The editors of the New York Times have, predictably, launched a broadside against President Trump. Here’s a sample:

The editorial board does not lightly indict a duly elected president. During Mr. Trump’s term, we have called out his racism and his xenophobia. We have critiqued his vandalism of the postwar consensus, a system of alliances and relationships around the globe that cost a great many lives to establish and maintain. We have, again and again, deplored his divisive rhetoric and his malicious attacks on fellow Americans. Yet when the Senate refused to convict the president for obvious abuses of power and obstruction, we counseled his political opponents to focus their outrage on defeating him at the ballot box.

Nov. 3 can be a turning point. This is an election about the country’s future, and what path its citizens wish to choose.

Another snippet:

Mr. Trump stands without any real rivals as the worst American president in modern history. In 2016, his bitter account of the nation’s ailments struck a chord with many voters. But the lesson of the last four years is that he cannot solve the nation’s pressing problems because he is the nation’s most pressing problem.

He is a racist demagogue presiding over an increasingly diverse country; an isolationist in an interconnected world; a showman forever boasting about things he has never done, and promising to do things he never will.

He has shown no aptitude for building, but he has managed to do a great deal of damage. He is just the man for knocking things down.

I will refrain from critiquing their portrayal. Suffice it to say that I agree with them that Mr. Trump is a bad person and a bad president but I think he is a response to basic fundamental problems with our politics which replacing him with a political apparatchik will not solve. Neither will nationwide racial or gender sensitivity training.

If Mr. Trump is defeated at the polls, I do not believe it will solve a darned thing. Far from being the beginning of the end it will mark the end of the beginning.

If the polls are right, Joe Biden will defeat Donald Trump in a landslide victory. But there are reasons to wonder if the polls are right, as this article by Jeremy Kahn at Fortune points out:

An analysis of the emotions being expressed on social media indicates that the upcoming U.S. presidential election may be a much closer contest than many commentators and pollsters believe.

That’s the conclusion of Expert.ai, a company with offices in Modena, Italy, and Rockville, Md., that uses an A.I. technique called “sentiment analysis” to understand the emotions being expressed in social media posts.

The company’s analysis puts Democratic candidate Joseph Biden ahead of President Donald Trump, 50.2% to 47.3%, a margin that is much narrower than the double-digit lead that Biden has over Trump in most national opinion polls.

Based on these polls, many political analysts and commentators are expecting that Biden may win a historic landslide. But Expert.ai’s A.I.-based analysis indicates the race may be much tighter than these human experts are expecting.

Expert.ai’s political forecasting model was successful in predicting that the U.K. would vote to leave the European Union in 2016. And academic research has shown that similar social media sentiment analysis would have better predicted Trump’s victory in the 2016 U.S. presidential election than polling data.

Trump was the focus of far more social media activity than Biden, accounting for almost 60% of all the posts Expert.ai analyzed, compared to slightly less than 17% for Biden. But Biden ranked higher in terms of positive emotions such as “success” and “hope,” while Trump scored higher on negative emotions such as “fear” and “hatred.”

The only positive emotion on which Trump scores better than Biden, according to a statement from Expert.ai, is “action.”

I continue to have no idea who will win the election. As I’ve said I think the primaries are badly in need of a do-over and I wish that “Neither of the above is acceptable” were a legitimate response in voting. But I also think the present circumstances in which both sides may think they will win and the only way that could not happen is by the other side’s cheating presents dangers, especially when there’s ongoing political violence in so many places coupled with social media that makes it so easy to mobilize.

Step 1: SARS-CoV-2 originates in China.

Step 2: The virus spreads from China to Europe.

Step 3: The virus spreads from Europe to the U. S. and from China to the U. S.

Step 4: Panicky mayors and governors impose lockdowns on their jurisdictions in the hope of slowing the spread of the virus.

Step 5: The volume of business being done by many businesses decreases sharply, partly due to the lockdowns and partly due to people changing their behavior.

Step 6: Disney Co. lays off the 28,000 of its 233,000 employees who work in its two domestic theme parks.

Step 7: U. S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren complains about it. From Bloomberg:

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) called for answers on Wednesday on Disney laying off 28,000 workers while reportedly restoring the salaries of its senior executives during the coronavirus pandemic.

Disney said last month that it plans to lay off the employees due to the lack of attendance at its parks around the world. Warren, however, noted in a letter to Disney Executive Chairman Bob Iger and CEO Bob Chapek that the company said it would restore the paychecks of executives to pre-COVID-19 levels in August.

“I would like to know whether Disney’s financial practices have impacted the company’s decision to lay off workers and whether your company plans to extend health care or other critical benefits and protections to laid off employees,” the senator wrote.

She added that the company has invested in compensation packages, dividend payments and stock buybacks in recent years for executives and stockholders, “all of which weakened Disney’s financial cushion and ability to retain and pay its front-line workers amid the pandemic.”

Warren asked for information by Oct. 27 on which types of employees will be laid off, how decisions were made on the layoffs, if Disney will provide health care coverage for laid-off employees and the total compensation Disney gave its top executives in 2019 and 2020, among other information.

I think that’s only the tip of the iceberg. Phase II of the economic downturn is now well under way and every business that depends on in-person contact with the public is suffering. A new “stimulus” package will not do much to change the course of events.

If you judge based on the polls, President Trump is going to suffer a resounding defeat on election day. If, on the other hand, you look at the indicators that have presaged the outcome in previous elections, not only is that outcome not ensured, it’s wrong. Consider this observation by Paul Brandus at MarketWatch:

Here’s the research, and it is compelling: Since 1928, whenever the S&P 500 Index SPX, -0.69% of the largest U.S. stocks has risen in the three months prior to a presidential election, the party that controlled the White House won 90% of the time.

