Month: November 2020

The helter-skelter-“Zoom, sit in front of a computer” way of educating students is just not cutting it. According to those that live there, this seems to be true across the country, from the East Coast, through the Midwest, and out to the West Coast. Besides the inevitable consistent ubiquitous “technical difficulties,” teachers across the country are not presently, and will not be able to cover the material that they usually can cover in a typical school year. The estimates that I have received indicate that, on average, less than 50% of the expected material will be adequatelycovered. At the end of this school year, for example, most fifth graders will not have learned what is expected in a typical fifth grade school year. What will inevitably happen? Obviously a majority of these fifth graders will be promoted to sixth grade where they will start off considerably behind the usual sixth grade eight ball next year. Does anyone think that during the next school year, they will then learn 100+% of the sixth grade material before proceeding into seventh grade? Et cetera, et cetera. In other words most students will never be able to escape from this canyon of woefully inadequate “Zoom-sit-in-front-of-computer-screen” way of learning. Their education may well be behind forever, and worse, the depth of this ravine will be much worse for those children in lower income families.

Is there an answer here? An answer that will be acceptable to the teacher’s unions and to parents? Nothing will ever be acceptable to everyone. Perhaps the wisest and the most prudent thing to do is to just call this year “a wash.” 

Let me explain:

For example, a student presently now in fifth grade this year has already started fifth grade this past September considerably behind because of his/her forced sitting at home, doing basically nothing, from last March through June, while still actually in fourth grade.

Then during this present year, of Zoom or Zoom/hybrid, he/she will most likely fall further behind (<50% of the fifth grade material is expected to be covered during the present academic year). Why not just have this present “fifth grade” student start off the following academic year (Sept. 2021), again in fifth grade? In other words, “this academic year will be a wash.” There will not be any peer derision because the individual will be repeating a grade, as repeating the grade will be the norm.

Now without question this “wash year” plan will not be acceptable to all. 

However, the main question should be, “in general, will students be better off with this year being ‘a wash?’”

From my point of view the answer is . . . “absolutely, yes!”

Now granted for some private-school, charter-school, and home-schooled students this will not be a wasted year, and if the parents of these students wished that they proceed along their normal expected year-to-year schedule, so be it. (If I were paying for my son/daughter to be educated in a private school, I probably would not want to pay for fifth grade twice.) The decision as to whether or not a student advances from fifth grade to sixth grade in these certain situations, would, by necessity, have to be left to their responsible parents. 

In the end, years down the road, however, the ultimate effect of a “wash year” would be that the vast majority of present-day students would graduate high school at age nineteen instead of at age eighteen. Is that really such a big deal?

Even though I knew something like this was coming, I did not expect it so overwhelmingly authoritarian. I guess I temporarily forgot that I live in California where freedom is becoming less and less of an option . . . even in one’s own home. According to this mandate, “Guidance for Public Gatherings,” our Governor’s Department of Public Health, has mandated multiple “rules” that need to be followed in the coming Thanksgiving season.

(The directives from the guidance I am about to discuss are not even optional. They are absolutely mandatory. The guidance states all Californians “must comply with the following requirements,” as well as those put forth by local health jurisdictions, even if they’re more restrictive.)

Hold your nose. Here they are (from Freedom Wire):

   • Just three households are permitted to attend a single gathering.

• Only interact with the same few households repeatedly, do not interact with others.
• The host must collect names and contact information for all guests for contact tracing purposes.
• All gatherings must be held outside.
• Attendees can only go inside to use the restroom – and only if they are frequently sanitized.
• People may sit under umbrellas or other outdoor coverings if 75% of the space is in the open air.
• Gathering space must be large enough to maintain 6 feet of space in all directions between each attendee.
• Shared food plates for serving may not be used during a gathering.
• Face masks are mandatory.
• Gatherings must not exceed 2 hours.
• If singing, chanting, shouting, or exercise occurs, all who participate must wear a face mask and social distance and must be at a volume at or below a normal speaking voice.
• Instrumental music is allowed only if the musician social distances and is a member of one of the households. Wind instruments are strongly discouraged

It’s difficult for me to pick out which of these mandates are the most outlandish. They are all pretty ludicrous. Who is going to actually pay any attention to this nonsensical list?

