New Blog, New Location

Folks, check out my new blog, Conscience of a Whig, at deniskaufman.substack.com. 

That's how it works. That's how all of this works.

So, a group of Republicans in the House of Representatives want Vice President Pence to count only the "right" Electoral votes from swing states that Trump insists he really won, in spite of actual, verified, certified vote counts that say otherwise.  And that, they insist, will put Trump back in office. 

Not really. 

 Article II of the Constitution, amended by the 12th Amendment, directs the States to conduct elections and select electors according to rules they set forth, then to convey the *sealed* results to the President of the Senate, who will open and announce the results. It does not give the President of the Senate the perogative to decide which electors from which states he or she will pick. 

It doesn't matter if the VP performs the duty of presiding over the Senate on January 6th or not. The results that were certified and sent by the states are what they are, and the only ones that count.

Loosey-goosey personal interpretations of the Constitution, which Republicans abhorred from 1854 to 2014, don't trump the actual Constitution or laws passed by Congress and the states and upheld by the judicial branch, no matter how hysterically they are expressed by the likes of Louie Gohmert or Matt Gaetz. All 50 states have prescribed processes for selecting electors based on the popular vote returns within that state. These laws have been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. Who gets to vote, how they vote and when they vote is decided by the states (within limits established by the Constitution and various amendments). When the votes are counted is also up to the states, as long as the vote count concludes before the states certify the counts and electors are designated. 

Unless fraud can be proven, the vote counts stand. No court in the states or federal judiciary has found any evidence of fraud that would affect the outcome. Although they did find a case of two dead folks whose votes were cast, for Trump.

Joe Biden won the election according to the laws of the 50 states and the Consitution and laws of the United States. Pissy tweets and GOP hissy fits aside, Biden is the President-elect and will be inaugurated on January 20th. 

It's how it works. It's how all of this works.

More Thoughts on COVID

Recently a friend asked my thoughts on a podcast from the CATO Institute. CATO is a libertarian oriented think tank. The podcast titled "Following the Science and Pandemic Policy and Outcomes," features an interview with Dr Jeff Singer, MD, FACS. The interview can be heard here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/following-the-science-and-pandemic-policy-outcomes/id158961219?i=1000495909421

It is notable that among the physicians who  question the premises underlying current public health recommendations on controlling Coronavirus, how few have epidemiology or infectious disease control credentials. Dr Singer is a surgeon. Donald Trump's COVID advisor, Dr Scott Atlas, is a radiologist, etc, etc. Dr Singer, in the podcast, points out that they learn about viruses in their first year in medical school. They also learn about the anatomy of the heart early on. I'm not going to let an orthopedist do heart surgery on me though.

The false narrative that 85% (or 80%) of people who wear masks get COVID anyway needs to be tossed out. It is a manipulation of a data point in a larger study. Used as a stand alone point, it is misleading and potentially deadly to some. What it refers to is people who wear masks in close-packed environments with other folks, many of whom are doing things that require they be unmasked at least part of the time. Examples are restaurants and bars where you are eating and drinking, churches where there is a lot of singing, or closely packed outdoor events like large outdoor political rallies with lots of shouting and standing in packed long lines to enter. Given the type of activities going on in these environments, I have to wonder how well (and much) those folks who say they were masked actually wore masks and how well.

The other thing about the masking discussion in the podcast is that it's focused on how well masks do at protecting the wearer from others. Surgical and cloth masks worn by the public probably afford, on average, a 50% level of protection.  What makes the difference is how well that same mask protects others from the wearer. And that level of protection is more like 90%, which means if both parties are wearing masks and one is infected, you're still looking at a >95% level of protection. And that, as CDC Director Redfield pointed out in a Senate hearing, is better than you'd ask from a vaccine.

The masking issue, by the way, illustrates why I abandoned libertarianism in my late 30s/early 40s. Libertarianism simply doesn't allow that real life often requires communitarian solutions. COVID and most public health solutions are compelling examples of that.

But the bulk of the podcast dealt with questions of lockdowns, their efficacy, social,  emotional and psychological costs, and economic impacts. And whether a herd-immunity strategy would be better. So, my thoughts on that:

First off: the benchmark for lock downs in popular imagination is NYC, Milan, Rome or Madrid. These were situations where the cities and surrounding regions were taken by surprise by the speed and source of the infections. They also made some initial and serious miscalculations in their response. In fairness health officials had based their pandemic response on influenza and SARS models and Coronavirus turned out to be a different breed of cat. Also, population density, public infrastructure and social and behavioral factors favored explosive growth of the disease.

