Science or (and of) Fear

I believe in science, in particular, social science, has as much to do in explaining the pandemic as the CDC. Indeed, it explains the CDC.

For example, if people who say they believe in science really did, schools would open with no distancing. The science says that kids don't get sick with Covid and are not spreaders (my guess is that it is because they are already responding to Coronavirus as a class, aka, colds.

This reaction shows that what people really believe in is fear. It is an evolutionary survival trait, as is boldness in the face of fear. Some of these traits are also cultural, libertarians exhibit boldness, egalitarians exhibit cooperation (another evolutionary adaptation). Fatalists believe in fear and Hierarchists believe in certainty (organized boldness).

The challenge for medicine is to take responsibility for how their message lands in these contexts. Marshaling fear is a dangerous tool. It alienates the bold and manipulates the fearful and cooperative. This keeps kids out of school, even though the pediatricians say otherwise, and patients out if the ER because they fear diagnosis is a death sentence.

Science is about mastering fear and following the evidence. In its bad days, if forces consensus (the enemy of inquiry). The evidence has been screaming that the virus starts as a cold, but image manipulation resisted. It was not going to bars that kept the wave going, it was bad science. From incubation to SARS is 5 weeks, not 2 or 3, with a runny nose or sneezes with heavy mucous being the leading indicator (except in kids).

Can policy follow the science? The one social science we need to ignore us politics. Quit talking about Trump, it short circuits the science. Send the kids to school and quarantine adults with runny noses and productive sneezes for 3 weeks - no exceptions. If they are allowed outside, masks won't save us.

My letter to CNN and MSNBC on Covid coverage

I write to express my concerns on coverage of the pandemic.

Much of the focus of coverage on MSNBC and CNN have been on the stupidity of the President. I will not argue the point, it is obvious. It is not really news. Indeed, it is the same information over and over again with different details.

It is also divisive.

It has become so divisive that there are now two sets of facts, one real and one Trumpian. The Trumpian set have evolved because those who trust the President no longer trust the news. While Fox News is part of this, covering Trump's stupidity alienates viewers or potential viewers who need to know the reality of the situation, rather than the electoral spin.

This would not be a problem with a budget debate, but a perceived lack of objectivity is killing people as much as, if not more than, Trump's antics.

Trump does not know better. You should.

Additionally, simply repeating NIH/CDC calls for solidarity rather than going into more detail of what is being said and whether the CDC advice is working shows a blind spot.

The CDC's guidance ignores the nasal symptoms because they don't want to call it a cold. The effect of this is that by ignoring the cold symptoms, the latent asymptomatic period between the last sneeze and the first wheeze, which is when non-symptomatic transmission occurs, is not noted. Not all asymptomatic transmission is the same. Indeed, the post nasal period is likely the only time such transmission occurs.

Check this possibility out. That CDC got it wrong or is shading its message to encourage mask wearing and solidarity supporting the CDC (which is a hierarchical dysfunction - to use public administration/sociological analysis - my area of expertise) is a legitimate story.

Ignoring nasal symptoms means that doctors and stores ask people about SARS symptoms like fever and coughing or exposure to people who may be symptomatic but no longer contagious while ignoring the period when the virus is more likely to have spread (given my experience and that of others who I have talked to who have had the virus without hospitalization).

Assuming virus acquisition is two weeks before any symptoms, including productive sneezing, the time between exposure and SARS symptoms is one month, more or less. You cannot contact trace a cold that occurred two weeks ago unless you count the cold as the main transmission mechanism.

The uncritical coverage of calls to solidarity means that people have died, partly because you did not do your jobs.

Put another way, if you add 2 week to the pre-SARS equation, there is now way social distancing or the quarantine could have worked as implemented. Going off quarantine was not the problem, quarantine that was not long enough or was started before people in the Sun Belt started sneezing (because transmission is more person to person in private than by community), a rally two weeks ago could not have started a hot spot now.