From my way of thinking, perhaps some of those who live here might actually pay some attention if Gavin Newsom, our esteemed King of Thrones, would instead have said something like this:

“With the upcoming holiday season please try to use common sense when getting together with your family members. Even though we are still in the midst of a pandemic, have a happy Thanksgiving, and stay safe.”

As many of you are aware I now have only a passing relationship with the sport’s section in my local paper. I no longer pay any attention to pro-sports, but merely peruse to sport’s section to read about college sports, especially San Diego State sports.

The flowing is quasi-sport’s related, but is not from the sport’s section, but rather from Daybreak Insider:

Kelly Stafford, wife of Matthew Stafford, the quarterback of the Detroit Lions, took to Instagram to vent about the new restrictions Michigan Democratic Governor Gretchen Whitmer put in place (Twitter). Limitations were placed on indoor gatherings, indoor dining restaurants, and bars (Lansing State Journal). From the New York Post: “I’m so over it. I’m over living in a dictatorship that we call Michigan,” she posted to her Instagram story Thursday, 11/19. “If you are at risk, do not leave your house until there’s a vaccine. But shutting down all these small businesses — things that people have worked their life for — shutting them down again is not the answer. Because they will not make it. So once we are able to leave our house, once this dictatorship decides to let us have some freedom, there will be nothing left … This is my opinion … I do not like living in a place where they tell me what I can and can’t do” (New York Post). Stafford later mentioned that she would be compiling the Instagram handles of local businesses and posting them to show support, and cited a friend losing their business as a source of her frustration.

Strong work, Kelly Stafford. These Covid lockdowns, etc. should be all about trade-offs, but they are not. They are not about balancing cases, hospitalizations, and deaths due to Covid against the litany of destruction  that these lockdowns cause. I do not read about how many local businesses have gone under in the last week or month balanced against the number of local cases and the local hospital census. I only read about the latter.

Kelly Stafford is especially correct about one thing -living in certain states with Democratic governors, e.g. Michigan, is like living in a dictatorship. 

Speaking of dictatorships . . . Welcome to California.

Typically at a poker table where there is money involved, you may well be faced with a very aggressive player. This aggressive player makes it known early on that he does not like to be challenged, and so the most common words out of his mouth are . . . “I raise.” If you are “mano-a-mano” in a hand with a one of these super-aggressive players, you can fully expect to be raised and re-raised. The thing to remember if you are in such a situation is just because they raise doesn’t necessarily mean that they have a good hand. 

Last week I woke up in a sweat with a bad dream . . . in fact it was a nightmare. 

I was in a poker game. The thing that made this unlike a regular poker game was that the currency used was “arbitrariness.” In other words, instead of raising $100, the super-aggressive player would have to “out-arbitrary” the other . . . if player A said or did something arbitrary, aggressive player B would do something even more arbitrary – the equivalent of “I raise.” Likewise, if in response to the “I raise” of player B, player A could then do something even more Arbitrary – the equivalent of “I re-raise.” Similar to at the poker table, where a raise or a re-raise did not mean that the raiser necessarily had a good hand, in this “arbitrary stakes game” some outlandish arbitrary statement did not necessarily mean that the raiser knew what he was talking about.

The thing that made this a nightmare rather than just a bad dreamwas that I was at the arbitrary poker table with Gavin Newsom, the “esteemed” governor of California, and Bill de Blasio, the “esteemed” mayor of New York City. 

Newsom started the betting with a purely arbitrary colored tier scheme in reference to the coronavirus. Purple tier, red tier, etc. was based on some purely arbitrary criteria, based on somethings upon which those who lived in a certain county had little or no control. 

How many Covid cases did your county have? 

“Oops, too many!” 

How many tests for the virus were done in your county? 

“Oops, not enough!”

I do not leave my house all week, but want to take my wife out to dinner on Saturday night.

“Tough!”

However audacious Newsom’s arbitrary bet may have been, immediately de Blasio said, “I raise!” He raised with something more arbitrary than Newsom’s initial foray when he announced that he “was forced” to close NYC’s public schools – serving 1.1 million children – after the positivity case rate in the city of New York exceeded a seven-day rolling average of 3%. Wow . . . 3%! That seems like a number grabbed out of thin air. This despite the fact that in NYC, the case positivity rate (based on tens of thousands of tests of school children and school staff) is only a minuscule 0.19%!! 