Most lockdowns throughout the US looked a lot different. Grocery stores, hardware stores and restaurants changed their operations but did not close. Vital services were sustained. A lot of industries were able to modify procedures to keep their businesses viable. And the economic pain was mitigated to a huge degree by economic relief packages pushed through congress in the spring.

We are now  heading into a surge that will likely be significantly worse than this spring's outbreak, certainly in terms of hospitalizations. If numbers of deaths aren't as high, it will be due to a better understanding of what works and what doesn't that we didn't have in March. Still, I don't expect there to be anything like the shut downs we saw in NYC. And, back then, even in NYC and large European cities, there were still measures taken to ensure people could get necessary supplies.

The podcast is largely focused on deaths, which is a horrifyingly large number on it's own, but Dr Singer touches only lightly on  illness that doesn't result in deaths. People who are hospitalized with COVID but don't die -- and even those who don't get hospitalized -- can experience debilitating symptoms and lingering effects that cost them and our economy for years. Many of them will also die years before their time. And those COVID effects will be the co-morbidities this next time around.

About those co-morbidities that folks have been saying are skewing and inflating numbers of COVID deaths, that is another false narrative. Modeling as a discipline is a popular punching bag for many who currently occupy the right end of the political spectrum, because they don't know or don't care what they're talking about. *Prospective* models based on assumptions are tricky and need to be used with caution. Models that are based on well-documented occurrences are a different thing. We know how many folks are going to die this year or next year of heart disease or COBPD because we know how many have. So if there is an increase in death among people with those conditions who get COVID, those are clearly excess deaths due to COVID, they aren't due to greedy doctors tinkering with statistics as Trump and company would like to have folks think.

In the podcast, Dr Singer says -- correctly -- that herd immunity is a phenomenon, not a strategy. Herd immunity can be reached through vaccination programs, and through naturally acquired immunity and usually though a combination of both.

Here's the critical point; no credible public health official would aspire to naturally acquired herd immunity as an approach to resolving an epidemic, certainly not with a disease that has the morbidity and mortality that COVID has. To achieve naturally acquired herd immunity from COVID you probably need a 60-70 percent level of immunity in the population. Some argue it need not be that high, that it might be as low as 40 percent.

Right now, we are recording less than 10 million cases, less than 2.7 percent of the population has been infected. Dr Singer suggests in the podcast  that the actual number of infected persons my be 10 times higher, something less than 27 percent infected. In the best case scenario, a lot more people will have to get sick, and between one and three percent of them die, and many more incur years -- or life -- long disability from COVID, to reach herd immunity. By the way, Dr Singer thinking the actual number  of infections is 10 times higher puts a spotlight on the Trump Administration's utter failure at testing.

In contrast, a nationwide policy of mask wearing, encouraged and modeled by our political leaders, and with policies of closing down or limiting  commercial and public services selectively will still blunt the spread and impact of COVID. Had such been implemented at the outset of the epidemic in the US, our death toll could well have stayed below 50,000. That translates to 180,000 parents, grandparents, children, spouses and siblings still alive. That translates to thousands of "essential workers," school teachers, nurses, physicians, bus drivers, etc still being alive.

What about the schools? Let's not kid around, that is a conundrum. A sizable portion of our population is poorly served by broadband. Service is spotty and ridiculously expensive. Many locations -- and they tend to be where people are less affluent -- don't have broadband at all, or folks have to rely on 4G. Most companies have unofficial limits on "unlimited plans," which means your access slows to a crawl when you pass the limit. That hurts kids who are learning at home.

There is also the reality that teachers and school official are often de facto first responders when it comes to spotting signs of child endangerment in the home. So any policy of closing schools is fraught will direct  and indirect consequences. On the other hand, children above the age of 12 are as capable of harboring and spreading Coronavirus as any adult, which means our junior and senior high schools are able to act as epidemic engines.

For what it's worth, when I drive past schools in West Virginia's Eastern Panhandle and see kids going into school or moving between classes, their mask compliance appears far better than adults in stores around the area.

Years ago, Jerry Pournelle and Larry Niven wrote SciFi novels that became unofficial libertarian manifestos (also vastly superior, literary-wise, than anything by Ayn Rand). The point they made in their novels was that national government could and should, when extraordinary situations arise, be the responder of choice because it is the organization able to muster massive amounts of resources and to deploy them where needed. They further expressed concern that when government intervened when it wasn't needed, it squandered -- and diluted -- its credibility and energy.

