Month: December 2020

Most of us are familiar with the 1970s song, California Dreamin,’ by the Mamas and the Papas. It is about someone living in the East or the Midwest dreaming of being in California as winter approaches.

“I’d be safe and warm (I’d be safe and warm)

If I was in L.A. (If I was in L.A.)

California dreamin’ (California dreamin’)

On such a winter’s day”

How things have changed! Who in their right mind would want to come to LA now? In 2020, California dreaming is neither alive nor well. Many of us who live in California pine for the good old days when there was logical thinking and not just dreaming by the politicians. I realize that some will think that I am exaggerating, but try to get a U-Haul out of California . . .  “Good luck, Charlie!” Whereas they will practically pay to have someone bring a U-Haul into the “Golden State,” but going out of California – “Keep dreaming!”

While California is in the midst of its third wave of Covid, just today I read a statement from our august (at least in his own mind) Governor who said, “We don’t anticipate a fourth. Vaccines are on the way.” 

This from the clueless George, err rather the clueless Gavin, who has been California dreamin’ for months with his thus-far yo-yo Covid management strategy (lockdown-no lockdown-lockdown-no lockdown-etc.) As a result many Californians are now even more dizzy than they usually are!

What percent of Californians does he think wii be lined up to get the vaccine? In many other places, the commitment to getting the vaccine has been tepid, at best. Public anxiety over the safety of the vaccine is appreciable. For example across seven European countries, 40% are hesitant or unwilling to get the vaccine. An October poll found that about 30% of Japanese and almost 50% of the French respondents said that they would not get the coronavirus vaccine. I looked for, but could not find any information concerning what percent of Californians are willing to get the vaccine. The last time I did a small informal survey, 50% of the seniors I surveyed said that they would not get the vaccine . . . 50% said they would, and a mere 50% vaccine rate is not going to prevent a fourth Covid wave despite what Gavin the dreamer says.

While vaccinating those in nursing homes might decrease their hospitalizations,and subsequently the death rate from Covid, I doubt that it will slowdown the community spread of this virus. Keep in mind that at this point no one has any idea how many infected and vaccinated individuals it will take to achieve a population with herd immunity.

Personally, I doubt that the vaccine will be the panacea that Gavin, the dreamin’ G-man, is projecting that it will be. 

Who is California dreamin’ . . . him or me?

Some teachers are saying that they will not fail a student during the pandemic. Ignoring what an individual student has learned or has not learned during this pandemic school year, but passing him/her anyway is doing a favor to whom? Who benefits? If anyone were to answer, “it’s a favor to the student,” my response would be, “if it really doesn’t matter if a student learns anything or not in non-pandemic years why not just always pass all students on to the next grade level, irrespective of how he/she actually does or how much he/she learns? Although I suspect that even in ordinary non-pandemic years, this is often done, the same question . . . “Who benefits?”

One of the reasons given for not giving any students a failing grade this year is that “they are having enough trouble as is without piling on a failing grade.” Are many students having a tough time during this pandemic? Undoubtedly. However, those students who come from lower income families are having more than just a tough time. It’s nearly impossible for them to learn from +/- adequate Zoom. Those students in whose home a language other than English is primarily spoken, are also having more than just a tough time. It’s nearly impossible for them also.

So what’s the answer? The best answer is to get all students back in the classroom, back to in-person learning ASAP. By doing this who would benefit the most? Those who are more disadvantaged would benefit the most. Will this happen here in California any time soon ? Not likely, for a variety of different reasons.

So what is plan B? 

As best I can tell there is no plan B. If this pandemic extends into the beginning of the next school year, is there a plan for public education? If there is a plan, to be charitable, it is being remarkably well hidden. If, despite a vaccine, or perhaps because of a vaccine, chaos continues as far as schools are concerned, now is the time to firm up a plan for the following school year. 

This is my Plan B:

The various school districts need to get commitments from teachers to be physically present in their classrooms. If they choose not to teach in-person, in the classroom, then so be it. No hard feelings. It’s their choice, but they will no longer be paid as Zoom will no longer be necessary. If more teachers are going to be needed, sign them up by April 1, 2021. There will be plenty of new graduates willing and able to go to work in the classrooms. Furthermore, I would advocate beginning the 2021 school year in July, at least for most school districts. The students have basically been on semi-vacation for more than a year, so why not get a head start back in the classroom?

Am I advocating a lot of out-of-the-box ideas? Absolutely, as the usual in-the-box strategy has not worked very well, has it?

If stupidity is a crime, is benevolence the pardon?

