I do not remember ever saying the pledge without the words “under God.” These words had been added by Congress in 1954 in the face of the threat of godless communism.

Today, the words “one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all” are still recited by all who are willing to make this pledge.  However, it has become clear that many Americans no longer submit to God, and many no longer consider America a “godly nation” if indeed it ever was.  Our nation is deeply divided, particularly over competing visions of what America ought to be with respect to “liberty and justice for all.”

On this Fourth of July, the deep moral and ideological divisions are manifested in social and political turmoil that centers upon President Donald J. Trump and his administration.  Mr. Trump is one of the most controversial and, some would say, divisive and even hated presidents in modern history.  Many on the political left despise him because they believe he stole the presidential election of 2016.   They have resorted to attempts to tarnish and disrupt the Trump presidency by convicting him of collusion with the Russians.  There are also attempts to trap him in regard to inflammatory social issues, most recently his now cancelled policy of separating illegally immigrating children from their adult “guardians.” 

Meanwhile, many in the evangelical community disrespect President Trump because they believe he falls short of God’s moral and spiritual standards for the office he occupies.  Evangelical mistrust and moral criticism of the president continues in spite of his successful appointment of one excellent Supreme Court justice, and his intention to appoint a second.  In addition, President Trump’s policies seem to flow from his genuine respect for America, his emphasis on free enterprise and a good work ethic, and his respect for the sanctity of human life.

It is clear that the "fireworks" of political division in America will continue long after this Fourth of July.  Instead of arguing over competing visions of what America ought to be and the best ways to get there, I believe that Christ-follower’s, those who have surrendered their lives to the Person of Jesus Christ and His Word, are called to pray.   I do not see praying as a convenient cop-out from the “real world problems” we face.  Instead, those who have studied American history will know the vital part the providential hand of God played in the birth of our nation. 

Today in the midst of storm clouds of disruption and division, it is only fitting that Christ-followers pray for America and for her leaders.  The commands in Scripture to pray include those from the inspired pen of the Apostle Paul:

I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people.  Pray this way for kings and all who are in authority so that we can live peaceful and quiet lives marked by godliness and dignity. This is good and pleases God our Savior, who wants everyone to be saved and to understand the truth (1 Timothy 2: 1-4 (NIV)).

Paul is urging Christ-followers to enter into spiritual communication with God through the indwelling Holy Spirit.  Our access to God is made possible by the shed blood of Christ who sits at the right hand of God.  Christ is glorified when we enter worshipful prayer in His Name.  [Click on box, “What Happens When We Pray?”] 

When we commune with God in prayer, we ought to realize that we are not in a position to inform Him of what He doesn’t know.  Rather, as Gordon T. Smith (The Voice of Jesus, IVP 2003) writes (p. 163):

…in true prayer God has a “privileged voice,” one might say.  And the final objective of prayer is not experienced in our speaking so much as in our allowing God to speak, to have the final word, but more, to have THE word that speaks into our lives. It is this word that empowers, liberates, sustains and guides; it is the word we long to hear.

Referring back to 1 Timothy 2: 1, the Scripture commands us to pray in several ways.  First, we are to petition (make requests of ) God according to His character and purposes.  Then, notice Paul also calls us to intercede (pray on behalf of the needs of others) and offer thanksgiving to God for others and for the blessings (and trials) He brings our way.

How then should we pray for our nation and specifically “for kings” on this Fourth of July, or on any other day?  After all, we do not have a king ruling over us as was the case when Paul wrote to Timothy around AD 63.   In fact, when Paul wrote the command to Christ-followers to pray “for kings and all who are in authority,” the godless Roman emperor Nero was in power.  The date of Paul’s writing was approximately one year before the Great Fire in Rome.  Nero, who many believe may have been involved in starting the fire, laid the blame on Christians and ordered the execution of many innocent believers. 

Instead of an unelected, godless emperor, we have a president who was elected to serve as the executive of a democratic, republican government.  Historically, presidents elected by the will of the people have been shown respect even among those who did not vote for him.  By all indications as I have already indicated, President Trump is sincerely trying against much opposition to keep his campaign promises for the benefit of our nation.  However, hatred of Mr. Trump and his conservative policies is continually expressed by vicious personal attacks as well as verbal attacks upon his wife, family, and members of his administration.

Christ-followers ought to expect a disregard for authority from those who disregard the authority of God’s Word.  But the souls of both nonbelievers and believers are worth much more than winning political arguments.  Therefore, Christ ought to be honored in all of our conversations and actions.  If we return to the Apostle Paul’s writing in 1 Timothy we can find Paul’s basis for showing respect for authority and being civil in conversation.

Immediately preceding Paul’s command to “pray for kings,” he writes, “I urge, then….” which may be translated “I urge, therefore...”  If we back up to 1 Timothy 1: 15-16 (NASB), we can see what the “therefore” is there for.  Paul reveals his own humility in the face of Christ’s patience toward him.  He writes (emphasis mine),

It is a trustworthy statement, deserving full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, among whom I am foremost of all.   Yet for this reason I found mercy, so that in me as the foremost, Jesus Christ might demonstrate His perfect patience as an example for those who would believe in Him for eternal life.

As Christ-followers perform the important work of praying for our nation and all those in authority, including President Trump and his administration, we ought to meditate on Paul’s testimony as the “foremost of all” sinners.   Like Paul, we should never forget that we were also forgiven an infinite debt of sin.  Then, as we confess our own sin and take the log out of [our] own eye…so we can see clearly to take the speck out of [our] brother's eye (Matthew 7: 5), perhaps our prayers will be heard and answered for the benefit of our own personal relationships, our families, and our nation,  that by God's grace it could be “one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

Application -- What About You?
If you are like me, you read lots of articles and books but fail to make specific applications to your own spiritual life as a believer and Christ-follower.   For example, you may have just read my article, "What to Do about 'Fireworks' in America" and are asking, "What will I do?"   If you are asking this question, here's a suggestion. 

The heart of this article is a call to PRAY.  If you re-read or scan the article, you will notice some thoughts on what prayer is and how to pray.  My thoughts on prayer are derived from what Daniel Henderson calls "Scripture-Fed, Spirit-Led Prayer."  For the past 20 months I have been blessed to pray in a small group at our church in which we use Henderson's approach, led by a former student and now brother in Christ, Kirk Fairhurst.  May I encourage you to read more about "Scripture-Fed, Spirit-Led Prayer" by checking out the following links, and then beginning to practice praying in this way individually and, as God allows, with other Christ-followers.  To God be the glory, great things He has done!
Links from Daniel Henderson's Strategic Renewal website:

The Power of Praying From the Bible
PRAYzing!  Fear Not!