The Coronavirus epidemic in the United States is one of those occasions calling for government action and response.

Militia?

A lot of folks have settled, comfortably, into the idea of forming militia to enforce their personal whims and notions. Tricked out with tactical gear and a variety of weapons, these are more properly called gangs. 

Real militia, in America, are organized according to precedents laid down in the US Constitution (Article I) and elaborated in the Federalist Papers. 

Real militia historically conformed to the Militia acts of 1792 and 1795, amended throughout the 1800s and superseded by the militia act of 1903, which organized the National Guard. 

Real militia report to a duly elected chain of command and conform to training standards and discipline prescribed by Congress. 

Real militia are led by officers, commissioned by Congress and guided by the Uniform Code of Military Justice. 

Real militia have fought and died to preserve our freedoms and liberty. It is a proud tradition that represents the best of our nation.

Mimicking militia to intimidate citizens pursuing their constitutional rights to vote or make their voices heard is no better -- far worse actually -- than stolen valor at the local VFW or Walmart. It insults the patriotism and dedication to the rule of law on which our country is founded and that free men and women have died for.

Again, Masks Work.

Wednesday night, October 15th, Donald Trump repeated to Savannah Guthrie something that isn't true. When discussing masks and their effectiveness in controlling Coronavirus spread, Trump said that 85 percent of people who used masks got COVID-19.

That's not true.

Trump cherry-picked a study and took it completely out of context. Here are some facts: 

Masks work. A simple cloth or surgical mask will protect folks around you from up to 95 percent of any Coronavirus you might spread if you are infected. Did you ever wonder why doctors and nurses in ORs wear masks? Hint: it's not to protect them from you. It's to protect you from them. Masks work.

A simple cloth or surgical mask will protect you from up to 50 percent of any Coronavirus another person might spread to you if they aren't masked. If they are wearing a mask that 95 percent rule I just mentioned applies. Again, masks work. 

Yes, when COVID-19 first hit, many doctors (including Anthony Fauci) recommended against widespread mask use. That was because there weren't enough masks available for first responders who were at highest risk, and the risk that asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic could spread the infection wasn't fully appreciated. As doctors learned more, and more supplies became available, they updated their guidance, as people do if they are professional and objective. 

Please, wear a mask and listen to people who know what they're talking about, instead of a panicky real estate hustler who is trying to keep his job. It might save your life.

Remembering Ike's Role in Making Our World

Eisenhower visiting his troops

When I was growing up, President Eisenhower was viewed in our house as a kindly old duffer who was a good general and, at best, a so-so president. As I grew up, matured and read more, I came to realize what an exceptional figure he was and how much he dominated the world we Americans have lived in. 

In his excellent book, Commander in Chief, Eric Larrabee writes of Eisenhower at war's end:

"Eisenhower's truly astonishing accomplishment was swallowed up in the victory itself. Not many really noticed, as he so often arranged it, the plece of legerdemain that had been performed. The conduct of the war had been removed from British hands so deftly that they had no legitimate cause for complaint. His policy was simplicity itself:  "he would not let either a British or an American general single-handedly," writes Martin Blumenson;  "both British and Americans had to win it together." There was going to be no mean-spirited haggling over honor or glory;  victory was going to be shared... "His real achievement," writes [Stephen] Ambrose, "was that he had won without alienating the British."  The word "indispensable" should be used with care, but no candidate has been proposed for the role of doing what Eisenhower did.

"Churchill understood. "Let me tell you what General Eisenhower has meant to us ...," he wrote to President Truman after Roosevelt had died and the European war had ended. "In his headquarters unity and strategy were the only reigning spirits. . . . At no time has the principle of alliance between noble races been carried and maintained at so high a pitch. In the name of the British Empire and Commonwealth I express to you our admiration of the firm, far-sighted, and illuminating character and qualities of General of the Armies Eisenhower."  And lastly, which no one much noticed either, the design of Roosevelt had been supplanted by the design of Eisenhower. America was not going to withdraw from European concerns as the President had wished but would embrace them as Eisenhower had learned to do. In the figure of this man we were in Europe to stay, and on this rock would be built the Truman Doctrine, the Marshall Plan, and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and the world we have lived in since."

Ike is a leader to look to for guidance in our own time.

Equivalency?