Obviously, when someone does something really stupid, those of us who proclaim not to be stupid will moan and complain, but will typically bail out “the stupid oaf.” 

Example one: If a dumbass on a motorcycle tries unsuccessfully to beat out a train, we (society in general) rush him to the hospital, do the necessary surgeries, and essentially forgive all of his uninsured hospital bills. Yes, a lot will complain, but in the end, taking care of that dimwit and essentially paying for his poor choice is the benevolent thing to do. After all stupidity is not a crime.

Does it matter why he tried to beat out the train? 

Hmmm, basically no, but what if he had tried to cross the train tracks in an effort to save his mother from being beaten up and mugged? Most likely we would still judge him to be a stupido-citizen, but would now cover his consequent hospital expenses with a benevolent smile on our faces. “He made a poor choice, but because he had a good heart and his intent was good, we should not castigate him, remembering that stupidity is not a crime.”

All that agree with me at this point, raise your hand. Remember your choice as we proceed to example two . . . student loan debt. 

Well not really student loan debt (I believe that the debt accumulated by the students themselves should be repaid in full), but rather the debt that the student’s parents took on through a federal college loan program called Parent Plus. This year for the first time the U.S. Department of Education released information on borrowing taken on by parents on their child-student’s behalf. In many cases these Parent Plus loans are well above what the student can borrow through the federal government which is capped at $31,000. The Education Department requires only a scant check of a parent’s credit history before extending loans, and it requires no assessment of their ability to repay these loans. Hmmm, a setup for big trouble. Duh!

A typical response from a parent who cannot ever hope to repay their Parent Plus loan would go something like this: “Borrowing this money to pay for college expenses was the only way that he/she would get that degree that would insure success in the future. How could I possibly not do it?” Now some are going to say that this is a manipulative response by the parent, but nonetheless it is most likely true. The chance that a child from a poor family will continue to be poor is significantly reduced with that college degree.

I would contend that a lot of these mostly uneducated parents, or often just a single parent, never really understood that they were never going to be able to pay back this Parent Plus loan, . . . but stupidity is not a crime. Nevertheless, let’s assume that they did realize that taking out this Parent Plus loan was reckless, but they were trying to save their son/daughter from a future life of poverty. Should we, as a country, be benevolent and forgive their debt, like we forgave the hospital expenses of that reckless motorcyclist trying to save his mother? Hmmm.

No, YMBAVA is not a misprint. I am not referring to a song by the Village People. However, if YMBAVA were put to music, I guess you could dance to it . . . . if only someone could figure out how to form the letter ‘B’ with one’s arms. FYI: I tried and failed.

More to the point, YMBAVA is a new bill proposed by Rep. Brian Babin (R-TX).

From the Daily Wire, Babin is quoted:

“This is not a Republican bill this should be a bipartisan effort to make this election process a lot more transparent When we have the perception out there by so many millions of Americans — 74 million plus had voted for President Trump — to try to clean up our election process. It is absolutely inexcusable that we would have an election process in this country, where we have had a peaceful transfer of power between presidents and administrations for 240 plus years, and now all of a sudden, we have an enormous number of individuals in this country that don’t trust the election process. Not good,” Babin said.

Babin continuued:

“Everyone in this Congress — everyone in this country — should want an assurance that dead people are not voting. And we don’t have that assurance right now because so many of these voter lists have just not been updated, whether it’s intentional, and whether it’s laziness indolence are just, you know, nonchalance. We need to make sure that these voter lists are accurate and that deceased individuals are not on their voting.”

“This is just the tip of the iceberg for this, this past election,” he said. “We better get this right are the consequences to our free democratic republic will be dire.”

BTW: YMBAVA stands for “You Must Be Alive to Vote Act”

So far this bill as eight co-sponsees – all Republicans. The question is not whether any Democrats will co-sponsor this bill, but rather whether any Democrats will vote for it. 

Be that as it may, one thing is for sure, whereas YMCA is a popular wedding reception song, YMBAVA will never catch on as a wake or funeral song . . . at least not in blue states.

On 12/3/20 my local newspaper reported on two separate issues, both related to the Covid pandemic. What made this of interest to me was the apparent incongruity when comparing the actual statistics and the actions of “those that know best.”

First off, our county like the rest of California is experiencing an increase of Covid cases. As best I can remember the increase in cases as the weather turned colder was anticipated by just about everybody . . . everybody apparently except those who are “in charge” of sending children back to school. Here in San Diego “those that know best” concerning children and when to send them back to school (the School District) had chosen early January, 2021.! (While trying to be kind, I am having difficulty choosing a worse date.)

Reconnoiter! 

