Despite skeptics, science must lead the way

Previously published in the Terre Haute Tribune Star, 15 May 2020.

It’s no surprise that people, generally, don’t like uncertainty. The COVID-19 pandemic has created a level of uncertainty for everyone, beyond what most people ever experience. Research into personality suggests that some people cope with uncertainty better than others. Nonetheless, generally, humans do what they can to reduce uncertainty, including creating “stories” and social structures to make the uncertain seem more certain.

Our fascination with trying to predict the future is a good example. Whether it be astrology, fortune tellers, prophesy, whatever kind of oracle into the future you choose, it all stems from the same thing, an attempt to cope with uncertainty. Another “story” to cope with uncertainty is a conspiracy theory, with a common feature that the conspiracy is attempting to further some kind of future that “good” people don’t want. Epidemiological modeling is a very modern attempt to cope with the uncertainty of a new and deadly virus.

Unlike many people who don’t read the comments on news stories, social media posts, and other public postings, I do. People’s reactions are more interesting, to me, than the original posts. What I see a lot of though is a significant misunderstanding of what science is and how science progresses. Add in the almost (and understandable) desperate search for something “certain” in the face of extraordinary uncertainty and I see a turning away from science, even when misunderstood.

Take our basic “popular” score card for the COVID-19 pandemic. We have those tested, positive cases, and deaths. By now, I think most folks know that not everyone is being tested although in some states (and countries) who is being tested varies. That variation in who gets tested makes comparisons between states and countries really meaningless (thus uncertain). Counting deaths, however, is comparable, although some states, like Florida, apparently don’t’ want to count tourists or part-time residents in their count.

Deaths, however, are fairly reliable, but there is still some noise in who gets counted as a COVID-19 death and who does not. And we see a lot made of this, that on the one hand, there is an undercount of true COVID-19 deaths or on the other an overcount of COVID-19 deaths. This “scorecard” seemed appropriate and helpful at the beginning. It’s seeming less and less “certain” as we move forward.

As we learn more about the disease, not just how it kills and what raises the risk for dying, we are beginning to learn that it affects other internal organs of those who survive. What is state-of-the-art knowledge today is not state-of-the-art knowledge tomorrow. That inherent uncertainty right there is hard for many people to cope with. As the knowledge base expands, as it should with more data and analysis, many view this as wrong, as evidence that the “scientists” don’t know what they are doing, as in “make up your mind!” So, some begin to reject “science” in order to reduce their uncertainty.

Scientific knowledge is always changing. It doesn’t help that scientists are vulnerable to all the human foibles like the rest of us. The rush to be “first” or to “solve the riddle” is present and often can and does distort things. Releasing results prior to peer review, as we are seeing a lot of right now, and the press liking the horserace analogy plus the drama of someone being “wrong” only fuels the uncertainty. Then, many, who do not know or understand the scientific process are quick to vilify the scientists (sometimes adding it to a conspiracy theory) thus contributing to an overall anti-science and anti-expert discourse.

Perhaps the most profound display of misunderstanding science are commenters that pick out words that convey uncertainty such as “may,” “likely,” and “probable,” as a means to discredit the results. So, the measured, careful, language of science now appears to be not what we think science is (or want it to be) and people move to discredit it.

Scientists are in the business of producing new knowledge and they are doing it at remarkable speed, even if many in the public and our leaders don’t understand. No doubt, our leaders, too, are unsettled by the ominous uncertainty of COVID-19. Nevertheless, it is their job to lead us through this and while the governors appear, generally, to be doing a good job based on polls, the federal response has probably done more to create uncertainty than to settle it.

Thomas L. Steiger is a professor of sociology and director of the Center for Student Research and Creativity at Indiana State University. Email: thomas.steiger@indstate.edu.

Your health vs. your work is a false choice

Previously published in the Terre Haute Tribune Star, 26 April 2020

Seeing protests against the “lockdown” orders of various states and framing of the problem as the cure is worse than the disease, the pitting of lives against the economy, especially the right to work, had me wanting to pull my hair out. As one who tries to observe events dispassionately, to view with as clear of eyes as possible, especially when writing in this space, the protests, the claims, the conspiracy theories, the entire premise, of pitting people’s lives against the “right” to go to work (by the way folks, there is no right to work), this is especially challenging.

So, instead of what I usually do, attempt to provide perspective informed by social science, I’m going full-tilt conspiracy theory.