A friend of mine posted this meme on Facebook. He is retired military and fairly conservative. On cue, someone replied to my friend's post with words to the effect of: "but, Obama fired Mattis!" I suppose that's meant to establish equivalency and absolve Trump of the behavior Mattis found "felony stupid."

Anyway, it got me thinking and I decided to pull the thread a little. General Mattis and President Obama fell out over the Iran nuclear deal in 2013. When that sort of thing happens, the general (or senior government official) does one of two things; they shut up and march, or they quit on principle. Mattis did the latter.

What did Obama do? He accepted Mattis's retirement request, praised his service, and ensured Mattis had time to arrange turnover to his replacement and retire in a dignified manner. Since then, Obama has never uttered a bad word about Mattis. 

As Secretary of Defense, Mattis's relationship with Trump grew increasingly vitriolic. The last straw was Trump abandoning our Kurdish allies in Syria, at which point Mattis offered his resignation. Because Trump refused to see Mattis (and had refused to meet with him for some time), Mattis published his letter openly, so Trump couldn't ignore it. 

What did Trump do? He peremptorily fired Mattis and has continued to bad-mouth him since. Mattis was also allowed no time to arrange turnover to his replacement as SECDEF, which adversely impacted operations of the Defense Department. 

So, if you choose to ponder this tale of a General and two presidents, consider what "equivalency" it reveals.

Rick Rescorla COL, USA Ret. -- Hero of 9/11

I wrote this two years ago and thought it worth sharing again.

Rick Rescorla, COL, USA Ret, was unquestionably one of the heroes of 9/11. He was a veteran of both the British Army and the American Army (pictured here at Ia Drang in 1965, where he served as a Company Commander during some of the heaviest fighting). 

In February, 1993, Rescorla was the head of security for Dean Witter (later merged with Morgan-Stanley in 1997). He figured the World Trade Center, which had just been attacked by terrorists, would be targeted again and determined to be ready when it happened. He drilled employees relentlessly on evacuating the building and warned the City and NY/NJ Ports Authority, which managed the WTC, about his concerns.

After the first plane hit the WTC on 9/11, the Ports Authority announced over the PA system that all persons should remain in place. Rescorla disregarded the announcement and implemented Morgan Stanley's evacuation procedure. Because of his quick action and years of preparation, over 2,500 Morgan Stanley employees evacuated the WTC before the towers fell. It will be impossible to tell how many others followed the Morgan Stanley employees out of the building because of their example. It is evident however that Rick Rescorla's actions halved (at least) the death toll on 9/11. 

When the last employees were out of the building, Rick went back up to the Morgan Stanley offices to make sure there were no stragglers. He was making that extra effort that defines heroes when the tower collapsed. His body was never recovered. 

His is one story of heroism from that day. We should #NeverForget.

COVID-19 vs Ebola

It amazes me that so many of the same people who refuse to wear masks, refuse to practice social distancing, and demand we open schools in regions where COVID-19 is surging, are the same people who lost their minds over Ebola 6 years ago. Ebola was actually pretty hard to get if you weren't in family- or health care worker-level contact with a patient who was experiencing symptoms (and you weren't using PPE and practicing good infection control measures).

 Ebola occurred in one corner of the huge African continent, yet people who traveled from the opposite end of the continent, like Kenya and South Africa, were harassed and -- in the case of a nurse traveling from Kenya -- forced into quarantine by Governor Chris Christie. The person who now occupies the White House insisted that the United States should refuse entry to desperately ill American missionary health care workers who became infected working in a Liberian emergency clinic. Those health care workers were transported in isolation pods and treated in one of the few medical facilities in this country equipped to handle Ebola patients, and they were Americans. They survived, by the way, and we learned a lot about treating Ebola patients in the process. If Trump and his amen choir had their way, they would have died in Liberia. 

COVID-19 has a much lower case fatality rate than Ebola but is far more communicable, so it is actually a more deadly epidemic. Since it is a novel virus, we have little or no natural immunity.  There is no vaccine and no proven treatment yet. And still, Trump and his followers insist it's like a cold, or the flu, dismiss the warnings of health experts and ridicule the proven measures that will stop this disease in its tracks. 

Ebola killed two Americans, both of whom contracted the disease overseas, one of whom died overseas. Ebola further sickened (I believe) six more, only two of whom contracted the disease in the United States while nursing an undiagnosed patient in Dallas. 

COVID-19 has infected millions in the United States and has 200,000 deaths since the outbreak landed on our shores in March.

Remember in November.