But it gets worse than just an arbitrary made up number of 3%. Apparently this number was arrived at during negotiations with the NYC’s United Federation of Teachers in exchange for a promise not to strike. 

Wow! Nice bet, Bill. Very audacious – a decision based on a purely arbitrary made-up number of 3%. Especially in view of the fact that  it appears that the school children are, in fact, safer in schools with a case positivity rate in schools of only 0.19%. This combined with the skullduggery of the negotiations with the teachers is going to make his raise hard to beat.

In my dream the crowd around the arbitrary poker table was hushed. Tension was in the air. Certainly Newsom had a re-raise planned. There was a rumor that he planned an arbitrary curfew. Apparently he was in negotiations with the viruses to be more contagious after ten p.m. . . . in exchange for further prolonged closures of the schools. Another rumor was that he was going to patrol the highways and the airports searching for those who had the audacity to travel for Thanksgiving . . . something that he arbitrarily advised against. 

Will Newsom’s next piece of arbitrary decision making be enough to force de Blasio to fold?

On 11/18/20 Nicholas Kristof wrote an op-ed in the New York Times titled “When Trump Was Right and Many Democrats Wrong.” 

It is interesting that this was printed in the NYT two weeks after the election. Although I do not know Mr. Kristof, I do know how the NYT operates. Could it be that it was “suggested” to Mr. Kristof that perhaps it would not be a good idea to pen this op-ed until the election was over. After all it is close to heresy for the NYT to say anything complimentary of President Trump . . . but before the election . . . No way! 

I would guess that the NYT will maintain that the timing of this op-ed after the election was coincidental . . . just like the announcing of successful vaccines within the two weeks after the election was also coincidental . . . “if you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you.”

Anyway the op-ed by Mr. Kristof had to do with schools and the wisdom of school closures.

The subtitle read:

“Children have suffered because many mayors and governors were too willing to close public schools.”

Despite the fact that it is a NYT op-ed, it is actually pretty good. Here are some excerpt from that op-ed:

• Trump has been demanding for months that schools reopen, and on that he seems to have been largely right. Schools, especially elementary schools, do not appear to have been major sources of coronavirus transmission, and remote learning is proving to be a catastrophe for many low-income children.
• “I have taught at the same low-income school for the last 25 years, and, truly, I can attest that remote schooling is failing our children,” said LaShondra Taylor, an English teacher in Broward County, Fla. Some students don’t have a computer or don’t have Wi-Fi, Taylor said. Kids regularly miss classes because they have to babysit, or run errands, or earn money for their struggling families.
• Adeola Whitney, chief executive of Reading Partners, an outstanding early literacy program, referred to the traditional “summer slide” in which low-income students lose ground during the summer months and told me: “The ‘summer slide’ is now being dwarfed by ‘Covid slide’ projections.”
• I’ve been writing since May about the importance of keeping schools open, and initially the debate wasn’t so politicized. But after Trump, trying to project normalcy, blustered in July about schools needing to open, Republicans backed him and too many Democrats instinctively lined up on the other side. Joe Biden echoedtheir extreme caution, as did many Democratic mayors and governors.
• So Democrats helped preside over school closures that have devastated millions of families and damaged children’s futures. Cities such as Boston, Philadelphia, Baltimore and Washington, D.C., have closed schools while allowing restaurants to operate.
• In both Europe and the United States, schools have not been linked to substantial transmission, and teachers and family members have not been shown to be at extra risk (this is more clear of elementary schools than of high schools). Meanwhile, the evidence has mounted of the human cost of school closures.
• Children learn best when physically present in the classroom,” notes the American Academy of Pediatrics. “But children get much more than academics at school. They also learn social and emotional skills at school, get healthy meals and exercise, mental health support and other services that cannot be easily replicated online.”

Kristof’s op-ed continues for many more paragraphs, but for the sake of brevity, I will stop here. The message continues to be the same, namely that the closure of schools appears to have been a mistake. (BTW: With the risk of sounding conceited I would say to both Mr. Kristof and the NYT . . . “Check many of my prior blogs about schools, etc. . . . I told you so!”)