It is easy to blame Trump for everything, or people going to bars, but a bad model is as likely to blame. People who were infected and hospitalized recently likely got the virus during lock down, not as the result of Memorial Day or even bar hopping. Such things may be more coincidental than causative. (As I learned and taught in graduate methodology courses).

Again, I am no Trump supporter, but I do not blame virus spread on him. He is not an intelligent agent. Blaming any effect of the virus on him ignores the fact that the government stopped listening to him blather years ago. Covering his blather gives it more weight than it deserves.

Indeed, doing so gives it weight. Ignoring him in regard to the virus would be a better course. Covering him puts blood on your hands as much as his.

In the end, he may lose because of the virus, although it is his bluster that has lost his credibility. He is likely counting on the Virus going away before the election. It likely will after 500,000 people have died, everyone over 40 has been exposed, with many having some symptoms and millions more than reported actually getting sick. They may blame Trump, but the fault is not his. It is bad science. And media coverage that ignored the possibility of problems with the science.

It also ignored how much less danger health providers face, which is why the PPE level has declined. Not reporting this has people believing that the virus is a death sentence, thus ignoring treatment for it and other things. It is a self-fulfilling prophesy. That effect is partly caused (not correlated) with news coverage.

This has not been your finest hour.

Please adjust, with an acknowledgement of error, to regain the public trust, including from Trump supporters.

Not to is simply unconscionable.

Michael Bindner

PS, this is my projection of how many people will die because the virus model is wrong, based on 0.12% mortality in the population (New York was 0.15% - it is lower because treatment is better in hospital, assuming people go).

My letter to WH Counsel and to Consovoy McCarthy

To WH Counsel:

The importance of Trump v. Vance is that the SDNY District Judge did not believe the OLC memo was valid. The Court agreed and SDNY acts in accordance with his dictates. Re-election, and even remaining in office now offers no protection to Citizen Trump. Please brief your client accordingly. The earlier he makes a deal, the better. Time is not on side, or the Vice President's if he wishes to mount a decent bid in November.

Best wishes,

Michael Bindner

Regarding Trump (and Stone)

This is a follow-on to a previous essay about freeing Roger Stone, which Trump did earlier tonight.  My arguments in that essay have not really changed. Where some people see rule of law issues, others see using obstruction, et al, as a way to punish someone when their resistance to being investigated is easier to prove than whatever they were being investigated for. Perhaps, these "rule of law" penalties should only be imposed if the underlying crime is proved as well. A similar argument can be made on civil asset forfeiture. Instead of convicting someone of drug crimes, we just take their stuff in civil court. This might be a thing in dealing with Trump's financial crimes. Indeed, it would be apt punishment.

A more concrete way of putting the question is this: If Stone, et al, went to Hill & told whole story of Wikileaks, what crimes were committed by Trump campaign? Internet Research Agency members were indicted, but could anyone else have been? This is especially a question because, technically, Stone is a journalist, as is Wikileaks (who have not been charged with a crime in this incident). If going into this investigation, the FBI knew that no case was possible, is that investigation an abuse of power? The fact that the question can even be raised explains why Trump supporters are standing by their man.

Did Stone, Trump and the campaign do materially affect the outcome of the 2016 election?

No one who has been active in politics in this town was at all surprised that the Democratic National Committee had its thumb on the scales in the primary season. They pulled a similar trick in 2004 to get Kerry on the ballot. I know this because before primary season, I met a DNC staffer on Metro on the way home from work and asked her if Hillary was going to be the candidate. She said, no, it would be Kerry. This was way before Iowa.

The only way a Trump hack might have influenced the election is if the campaign had a copy of Clinton's briefing book and saw that her likely answer on partial birth abortion made her vulnerable. (Recall that Reagan had a copy of the Carter book in advance, with George Will using it to help prep the Gipper). The answer she gave to an issue that Trump raised in response to a different abortion question moved Catholic voters in the Midwest from the Obama column to the Trump column, with not inconsiderable aid from the swing state bishops.