Early January is obviously winter, and the school-aged children will have just finished with the expected family get-togethers that are ubiquitous during the holiday season. Ergo, the previously “well thought out” plan to send children back to in-person learning in early January, seemed not only questionable, but . . . err, trying to again be kind . . .  downright stupid!

Reconnoiter!

Surprise! Surprise!  The School District just announced that they are no longer planning on re-opening in-person instruction in January because of the increase in Covid cases. (BTW: the local newspaper repeatedly uses the word, “surge” to describe increases, but to me this word has lost its meaning as every increase in the last six months has been referred to as “a surge.”) Anyway the all-knowing School District is again delaying, delaying, delaying because of an increase in Covid cases that had been predicted by just about everybody. They are now planning on announcing another new reopening timeline in mid January . . . I guess that they figure that the present “surge” will be over by then.

In the newspaper on the same day there was the daily update on the different age ranges from 0 to 80+ and the hospitalizations and deaths for these age ranges. 

The following will focus only on the ages of the school children:

Age 0-9 (mostly preschool and early grade school) – 3583 cases with 83 hospitalizations and 0 (zero) deaths. In other words these young children who contract Covid have only a 2.3% chance of being hospitalized and a 0% chance of dying.

Age 10-19 (mostly middle school and high school) – 8531 cases with 81 hospitalizations and 0 (zero) deaths. In other words these children have only a very low  0.95% chance of being hospitalized, and a 0% chance of dying.

After reading these up to date stats for Covid and school children, can somebody please explain to me why school children are not back in school . . . not back in school months ago? If they would have returned to school back in September as I had suggested back then, perhaps “those that know best” would not be trapped on this delay, delay, delay treadmill.

Reconnoiter!

Some are just wondering and some will actually ask the common question:

“If I get Covid 2 can I get reinfected with Covid 2 again at a later date?”

The answer is “yes,” however do not be dismayed because at this point there has been only twenty-five documented confirmed  reinfections world wide. Certainly there has to have been more than twenty-five, but these 25 are these the “confirmed” ones. At this point there are approximately 500  “suspected” reinfections. (To be “confirmed” a case requires genomic sequencing of both samples, which is often not possible.) 

I just read in the Wall Street Journal about one of these reinfections. His name was Fernando Gaviria. He is a professional bicyclist who had his initial Covid infection back in February in Abu Dhabi. He was hospitalized for two weeks and so it is reasonable to assume that his infection was the real deal. He recovered and had resumed competitive cycling, getting repeatedly tested according to protocol. He had more than a dozen negative tests until October when his PCR test came back positive. This positive test was repeated multiple times – all positive. Mr. Gaviria was asymptomatic. The only reason that he was tested was because testing before races is  protocol for professional cycling. Interestingly, Mr. Gaviria is classified as “suspected,” because his sample from February is not available for genomic sequencing.

Scary? Not really, as reinfection is extremely, extremely rare. Moreover these documented twenty-five have had only mild symptoms and have not been very sick, or as was the case with Fernando Gaviria, asymptomatic. Here apparently the immune system has had a chance to kick in and thus avoid severe symptoms.

In 2003 there was Covid 1 pandemic. Interestingly the immune response to Covid 1 has been documented to last for 17 years, and counting. It is likely that the immune response to Covid 2 will be similar . . . i.e. it will last a long time also. Obviously we have not had 17 years to follow its immune response as Covid 2 has been with us for most likely less than a year.

What do we know at this point?

A recent study out of U.C. Berkeley has shown that the B-cell related antibody to the spike protein of Covid 2 has lasted for six months and the antibody levels were not waning but rather were still going up at six months. The T-cell response to Covid 2 starts to decrease after 3-5 months and then levels off. These B & T responses to Covid 2 are consistent with the body’s response to other known viruses.

So what is the best response to the question, “If I get Covid, can I get it again?:

• At this point it appears to be extremely unlikely that anyone will contract Covid 2 a second time, and if this were to happen, the high likelihood would be that it would be quite mild.
• There is no reason to take up biking as a preventative measure.

Over the Thanksgiving four-day holiday there was a huge youth soccer tournament in the Phoenix area. A soccer tournament during Covid? There were about 500 teams that had signed up to play in that tournament, and only 40 of these teams were from Arizona. This means that about 460 of these teams were from out of state, and most were from California.

Why would one or both Socal parents drive approximately 300 miles to Phoenix, spend two or three nights in a hotel, eat three meals a day in various restaurants, all to watch their child or their children play soccer? Likewise, those who were from Norcal had the same hotel and meal expenses in addition to round trip airline tickets to Phoenix? Why?