The framing of the “choice” as work (income) or your health is a false one. Or at least it is one that is not inevitable. Don’t you see what has happened? “They” (and they can be whomever shady boogeyman you choose) have created the situation we’re in, we have to choose between health and income. It needn’t be that way. And, if the stimulus that funnels to business is successful and they can open up and begin operations and paying employees, how many people will face, not an abstract choice, but a real one, a choice of their health or an income? “They” have created a devil of choice, which needn’t be. But it has been. You should be wondering why. Why this choice? Why not a different choice? Why force people into a choice at all?

It wasn’t difficult, politically, to “find” $2.2 trillion. But, its distribution is complicated, so it requires a bureaucracy, oversight, rules, etc. All of that, especially when done in an emergency situation, is going to be problematic and all kinds of things are going to go wrong, full of unintended consequences like major corporations getting huge loans from the funds targeted for small businesses.

A simpler solution would be to have appropriated $2.2 trillion and just distributed it to every citizen. That works out to about $5,700 per person. That’s a whole lot different than $1,200 per adult taxpayer of a certain income. A family of four would receive almost $23,000. That would be much better to get people through these challenging times than $1,200 in “bridge equity” (whatever the hell that is). It’s a simple solution, it would give people some security, and not working, though still difficult, wouldn’t be such that people might actually end up having to put themselves (and others) in harm’s way to pay the bills.

So, why wasn’t that done? Because “they” didn’t want it, that’s why. So, instead of protests demanding the “right” to play a Russian roulette-style game, we should be demanding our federal government give us the economic means to not have to play this deadly game. Protesting governors won’t do any good. Oh sure, perhaps a gas tax holiday, but that assumes you have the money in the first place.

Your governor can’t print money, so they can’t do this. But the federal government can, the latest example the $2.2 trillion (of which most is going to businesses, but who can’t make money without employees, who then may have to put their lives in danger to make anyone money). So, what’s in it for “they?” Why did “they” create such a situation? Who benefits from this kind of chaos in the United States?

“They” didn’t create the virus. Rather “they” are taking advantage of it to create this dilemma, this absurd choice to pit being infected or loss of income. Reject it. Demand something different. Demand your Freedom Dividend, from the greatest economy ever seen in history. Demand a shelter-in-place payment so we can weather this until it’s under control.

We’ve been spending money like there is no tomorrow for the past three years, why can’t we spend some money to keep people safe in the face of this virus? Why would “they” not want us to? Call “them” out and demand our elected leaders do something that really would make a difference. A short-term Freedom Dividend for American citizens as we ride out this challenge and not end up with millions of people foreclosed on, credit ruined, cars repossessed, and every other calamity that occurs when you have bills to pay and your savings is exhausted (if you ever had any savings).

Why are you letting “them” win?

Thomas L. Steiger is a professor of sociology and director of the Center for Student Research and Creativity at Indiana State University. Email thomas.steiger@indstate.edu.

A day-dreamer's diary of what's yet to come

Previously published in the Terre Haute Tribune-Star, 12 April 2020

Day 20. I read somewhere that people are finally getting the sleep they need. A positive thing amidst the stay-at-home order. I quit setting my alarm in the morning. Woke up 10 minutes later than usual. Lay in bed thinking about all I had to do. Yet, somehow I feel I have all the time in the world now, but don’t get as much done. But my hands are damn clean.

Day 25. What day is it? I can’t keep track. What? I would have sworn it was two days earlier. 25 days ‘til bills are due.

Day 29. I may not be embarrassed to play darts in public anymore. Wow what practice will do for you.

Day 37. Dear Doctor Drew: I had a dream where my significant other coughed in my face. Do I need to be tested?

Day 42. I walked 9 miles today. I saw 53 other people. 9 on bicycles, 15 dogs and three deer. Of the 53, only six were wearing masks, which means what?

Day 50. Still no symptoms of the virus. I’d almost welcome a symptom to just liven things up.

Day 52. If this keeps up until August as one expert I follow says, my epitaph will read “Patron Saint of Seeleyville Liquors.”

Day 60. I needed a haircut when this stated and now ... I either need to risk cutting it myself or learn to do a ponytail. Or a French braid. Maybe cornrows.

Day 61. I went to a store. Just to be a bad boy. I followed all social distancing rules, used gloves, safely disposed of them and savored a Fudge Round.

Day 76. I think it’s Tuesday. That means tuna right?

Day 88. What a summer. Zika, West Nile, Dengue. I’ve survived this long. I dare you, mosquito, to infect me. At least there is a treatment.

Day 94. Neighbors are burning yard waste. Wind is bringing their smoke our way. If one of them is infected, could the burning yard waste with its smoke now entering my lungs also carry the virus? Surely not. But, do we know?