If any matter should be investigated, any hacking of the briefing book should. The ultimate fault, however, is Clinton's for playing to a base she already had. Pro-Choice women were going to vote for her anyway in numbers. They would never be Clinton voters. Trump did not steal the election, she gave it away (putting Kaine on the ticket also left Obama voters on the table - oops).

Trump and Stone were pikers on dirty tricks. Nixon's minions kept Muskie out of the race and got McGovern and a huge landslide. The best tricks are to confound your opponents, not the voters. Back in 1994, I was asked by a friend to do a focus group of Ward 3 voters for the Sharon Pratt re-election campaign. Five of us were asked, with three seated. The survey firm was not very good - they actually told one of us (who is Black) that his people were going to be part of another group.

The punchline is that we were all John Ray supporters and gave responses that played into all of Madam Mayor's preconceived notions on how well she was doing. In the end, we all stated that we supported John - but the campaign showed that they still relied on what we said. John lost, because my future boss, Marion Barry, very quietly did an under the radar campaign in Ward 4 that led to a huge victory. Sharon came in third. As dirty tricks go, what we pulled off was a classic and had more of an impact on our race than anything Stone and Putin could engineer.

Also of note this week is the finding in Trump v. Vance that Citizen Trump deserves no special protection from his office in dealing with subpoenas to his accounting firm and banker regarding his personal financial dealings. The same information is also of interest as to whether Trump is compromised in his dealings with Russia prior to his election.

The Supreme Court declared that the similar Judiciary subpoenas were so broad as to be a fishing expedition, but put in procedures that can be navigated to explore the Russia link directly. Trump will find it harder to run out the clock if Chairman Schiff wishes to pursue the issue (which he should).

The question is then what and why are we investigating? The only Trump crime of any consequence is fealty to Putin. No one cares about campaign dirty tricks and they are not being prosecuted. If the Trump-Putin relationship falls under foreign policy discretion, what are we doing here? Why does anyone bother lying? Put another way, if Trump went to DC Federal Courthouse and detailed everything he actually did, what crime was committed?

Unless we face the question of espionage by Trump, this national soap opera is a sad farce on both sides. Unless the message about the Trump presidency does not go that deep, no Trumpsters will give up on their hero. This must be explained as more than partisanship on both sides. Not doing so is why impeachment failed.  If Schiff  cannot or will not point to an actual non-partisan crime, then half the nation will believe this has all been a witch hunt. That is not a good look for the nation. Indeed, it does exactly what Putin wants.

Allowing Russia a zone of influence near its borders (a Monroe Doctrine, if you will) is not an idea originating with Trump. Is his presidential discretion wide enough to pursue such a policy, regardless of past doctrine?  This is another way of asking whether we wish to criminalize American foreign policy?

We tried in Iran-Contra, however the investigation led to the overturn of Lt. Col. North's criminal conviction. The question remains, was violating the Boland Amendment a crime or a secret foreign policy?

The Ukraine affair is of a similar nature - although the system worked well enough to make sure the military aid was spent. The purported crime was election interference, but that interference would have, at worst, been one day event on Fox News. It amounts to a dirty trick, and a sloppy one at that.

The real issue with Urkaine is whether election interference was just the cover story, with Trump's real intention being to hang Ukraine out to dry and force a pro-Moscow settlement. Would doing so have been a crime or an act of presidential discretion. While the impeachment trial hinted at treasonous intent, it was not pursued convincingly enough for Republicans to have to vote to remove.

Some may even conclude that Senator Schumer and Chairman Schiff took a dive, that the entire impeachment was, essentially, an electoral stunt all its own - one that far exceeds the 15 minutes of fame on Fox News had the Ukrainian President been more cooperative.