Similarly, the way the “know-it-alls” have handled the return, or perhaps better said, “the non-return” of students to colleges across the country, has been inept to say the least. Would it have been better if colleges had followed the regimen as outlined in my book, now on Amazon, “The Keneally Chronicles?”

Perhaps now that the election is over, Mr. Kristof should next be writing an op-ed on that topic.

In answer to whether or not there are any good studies about masks, I will refer you to the Annals of Internal Medicine from this November, a summary of which is to follow.

Again I need to reemphasize that for a Karen or a Ken . . . “Caution!”

The following is taken from Townhall:

Researchers in Denmark reported on Wednesday that surgical masks did not protect the wearers against infection with the coronavirus in a large randomized clinical trial.

The study, published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, did not contradict growing evidence that masks can prevent transmission of the virus from wearer to others. But the conclusion is at odds with the view that masks also protect the wearers — a position endorsed just last week by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

From early April to early June, researchers at the University of Copenhagen recruited 6,024 participants who had been tested beforehand to be sure they were not infected with the coronavirus.

Half were given surgical masks and told to wear them when leaving their homes; the others were told not to wear masks in public.

At that time, 2 percent of the Danish population was infected — a rate lower than that in many places in the United States and Europe today. Social distancing and frequent hand-washing were common, but masks were not.

About 4,860 participants completed the study. The researchers had hoped that masks would cut the infection rate by half among wearers. Instead, 42 people in the mask group, or 1.8 percent, got infected, compared with 53 in the unmasked group, or 2.1 percent. The difference was not statistically significant. 

Dr. Mette Kalager, a researcher at Telemark Hospital in Norway and the Harvard School of Public Health, was persuaded. The study showed that “although there might be a symbolic effect,” she wrote in an email, “the effect of wearing a mask does not substantially reduce risk” for wearers.

[…]

Dr. Christine Laine, editor in chief of the Annals of Internal Medicine, described the previous evidence that masks protect wearers as weak. “These studies cannot differentiate between source control and personal protection of the mask wearer,” she said.

Dr. Laine said the new study underscored the need for adherence to other precautions, like social distancing. Masks “are not a magic bullet,” she said. “There are people who say, ‘I’m fine, I’m wearing a mask.’ They need to realize they are not invulnerable to infection.”

My take on this study from the Annals of Internal Medicine (which by the way is not politically biased as is The Lancet) is the following:

Do masks actually protect the wearer of the mask? – Apparently no.

Is it possible that the ubiquitous wearing of masks could actually encourage lackadaisical attention to social distancing? Very possibly.

Will there be any reevaluation of this present over the top recommendations on masks by those who know best? Not likely, as it is much easier to blame the general populace when “those in the know” do not know what to do next.

Caution! If you are a self-identified Karen or Ken, perhaps you may not want to continue reading this. Likewise if you have a Karen/Ken as a friend, you may not want to discuss what follows with him/her.

Just about every day I see comments from “those who know best” that the reason that we are having an increasing number of coronavirus cases is because we, the general populace, are not doing what they have told us to do. In other words the reason that the virus is spreading is our fault. We, the naughty men and women of California, need to shape up. We are not social distancing well enough. We are not washing our hands often enough. We are not wearing masks as obsessively as we have been told to do. If we would only force ourselves to do better, everything would be okay. We need to comply with what they tell us to do. We are BAD!

Hmmm. 

Contrary to what some may think, one of my duties in life to occasionally think in a somewhat out of the box fashion. Could it possibly be that the Wuhan virus cases are increasing not despite, but rather because of, what those in the know are telling us to do? Social distancing and hand washing both seem like common sense. However, I do question the obsessive wearing of masks over our faces.

Granted I am not usually hanging out in crowded places . . . other than at Costco, but other than the occasional street biker, runner, or walker, I do not see the mask-less throngs that are being alluded to by those in the know. In fact I am observing the opposite. I am seeing yo-yo’s wearing masks while driving alone in a car. Also I am seeing two individuals in a car both wearing masks . . . if they don’t know each other, then I suppose that  makes sense, but perhaps the driver should not be picking up hitchhikers.

