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

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 Transmission: “Unmasking” Science

I’d like to think that most Americans still believe that truth exists, that truth can be known, and that we make the best decisions when we have truthful information.  Science, especially “good science,” is one way of finding and publishing correct truth claims.  However, in the era of COVID-19, it seems there are many “middle people” operating between what science discovers and what the average person reads or hears in the news.  For example, there are scientific studies of the efficacy of masks in preventing spread of viruses.  Then, there are news reports recommending whether or not we ought to wear masks.  What is the truth about masks?  

You are no doubt aware of the mixed signals regarding whether or not we should wear masks that have come from the Coronavirus Task Team members, especially Dr. Anthony Fauci.  This confusion could be an indication that political bias and efforts to influence policy may be creating static in the signals between the actual scientific findings on mask wearing and the recommendations we receive through media sources.

The purpose of this article is not to convince you of whether or not to wear a mask. Instead, as I tried to do with an April article, (See COVID-19 Policies & Outcomes: Learning Online), my purpose here is to simply reference several scientific studies to show how researchers report their findings, make conclusions, and offer recommendations based on their results.  In other words, I want to take us back to the primary sources, the journal articles from the scientific laboratories.  These are the sources of information from which newspaper and TV journalists obtain their information.  Resultant newsprint or media newscasts which most of us receive are considered secondary sources, and perhaps tertiary sources, any of which are subject to accidental or deliberate errors.

What follows are references to two primary (scientific journal) sources which report recent studies of the effectiveness of masks in intercepting COVID-19 and other viruses.  I am also including one secondary source compiled by the World Health Organization (WHO) based primary sources.  Each title is accompanied with the link so you can obtain the article in PDF format to read for yourself.  I have given each source a handy label which I can use to refer to each article as follows:

1)  Vietnam Study (2015)
MacIntyre CR, Seale H, Dung TC, et al.  A cluster randomised trial of cloth masks compared with medical masks in healthcare workers. BMJ Open 2015;5: e006577. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2014-006577
Locate Article:  HERE

2)  WHO Guidance Report
Advice on the use of masks in the context of COVID-19  -- WHO in April, 2020

Locate Article (automatic download of PDF): HERE

3)  Nature Medicine study:
Leung, N.H.L., D. K. W. Chu, et al. Respiratory virus shedding in exhaled breath and efficacy of face masks.  Nature Medicine 26: 676–680, May 2020
Locate Article:  HERE

Vietnam Study
The “Vietnam study” involved 1,607 hospital health care workers (age 18 or older) employed full-time in selected high-risk wards among 14 different hospitals.  The objective of this study was “to compare the efficacy of cotton cloth masks to medical masks in hospital healthcare workers.”  Their conclusions are as follows:

Caution against Cloth Masks:  “This study is the first randomized critical trial of cloth masks, and the results caution against the use of cloth masks. This is an important finding to inform occupational health and safety. Moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may result in increased risk of infection. Further research is needed to inform the widespread use of cloth masks globally.  However, as a precautionary measure, cloth masks should not be recommended for health care workers, particularly in high-risk situations, and guidelines need to be updated.”

The results of the “Vietnam study” were summarized in the adjacent graphic presented by the Laura Ingraham Angle on Fox News.  This news channel is a secondary source that is seen by millions of viewers.  The Fox News summary accurately presents the conclusions of the study.  However, reading the journal article reveals several complicating factors that are typically missed in news reporting.  The following excerpt from the journal article addresses some of the limitations of the study:

A limitation of this study is that we did not measure compliance with hand hygiene, and the results reflect self-reported compliance, which may be subject to recall or other types of bias. Another limitation of this study is the lack of a no-mask control group and the high use of masks in the controls, which makes interpretation of the results more difficult. In addition, the quality of paper and cloth masks varies widely around the world, so the results may not be generalisable to all settings (MacIntyre C.R. et al, p. 7).

What can we take away from the “Vietnam Study?”  First, the “Vietnam Study” appears to demonstrate “good science.”  The researchers were objective, conducted experiments and analyzed data with care, tried to avoid bias, were careful not to overstate conclusions, and invited scrutiny and critical analysis by peers and readers.

Second, primary journal sources often contain admissions of limitations that may or may not affect the conclusions; and, usually suggest the need for additional scientific research.  However, news reporting based on these primary sources often do not include these details.  Therefore, I encourage readers to check out the “Vietnam Study” article itself to gain more of a sense of how science is conducted and reported. 

Finally, the “Vietnam Study” provides much reason for us to question the efficacy of cotton cloth masks in preventing transmission of virus, and suggests that “moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may result in increased risk of infection.”  We ought to be asking, “Is it possible that by wearing a mask I am increasing my risk of infection?”  How will this scientific study affect your choices, and the current policies of our state governors regarding masks?

WHO Guidance Report
Unlike the “Vietnam Study,” the “WHO Interim Guidance Report” is a secondary source with recommendations based on primary research reports.  This secondary source by definition represents interpretations and recommendations made by at least some people who were not directly involved in primary research and reporting.  However, if the interpretations and recommendations are accurate, the secondary source can reveal patterns and trends based on multiple research results including the “Vietnam Study” by MacIntyre CR, Seale H, Dung TC, et al.  cited above. 