President Bush took a pass at arresting Vice President Cheney when he attempted to force his own policy on torture on the Justice Department - who objected and went to the President. There is also the matter of war crimes ordered by Cheney and Rumsfeld. The Geneva Convention was not observed at Gitmo. The war may or may not have been about WMD. Regardless, Rummy lost the peace by firing all Baath party officers from the Iraqi Army, thus destroying the existing civil society in Iraq. When the Baathists fled to Syria, they just may have taken the WMD with them. That chemical weapons were used in Syria should be no surprise to anyone who can connect the dots.

The 2006 election was about a few things, but the failure of the peace, as detailed by Bob  Woodward in a book that came out just before the election, had a big part in the loss (as did GOP corruption). There was a real push to hold the President (or the Vice President), responsible for the debacle, but Speaker Pelosi would not go there. Doing so would have criminalized foreign policy.

Where do we draw the line once we open Pandora's Box? Iran-Contra was played as a rogue operation by the National Security Advisor and his Deputy. By that time, Reagan's dementia was likely far enough advanced that he had no involvement - and no one asked whether Vice President Bush was in the loop. This has always vexed me. History may provide an answer when we are all dead or we may never know.

We currently have a similarly demented President, although he seems to be active when he thinks it is in his interest. His niece paints a picture in her book of a learning disabled sociopath. The real constitutional crisis is that the Executive Branch is operating without the active participation of the elected President. What role is Vice President Pence playing in the operation of the government? He should at least be held to account for not invoking the 25th Amendment when Robert Mueller was appointed. What did he know and when did he know it on Russia? Was the cover story of Flynn being fired for lying to Pence itself a cover story? Did anyone ask?

This is important because Cy Vance (as well as the D.C. Attorney General Karl Racine) are now empowered to investigate Citizen Trump. Does Trump v. Vance imply the end to the OLC Memo? How can it not if the President is not above the law? If A.G. Barr is really the bright shiny object distracting Trump while SDNY and DC do their work, is it time for them to now go forward, indict and arrest Trump (before Vance and Racine can beat them to it)?

If we are lucky as a nation, Leader McConnell will realize that he and his band of rats need to jump off the U.S.S. Trump, thus forcing him to resign or to have Pence bench Trump and become both Acting President and the nominee. In this case, Vice President Biden needs to shift his attentions from the incompetence and criminality of Trump to the lack of moral courage and mixed motives of Pence. Regardless, we must still address the issue of the criminality of the White House foreign policy.

Schiff should have followed the money trail, which in the Parnas and Fruman case has shown starts in Moscow, likely leads to Rudi and is alleged to fund the Trump Super PAC (thus benefiting much of the Senate impeachment jury). Let us hope this is not being saved as an October surprise. If McConnell moves Trump out of the way, it won't be of much use in going after Pence, who seems to have been mostly above the fray.

If McConnell fails to act, investigations must go on, which brings us back to Pandora and her box. How shall any Putin-Trump connection be played? Is it corruption or discretion. So far, only the corruption angle has been advanced. This has not worked with the GOP Senate or the electorate. If Trump is a traitor, it should be examined, but this will have implications for future presidents, including a President Schiff.

The question of whether Bin Laden was assassinated rather than being captured has criminal implications. Others have raised the question of the targeting of an American citizen who was part of Al Queda in the Arab Peninsula. Most come down on the side of presidential discretion. If we criminalize foreign policy, could it boomerang on our best president since Ike?

In my opinion, we need to open the box. Corruption is non-starter. It will not convince anyone in the Trump orbit that he did anything wrong. Unless Trump is pursued as a traitor - which I argue that he is - and the point is proven by a future DeutcheBank data dump on the Intelligence Committee - the nation will take a long time to heal. Not all Republican Trump supporters are his "fine people" who defend the Lost Cause. Continuing with Trump's criminality must lead to a knockout blow or it will be perceived as yet more partisanship, even if this means walking on the slippery slope.