Now right off the top for all of the Kens and Karens reading this, “Caution,” I am not advocating mass mask rebellion. However, could it be that this mask situation actually fits as an example of Einstein’s definition of insanity . . . “Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.” (Despite almost ubiquitous mask wearing Covid cases are increasing, so . . . of course, the logical thing to do is to advocate for more mask wearing, for example wearing masks constantly when in your own home. Oy-vey!)

Social distancing – for example, in Costco is an oxymoron. Months ago, there was a line to get into that store, but no longer. The aisle in front of the roasted chickens is almost as crowded as the floor of the New York Stock Exchange used to be. It is almost as if the mindset is “there is no need for social distancing, because my mask is protecting me.” (100% of people in Costco are wearing masks, albeit not all are wearing them correctly.) Picture a situation in which mask-wearing was not an absolute necessity, and you would then have a picture of real social distancing, not the present day “social distancing while wearing a mask.”

Yesterday while shopping in a relatively crowded grocery store, I felt a sneeze coming on. What to do? Reflexively I sneezed into my elbow, just like we now teach our grandkids to do. No droplets were propelled into the air as in the sneeze-videos that we have all seen . . . but the inside of my mask, well I will leave that to your imagination. What to do? Since I did not have an extra mask or two or three, there was nothing to do, but to continue up and down the aisles albeit with my now damp and virtually useless mask.

Now I do not have Covid – at least I didn’t when I got my Covid test two weeks ago, but if I did, would my now damp mask be a help or a hindrance to the spread of the virus?

Caution, again . . . but are there any studies that document that masks help? Unfortunately, no. Are there any studies about masks, in general?

I am happy that you asked.

To be continued:

Right up front let’s be clear about opening schools The major reason to open schools is to educate children.

Let’s again be clear . . . Children need the socialization of in-person interactions with other children

Furthermore, let’s be clear once again . . .  When schools reopen a number of children are going to get the coronavirus.

The prior three statements are not something that we need the experts to tell us. As these three statements are very common-sensical, why all the hub-bub about the “surges” in coronavirus cases as schools reopen. Should these school related cases not be expected?

Last week I read a headline: “Europe Schools Upend Virus Plans.” (WSJ):

Basically this article bemoans the fact that there are thousands of cases in schools in some of Europe’s coronavirus hot spots. For example, in the U.K.more than one-third of coronavirus outbreaks (at least two cases) occurred in educational settings.

In France, 35% of 1070 outbreaks were in schools or universities. (Almost 50% occurred in mid/high schools, but the average size of these outbreaks was much higher in colleges . . . where they have parties.)

Spain reported cases in 4.5% of schools.

Get the picture? When kids,through college, go back to school, there are going to be an increased number of cases.

In San Diego there are four major colleges and so logically I would expect an increased number of cases associated with these colleges just like what has occurred in Europe. That is exactly what is happening . . . Duh! (As of last week, PLNU ~50 confirmed cases, UCSD – 150 confirmed cases, SDSU – 1200+ confirmed cases, USD -?)

At some point, the el/hi students here in California are going to be reintegrated back into their classrooms. The headlines will then read: Cases Surge As Schools Upend Virus Plans . . . and I will then respond, “Let’s be clear; What did you expect?”

[FYI: In my recent book, The Keneally Chronicles, a college as well as an entire town has a unique way to approach their expected surge of coronavirus cases. (BTW, it is available on Amazon.)]

How do we fight infections? 

We are not born with resistance to infection, but rather acquire some resistance to common infections as we age. Newborns basically have the ability to fend off a lot of early infections due to the immunity that is acquired from the mother. It is well known to anyone who has, or has had, kids in pre-school or kindergarten, that these youngsters get colds easily and often when they start to interact and mingle with other young children. These early colds are a part of growing up and developing their own sort of immunity. Both pre-school and early grade elementary school teachers will often relate that they were “seemingly always sick” in the early days of their careers, but as time went on they were sick much less. Why? . . . Because due to repeated exposure to viruses, they developed immunity to a varying degree. The same thing applies to pediatricians who are constantly exposed to kids with coughs, fevers, and mucous coming out of a lot of different orifices. Who would ever choose to be a pediatrician if all they could look forward to was forty years of almost constant sickness? Again pediatricians develop their own brand of immunity that in essence precludes them from being sick all the time, despite their constant exposure and  re-exposure.