The “WHO Guidance Report” offers the following summation concerning the efficacy of wearing masks to prevent spread of COVID-19:
When infected people wear masks:  “Studies of influenza, influenza-like illness, and human coronaviruses provide evidence that the use of a medical mask can prevent the spread of infectious droplets from an infected person to someone else and potential contamination of the environment by these droplets.”

When uninfected people wear masks:  “There is limited evidence that wearing a medical mask by healthy individuals in the households or among contacts of a sick patient, or among attendees of mass gatherings may be beneficial as a preventive measure. However, there is currently no evidence that wearing a mask (whether medical or other types) by healthy persons in the wider community setting, including universal community masking, can prevent them from infection with respiratory viruses, including COVID-19 (WHO Interim Guidance Report, p. 1).”

This April, 2020 recommendation by WHO was consistent with the recommendation at the time from Dr. Anthony Fauci who informed Americans that “There’s no reason to be walking around with a mask.  When you’re are in the middle of an outbreak, wearing a mask might make people feel a bit better, and it might even block a droplet, but it’s not providing the perfect protection that people think that it is.” 

Facebook now flags the April interview with Dr. Fauci as “false information.  Dr. Fauci later recommended wearing of masks and explained that his turn-around was based on his concern that if everyone wore a mask, healthcare workers would be left in short supply.  However, another April study, this one published in Nature Medicine, seems to confirm Dr. Fauci’s original recommendation against the need for wearing masks.  Is it possible that Dr. Fauci was scientifically correct in his April recommendation?  Let’s have a closer look at the “Nature Medicine Study.”

Nature Medicine Study
This report, published online April 3, 2020, is a primary source from a reputable journal.  The study was conducted from March, 2013 through May, 2016 in a general outpatient clinic of a private hospital in Hong Kong.  Researchers “screened 3,363 individuals in two study phases, ultimately enrolling 246 individuals who provided exhaled breath samples.  Among these 246 participants, 122 (50%) participants were randomized to not wearing a face mask during the first exhaled breath collection and 124 (50%) participants were randomized to wearing a face mask. Overall, 49 (20%) voluntarily provided a second exhaled breath collection of the alternate type.”

Results of the “Nature Medicine Study” were summarized as follows:
Virus Transmission in Air:  “Our results indicate that aerosol transmission is a potential mode of transmission for coronaviruses as well as influenza viruses and rhinoviruses.”
Efficacy of Masks:  “Our findings indicate that surgical masks can efficaciously reduce the emission of influenza virus particles into the environment in respiratory droplets, but not in aerosols.”
Very Little Virus Shedding:  “Among the samples collected without a face mask, we found that the majority of participants with influenza virus and coronavirus infection did not shed detectable virus in respiratory droplets or aerosols…”

The “Nature Medicine Study” affirms that coronaviruses can be transmitted in respiratory droplets (size greater than 5 micrometers) and in aerosols (size = less than 5 micrometers).  Surgical face masks (# 62356, Kimberly-Clark) reduced transmission of virus in respiratory droplets but not virus transmission in the smaller aerosols.  This result should be unsettling to infected people who depend on mask wearing to reduce transmission to others, and even to noninfected people who depend on masks to avoid infection.  However, there is some good news from this study; namely, the indication that the majority of those infected with coronavirus did not shed virus in either droplets or aerosols!

Summary Considerations
In summary, I have reviewed two primary literature sources and one secondary source.  All of them provide significant findings that should be taken into consideration when policy makers and we as individuals decide on whether or not to wear a mask; and, for what purpose, or what kind of mask, or how to avoid increasing risk of infection as a mask-wearer.  Perhaps most telling to us is whether we have been surprised by any of the results reported in these three studies.  I suggest that the degree to which we are surprised reflects the degree to which we have depended solely on broadcast media (secondary sources) as most Americans do.  

Unless we have a media source that does the hard work of extracting results from primary scientific sources, and reports it objectively without political bias, we will not be able to do as many say we should do-- “just follow the science.”  In the case of mask wearing, as I have discussed here, there appears to be “good science” and at least some good journalism, suggesting that we do well not to put too much trust in cotton cloth masks even if there are dozens of websites that tell us how to make cloth masks.  Furthermore, depending how we use the mask we could even increase our risk of infection.  Nor is there clear evidence that masks are stopping aerosol transmission of virus as much as the fact that virus shedding by infected individuals may be much less than we imagine.

What Do You Think About It?

As always, I welcome your opinions, corrections, questions.  Just use the “Comments” link below.  And, if you would like another COVID-19 related topic to research “back into the science,” consider hydroxychloroquine which as been shown to be efficacious against COVID-19 if prescribed appropriately but which has been opposed vehemently by many in the liberal media.   See Hydroxychloroquine: “Good Science” Challenges Politicized Science and a recent interview with Dr. Harvey Risch, Yale epidemiologist.  Why aren’t we following the science?”

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.