We Are the Body of Christ

The Supreme Court has ruled that teachers can be called ministers in Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru. This extends Hosanna-Tabor to religious, particularly Catholic, schools so that gains made in Bostock, which included LGBT rights under sex in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act leave teachers out. The effect of the case is that, without considering the merits of whether LGBT teachers who marry can be fired, the courthouse door is closed to them. As a First Amendment right, not even an Act of Congress can interfere with the rights of the Church to make its own rules on ministry.

This is just as well because it puts the onus on the Faithful to take control of the Church from the hierarchy. We cannot go to the government to clean our own house. We can use this as a moment of empowerment. Indeed, we must. As an old radical, I have a few suggestions on how to do this.

Don't Leave. Our baptisms are as valid as that of any bishop or priest. We are part of the body of Christ and no one can make us leave. It is time to protest from within, rather than following the egalitarian imperative to escape from evil rather than facing it head on.  This will also provide a witness to our Protestant brethren that it is time to come home and work from within.

Defy. As much as possible, act as if the hierarchy is simply not there. Listen to the promptings of the Holy Spirit and act accordingly. Support each other when the bishop does not. Our lives are none of his business. Also, the feudal era is over. Church property comes from us, not from the nobility or the bishop. More about that below. The bishops only act with our tacit consent.

Detail. Make a case based in scripture and natural law (the real kind, not the teachings of Rome) for why we resist actions we consider evil.

Debate. Present concerns to Pastors and Bishops (both come from the word Overseer) and make know that we are not asking for guidance - we are entering into dialogue as fellow members of the Body of Christ.

Don't hate. Always treat clergy and the consecrated as brothers and sisters in Christ. We must  remember that we are all of the same body, even if are interlocutors sometimes forget. Ultimately, we we engage them, it is for their good as well.

Denounce. Even in love, we must remain firm. Sometimes, this demands public resistance. If dialogue is not accepted, then the Spirit of Prophesy demands a stronger invocation. She speaks through all of us, not only through the clergy. Prophesy is not about fortune telling, it is about self-criticism within the Body of Christ.

Deploy. When possible, bring as many of the Body with you in action. Change in the Church is not the job of Lone Rangers. Especially if the issue is important, we must speak as one rather than as individuals, else we are no better than the hierarchs.

Defund. In Medieval times, land was a grant from the King and bishops were among the nobility. The governance model for the Church has retained this basic structure. While parish property is held in trust, the title is in the name of the bishop. A few empty Annual Appeals and collection baskets will make the clergy realize who pays the piper in the modern Church.

Dethrone. Ultimately, we are responsible for the structure of the Church. Ancient and Medieval structures were products of their ages. We now live in the age of democracy. The key feature is that they operate with our consent. It is up to us to change the rules. From the earliest days, the office of deacon was not simply priesthood light, it was the office which managed the material affairs of the Church. We can go back to that model and, while not abandoning ordination, place it within the laity - thus forgoing requirements of gender, marital status and sexuality. As in early times, parish deacon administrators should be elected from below, not appointed from above. The clergy's role in governance must ultimately be ended.

Likewise, election of the Pastor (biblically, the local overseer) may be recaptured by the People of God from the hierarchy. Likewise, bishops (regional overseer) can be elected by parish representatives, both ordained and lay. P/Matriarchs can then be elected by the bishops in conclave, with the Ecumenical P/Matriarch elected by his or her brothers without a tie to a particular See. Until this happens, the patrimony in Rome should be available to local churches to settle claims made against those bishops who are appointed by the Holy See.

Ordination can be opened in the same way that clergy are and, so that the mistake of Clement of Antioch is overturned, we can join our Jewish brethren in a home based sabbath dinner. Such dinners do not require a teacher to bless the Shabbat meal, nor do we. Reception of the Lord can be done as he directed in the Jewish model. No more using Communion as a weapon of control.