How does one’s body fight off infections? Basically there are two types of mechanisms to fight infection . . . B-cells, which produce antibodies and a second equally important defense against infections provided by T-cells. One function of T-cells is to stimulate B-cells to produce antibodies. But T-cells can also fight off a virus by directly attacking and killing infected cells.

At this point, let’s switch gears to COVID-19, which is supposedly a new virus dating to the latter part of 2019. However, there appears to be a few discrepancies about the lack of immunity to this new virus, Covid 19.

From James Todaro M.D.:

In a study of 23 people who survived SARS in 2003, every single one had memory T cells that recognized the SARS virus 17 years later. (Nature)

Moreover, blood samples from all 23 individuals showed “robust cross-reactivity” against SARS-CoV-2.

This can be called crossover immunity. Crossover immunity is not limited to just people who were infected with SARS years ago though.

In the same study, in 37 persons with no history of SARS or COVID-19 (negative serology and/or samples taken before COVID-19), over 50% had SARS-CoV-2 specific T cells.

This is not surprising because there are at least 4 strains of coronaviruses that cause the “common cold”.

The above study is not the only one to show this level of cross-reactivity.

 In a study from April 2020, in 68 healthy donors never exposed to COVID-19, 34% had T cells that reacted to SARS-CoV-2.

This finding was confirmed in yet another study published in Cell in June 2020 showing that 40-60% of unexposed individuals had T cell recognition of SARS-CoV-2. The authors hypothesized that crossover immunity came from “common cold” coronaviruses.

Whoa! This information allows us to look at SARS-CoV-2 in a different light, and may explain why the elderly and immuno-compromised are more seriously affected (less T cells). Likewise, crossover immunity may explain why so many young and middle-aged individuals are asymptomatic even when testing positive for coronavirus.

Furthermore, although this T cell recognition and crossover immunity seem to be unrecognized by the esteemed Dr. Fauci, they could be valuable clues with regard to herd immunity.

On election night I went to bed thinking the President Trump had won re-election. However, when I checked in the morning the situation had dramatically and apparently somewhat suddenly changed, especially in certain critical states. Later it was revealed that in only four US cities did Biden outpoll Hillary’s 2016 vote tally. These cities were Milwaukee, Detroit, Philadelphia, and Atlanta. Gee, what a coincidence that these four cities were cities in the key major critical states. 

Like many of you are aware, I am a big DJT fan . . . not because of what he says or tweets, but because of the things he has done over the last four years.

It was hard for me to believe that Trump reportedly lost Pennsylvania. He had huge crowds at multiple different rallies in the state of Pennsylvania, including an estimated crowd of 57,000 at a late October rally in western Pa. near Pittsburg. The enthusiasm for DJT was over the top in Pennsylvania, while the enthusiasm for Biden was close to subterranean.

I was very disappointed when the election returns indicated the Basement Joe had won by a lot. He supposedly had won Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Georgia, Arizona, and Nevada. At that point and for the next ten days, I was depressed. I could not believe that the voters had chosen Biden/Harris. However over the last few days I have begun to hear more and more about fraud and deceit in multiple states.

Today, I read something amazing and potentially uplifting:

Trump lawyer and former federal prosecutor Sidney Powell has promised the American people that she will not stop until “staggering” evidence of fraud is completely exposed.

When asked if she concurs with the idea that this is a concerted effort by the Left to overthrow a duly elected president, Powell responded she absolutely agrees and is going to “release the Kraken” on the alleged fraud very soon.

During the segment with Fox News’ Lou Dobbs on 11/13/20, Powell addressed the grave threat Dominion Voting Systems and foreign interference poses to the integrity of the 2020 presidential election.

“We’ve got statistical evidence of just hundreds of thousands of votes just being put in and replicated,” she said could ultimately, “affect millions of voters and elections.”

Nevertheless, while discussing her team’s legal efforts, Powell exuded confidence in the gravity of their evidence, reaffirming that “President Trump won in a landslide. It’s going to be irrefutable.”

While I am still not sure that I completely understand “release the Kracken,” . . . but I can hardly wait!