Day 98. 4th of July. Few fireworks. Fireworks stores deemed nonessential. The Silent Celebration of Freedom. “zip zip zip boom, ahhhhhhhhh.”

Day 99. I saw a line at the Dairy Queen. People were appropriately distanced. Yum, I’d like a cold treat. Are the counter staff practicing safe Blizzarding? All those stainless steel surfaces, are they virus free? Is a Super Choco Latte Blizzard with extra sprinkles worth the risk? Is there an insurance policy I can take out for this?

Day 100. No football, no baseball, no auto racing, few working. Still no symptoms. Does malaise count?

Day 126. School begins next month. Or will it? I was teaching online anyway. At least I can wear shorts to class (don’t use video). Better for my students’ imagination.

Day 133. “Our long national nightmare is over.” But that was 1974. Now It’s: “I did the models better. Only 90,000 dead. The scientists said 140,000. And I never wore a mask." Take that, Dr. Fauci. New campaign hashtag: #TrumphealedAmerica.

Thomas L. Steiger is a self-isolating professor of sociology and director of the Center for Student Research and Creativity at Indiana State University. Email thomas.steiger@indstate.com.

Pandemic projection numbers tell unnerving story

Previously published in the Terre Haute Tribune Star, 29 March 

What if we just let the people with the highest risk die from COVID-19, as some appear to be suggesting?

Apparently even a cost-benefit analysis is nearly impossible because those most at risk already have “shorter” life spans and/or have underlying health issues that would just kill them eventually anyway. So, estimating what Grandma’s life is worth is hard. Not like other commodities such as cars, homes, airline seats and so forth. But, is Grandma a “commodity?”

About 16 percent of the United States population is age 65 or older. This is the group at the greatest risk of dying from COVID-19. And, so far, it appears that this age group is both more likely to get infected (although this is a weak claim since we are not doing enough testing to say this with much confidence) and to die from COVID-19. The CDC, last week, reported that 80 percent of the deaths were among people 65 and older. So, let’s just use that number for now.

As I write this, there are 64,107 confirmed cases of COVID-19 and 893 deaths in the US. [The number of confirmed cases had grown to well over 80,000 by week's end. — Ed.) That’s a 1.4 percent death rate. More than 10 times what the death rate from the seasonal flu is. And if the 80 percent of deaths are among those 65 and older, then 714 of those dead are 65 and older.

How many Americans are going to get COVID-19? That is impossible to say, but we can model it for some ideas. Predictions range, depending on the measures being used, that between 40 and 70 percent of Americans will become infected. Let’s use the most optimistic number, 40 percent, and assume that all age groups will get infected at about the same proportion. Forty percent of the U.S. population is 127,399,400 people. If that were a nation, it would be the 11th largest nation on Earth, slotting in between Mexico and Japan.

If the 1.4 percent death rate holds, then 1,783,591 people will die; 80 percent of them will be 65 or older, or 1,426,873, about the population of New Hampshire. Currently there are 51,121,200 Americans age 65 and older. If that many die, that is a death rate of 2.8% or about 28 times that of the seasonal flu. 24,672,708 households in the US have an individual 65 years and older. Among those households 5.7 percent will experience a death.

That’s a lot of families experiencing death in a short period of time. In 2017, 2,067,404 persons 65 and above died in the United States. Of course, some of those 1.4 million projected to die would die in the next few months anyway, but just consider that it’s possible that the death rate for this age group could increase by more than half.

Which states have the highest numbers of persons age 65+? Puerto Rico, West Virginia, Vermont, Maine, and Florida have at least 20 percent age 65+. Alaska, California, Colorado, District of Columbia, and Utah have below 15 percent. Indiana is at 16 percent. For Vigo County, 16.3 percent, or 17,504, are 65 and above. Using the same analysis above, 4,811 age 65 and above will die. That is just under 4.5 percent of the Vigo County population, or just under 1 per 20. That means you will very likely know someone who dies from COVID-19. Do you know anyone who has died of the flu this year?

So, let’s put some money on these numbers. The average Social Security benefit in January 2020 was $1,503 per month, or $18,036 per year. In a very short time period, Vigo County could lose just under $315 million in income. Mean household income in Vigo County is $42,030 or $1.8 billion in income per year. This would be a loss of almost 17.5 percent of income coming into Vigo County.

When you think of the loss of demand for local businesses that would represent, it’s quite a hit. And this is the best scenario. If the infection rate is 70 percent, then it’s a hit of about 30.6 percent on the local economy in just a matter of a few months.

Unlike jobs lost in a recession, of which most eventually do come back, those people are not coming back.