Some would fear abuse, however, the body and blood of Christ are effective when received, not a graven image. We can only know whether this is true by reception. We currently agree to a different model. That agreement can change. We still need public teachers and rituals, so the priesthood need not pass away. I am not suggesting a Protestant model of worship but one that is authentic to the institution of the Sacrament.

The moral hazard of wearing and not wearing masks

Two months ago, I published an essay here on the Pandemic as a Religious Experience.
That essay was a follow-up on an earlier analysis of how Covid is discussed through the lens of cultural bias (grid/group) theory. Both still hold up well, but there is more to be said on the same vein.

This installment focuses on why people are not wearing masks and why mask wearing is not a permanent solution. Many people don't want to hear such explanations, because they believe that noting these things encourages bad behavior. This is bass ackwards. If we don't look at what is really happening, we are not doing science - we are simply scolding and shaming. That is a great way to feel morally superior while things get worse. This is especially the case if negative information is confused with partisanship. Believe me, I am no Trumper. I am to the left of both Sanders and Stalin.

Mask wearing is seen by many as both virtuous and faithful. Ironically, science is not based on faith or virtue. It is being sold this way by the government. People are told to wear masks so that they do not infect their grandparents and so that they do not die themselves (although for most, dying is not on the horizon).

Not wearing masks is now sinful, both because grandma may die if she lives in a multi-generational and because it is associated with the Devil (even though it is the Devil himself, or his right hand man, who is behind the task force). The reality is that living with young people means having better immunity. Studies of who died will likely show this, once the data is analyzed.

Avoiding sin is seen as an avenue to health. It always has been. Indeed, with virus as unseen enemy, maintaining virtue is paramount.

Then we have the Trumpsters. They look at mask wearing as unnecessary. They believe themselves to be saved and will therefore be spared any disease which arrives through sin. They have bought into the paradigm of mass virtue, but it is only required of sinners.

The virus has reemerged in areas that probably shut down before it got there. Indeed, it likely got there, not because people broke mask curfew, but because the virus model is wrong. Mask true believers want to believe the model is right so that they can have their virtue while returning to normal life.

The young who do not wear masks are being scapegoated from flaunting restrictions. They quite rightly do not expect to die from the disease, but their conduct will surely kill grandma or their Millennial  mask wearing elders. That their sin involves going to bars and drinking alcohol, which is still regarded as the devil's drink, makes them an easy target. It is why bars are being closed first as the disease soars out of control.

The main villains of this morality play are the super-spreaders, who are asymptomatic but deadly. They may never get infected, so they spread the virus with no ill effects to themselves. That is not entirely the case. Usually asymptomatic spread happens between the first sneeze and the first wheeze.

The CDC, in its wisdom, does not want the virus called a cold. This means that one is sick for two weeks, gets a cold, appears to fight it off while it is either being taken care of by the immune system (for those who are not far from their last cold or their child or grandchild's last cold) or is dividing in the lungs without the immune system responding. This is when super-spreading occurs. People who are fighting it off successfully may not be shedding virus at all. Those who are getting sicker are probably also spreading the virus. That was my experience.

The CDC needs to reconfigure its model. Breaking quarantine or mask discipline did not cause the current breakout of hot spots. No contact rules for six weeks may have, but that would have made a second wave inevitable. As it stands now, Dr. Fauci is correct that we could have 100,000 new cases a day. Given that their virus model is two weeks off, it is almost a sure thing.

No amount of obedience to mask protocols will change that. Masks are actually false security. No one who actually has the virus and is in the sneezing stage, will sneeze into a cloth mask more than once because those sneezes are heavy. Because no one is warning that heavy sneezes are most likely Covid, people think that they have just a cold or hay fever. When they feel a heavy sneeze coming on, they take off their masks and reach for a tissue or hanky. They might get to it in time. If someone is indoors, they won't be wearing a mask but won't be fast enough with the hanky. A tissue will do nothing to stop Covid, they are simply too thin.