I am sure that there would be a multitude of varying answers as to the why, but in general they went because the kids wanted to play soccer . . . or perhaps, more precisely, the kids needed to play soccer.

For you see here in California, “those who know best” mandated that the kids could practice soccer, but they forbade participation in any competitive games. When I first heard of this ridiculousness, I immediately asked why myself why someone who basically appeared  to know little if anything about kids and sports would be in charge of something like this. 

What did they expect them to do?

Is this an example of simple naïveté or just plain-ass dumbness by “those that know best?” I have my opinion, but I will let you make up your own minds. 

If in two weeks there is an increase in Covid cases in California, these same dumb asses will tell us that it is because not enough of us were wearing masks indoors between bites of turkey. I doubt that we will hear anything from “those that know best” in Sacramento about the 460 youth soccer teams that they essentially forced to Phoenix. If the Phoenix youth soccer tournament is mentioned, those who went will be castigated for going by “those that know best.” 

In response, I say, “What did they expect?”

One wonders if California youth traveling out of state to play competitive  sports is limited to “soccer crazies?” Err . . . no, actually there were two youth baseball tournaments in Yuma, Az. in October and two more scheduled for December. If the youth who are into baseball cannot play games here in California, I would fully expect that California teams would travel to Yuma.

“Up in the mornin’ and out to school

The teacher is teachin’ the Golden Rule

American history and practical math

You study’ em hard and hopin’ to pass”

So sang Chuck Berry in his 1957 pop song, School Days …

but not so these days, as school days are not the same in 2020.

In 2020 with the no in-person school model and the various hybrid models, how much are kids losing?  Are they actually losing anything?  

Does it matter?

McKinsey & Co. estimate that students in the US who do not receive full-time, in-person instruction until 2021 will lose about seven months of learning. But that loss won’t be equal across all groups. With that level of disruption, expect that white students, on average, will lose about six months of learning, Hispanic students about nine months, and Black students up to ten months of learning. Low income students may fall behind by more than a year. There are a range of factors, e.g. wi-fi accessibility, high-speed internet, availability of adult to help, etc., many of which end up challenging students of color and low-income students more than their white, wealthier peers.

Are school kids losing anything over the long term because of not going back to school?

From Yahoo/Finance, Oct. 20,2020

According to a new report from the Penn Wharton Budget Model (PWBM), there is a financial trade-off to school closures: thousands of dollars of lost earnings to children currently in primary and secondary school.

By the beginning of October those closures have cost students between $43,000 and $57,000 in their future earnings, depending on their grade. That’s between 4% and 5% of their future estimated earnings. Younger students, the report says, lose more than their older classmates. And as schools stay closed around the country, the costs continue to accumulate.

For each month that schools continue to remain closed, students lose an additional $12,000 to $15,000 from their future earnings, the Penn Wharton model calculates.

If they stay closed through the 2020-2021 school year, children would lose nearly $200,000, taking off close to 15% of their projected future lifetime earnings.

“School Days” … Horrors! 

In 2020, Chuck Berry wouldn’t recognize the lyrics to his own song!

The other day I happened to see two adjacent articles both concerning the Wuhan virus. Granted there are a myriad of these coronavirus articles every day, but these caught my eye because they were both involving changes. I am sure that most of the Covid rule-makers are trying to do a good job, but when they change course in the middle of the stream, it tends to cause a further collapse of trust in what they say. 

Yes, they’re trying, but their track record is not too good.

The first article had to do with what is meant by “close contact.” Close contact use to mean “anyone who was within six feet of an infected individual for fifteen continuous minutes.” However there was apparently a case in a Vermont prison where a guard caught it from a prisoner, but did not meet the “close contact” criterion. So what does the CDC do next? . . . With one apparent exception, they change the definition! I guess this is reasonable because they’re trying. However it makes me think, “How did they come up with the original definition of “close contact?” Did they throw a dart at a dartboard? The problem is that those who actually pay attention to the CDC, now pay less attention.

The second article again had to do with the CDC. This question is, “Whether or not school children who have been in contact with someone with Covid-19, have to stay quarantined at home for two weeks. The problem here is that some parents and teachers have complained that two weeks for school children is too disruptive to their education, and two weeks also presents problems child-care challenges. How did they arrive at two weeks in the first place? Was it the same dart board . . . or perhaps was it like “pin the tail on the virus?”

“Like many aspects of Covid-19, the understanding by the experts continues to evolve.” (Translation: Public health officials may not always be right, but they’re trying!)

State turned for the next change . . . it should only take a week or so.