Let us be clear, I am not advocating not wearing masks so much as saying why they are not helping. I am not putting anyone at risk. I am instead spreading disquiet. At this stage, disquiet needs to be spread. The truth is that mask wearing in public will not save you from someone who sneezed on or near you yesterday or last week. Virtue will not save you from virus.

Unless heavy sneezing as the first symptom (rather than some mysterious inhalation), people will continue to go out once the sneezing stops. People need to stay home at the first heavy sneeze and stay at home for three weeks. Mask virtue is not enough.

Covid survivors, especially those who were not hospitalized, are not seen as virtuous. Some weakness or sin must have made us vulnerable, especially the sin of violating mask discipline in public. We are not contagious unless Covid is an extinction event (meaning we all get sick over and over until we die off with SARS2 - sounds silly when you say it out loud, doesn't it). The reality is, we earned our immunity through considerable suffering. Even without SARS2 symptoms, the fatigue caused by manufacturing anti-bodies is extreme.

That we do not need masks except for social reasons arouses envy (as all inequality does) and fear. Those who have gotten sick and not died are a sign of doom. The reality is that the best way to be immune from the virus is to survive it. A vaccine, although considered a blessing from on-high, will provide some measure of cheap grace but is not an absolute protective.

If the recovered are not required to wear mask, it adds a bit of inevitability to getting sick from what is a serious infection. The fatality rate is only 0.15% per capita - or 5% of known cases. To have a known case, therefore, is considered a major hazard. The scarier reality is that if you have been sick, you probably were never tested nor hospitalized.

There are more of us out there than anyone knows and no one is asking us for input on our experience. Neglecting our experience is why many more people will get sick. Millions more. Half a million will likely die when all is said and done. Mass distribution of asthma meds to anyone after the first sneeze will save their lives, but it won't stop the spread of the virus.

Mask fear is no virtue. Being sick really is a function of immunological health. If you have kids or grandkids at home, you are probably safe. If not, you have reason to worry. Enter guilt. Locking your parents or grandparents away in a nursing home that takes care of them too well is also likely to kill them. More guilt.

The reality is that it is likely too late to do anything to stop this virus from making the entire nation look like New York in the spring. Mask etiquette will not let its disciples avoid illness or what is likely to be a more serious lock down in the near future. Sadly, it is too late to lock the door. The horse has already left the barn.

Obedience (which is social conduct, not science), will not stop what is about to occur. Nor is hating Donald Trump or those who have already been sick who are merely getting you ready for the inevitable. If one's immune system is not in hyper drive, the question of illness is when, not if, you will get sick. Until the virus burns itself out, not getting sick just means that, like some in Asia are finding out, is delay, not rescue.

The mask avoiders, who think that personal salvation and Donald Trump have protected them from disease will continue to do so are also among the doomed. Of course, their doom comes more from age than the lack of mask orthodoxy. In the next few month, they will also likely get sick. Their illness is more likely to be peer to peer rather than from public transmission. Snowbirds returning from Florida and Arizona, the current hot spots, are going to visit their friends and parents. It is not the young people that will and have killed grandma - it is their neighbor from across the street who comes over for a cocktail.

Donald Trump cannot be justly blamed for not getting the virus under control. He does not have that much power. Nothing he could have said or done would have made this virus any less lethal or prevalent - especially because the best minds in NIH and the CDC got the model wrong. He will be blamed by his supporters for talking happy to them. If he is still president, it will cost him the election - not because he could not stop the virus but because he is a public embarrassment.

When all is said and done, the high priests of the CDC will come out as the real villains. Those most likely to die are those whose caretakers followed CDC guidance on hand washing and keeping older nursing home residents safe from disease. That safety, like wearing masks, is an illusion. The belief by Fauci that shaking hands and social distance is necessary to prevent the next pandemic will make the next pandemic even deadlier.  May science show us their error so that they cannot sin again.