“If you think about it intuitively, it makes sense,” says Julian Emanuel, chief equity and derivative strategist for the investment firm BTIG who compiled the data. “Because a rising stock market tends to be a ratification of the present policies being satisfying to the investing public.”

History lines up squarely behind Emanuel. In 1928, for example, President Calvin Coolidge, a Republican, chose to retire, but stocks rose between August and November. It was the last full year of the Roaring ’20s and helped lift the new GOP standard bearer, Herbert Hoover, into the White House.

Four years later, the reverse occurred. The Great Depression, which began in the fall of 1929, dragged down stocks — including between August and November 1932 — and Hoover was crushed by Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt.

In fact, there have been six presidential years since 1928 when the S&P 500 fell in the three months before election day. All six times, the party in the White House lost.

In meting out its punishment, the markets have proven to be agnostic. In three of those six instances, Republicans lost. In the other three, Democrats did.

The late Sen. Pat Moynihan’s advice is out-of-date. Now everybody has their own facts. Now go back and re-read my earlier post today. Not only may both sides think they are going to win, they may think that the only explanation for their failure to win is cheating by the other side. That sets the stage for violence more than at any time since the American Civil War.

In a hopeful piece at RealClearPolitics Braver Angels leader John Wood Jr. surveys the present political landscape:

Seven members of the Michigan militia group, Wolverine Watchmen, were  arrested  on charges of plotting to kidnap Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and overthrow Michigan’s elected government. According to authorities, the group targeted law enforcement officers and other state officials and planned “to instigate a civil war leading to societal collapse.”

Sadly, this news wasn’t as shocking as it would have been even a decade ago. Political polarization is increasing, and both sides of the aisle believe the other side is out to get them. The Michigan arrests should be a wake-up call to Americans across the political spectrum to lay aside their differences and work together to restore the fraternal spirit of our democracy. There is room in America for many different views, but there isn’t room for violence and the division that inspires it. 

noting the very real problems

Recent  polling from Braver Angels shows half of Americans do not believe the November elections will be “fair and honest.” Half of Americans believe that Americans will not “generally agree on who is the legitimately elected president of the United States,” and a majority of Americans — 55%— believe that we “will see an increase in violence as a result of the election.”  If these numbers are right, the Michigan plot may only be a precursor to what will happen in November, especially if the election is close.  

Data from a January 2019 study titled “Lethal Mass Partisanship”  shows we are on the precipice  of mass political violence. The survey showed that 18% of Democrats and 13% of Republicans believe that political violence is acceptable if the 2020 election doesn’t go their way.

But we don’t need university studies to show us the reality of social unrest in American cities from Portland to Kenosha, where partisan demonstrators have collided with fatal consequences. 

He’s much more hopeful than I. Consider some alternative scenarios.

1. Biden wins a massive popular and electoral vote victory. Trump-Pence challenges the result in court. Trump’s supporters contend that the outcome is due to massive fraud. Violence ensues.
2. Trump wins a massive popular and electoral vote victory. Biden-Harris challenges the result in court. Biden’s supporters content that the outcome is due to fraud, voter suppression, or other. Violence ensues.
3. Trump wins a narrow electoral vote victory, losing the popular vote. Biden-Harris challenges the result in court, insisting that counting continue until it reveals a Biden-Harris victory. Biden’s supporters contend that the outcome is due to fraud, voter suppression, or other. Violence ensues.
4. Election night comes and goes without a clear victor. Counting continues for days, even weeks without a clear victor. Both sides declare victory and seek redress in the courts. Supporters of both call “foul”. Violence ensues.
5. Biden wins on election night. Trump concedes. That seems out of character and in conflict with what the president has said. I think it is unlikely.
6. Trump wins on election night. Biden concedes. That is in conflict with how this outcome has been wargamed by members of the DNC and, consequently, I think it is unlikely.

Mr. Wood concludes:

We need a countermovement of Americans who are willing to publicly say no, violence isn’t the cure to what ails our politics. My organization, Braver Angels, hopes to create this community by gathering Americans from across the political spectrum to sign a  public letter  stating in the event of a contested election, “We resolve to work together across this chasm for solutions grounded in the Constitution and guided by our democratic and non-violent tradition.” We are also providing interested Americans with ways to help keep the peace on Election Day and after.  

If our divided response to a global pandemic, racial turmoil, economic decline and electoral integrity reveals anything to us, it should be that the major problem with American politics today is not necessarily one party or the other, as much as it is the relationship between the parties — from Main Street to Capitol Hill — and how that warps and challenges the relationship between all of  us. If we commit ourselves to the work of reweaving the social fabric of American civil society, we commit ourselves to solving the fundamental problem undermining our democracy.  

IMO we need major structural political reform to step back from the “precipice” as he describes it. I think there are too many people making too much money from things as they are for that to happen.

While I’m on the subject, you might want to take a look at this post at Axios by Caitlin Owens which touches on some points I’ve made here from time to time:

The big picture: Rapid antigen tests are cheaper and get results much faster than polymerase chain reaction tests, which have been the standard in the U.S. for most of the pandemic so far.

• The downside is that they’re less accurate. That means a certain proportion of people who receive these tests will be told they don’t have the virus when they do, or vice versa. (One of the rapid Abbott tests isn’t an antigen test, but it has similar tradeoffs to antigen tests, at least among asymptomatic people.)
• Antigen testing is becoming more widespread in the U.S., but there’s no federal strategy for how it should be used. And more than 20 states either don’t release or have incomplete data on the tests, leaving “officials and the public in the dark about the true scope of the pandemic as untold numbers of cases go uncounted,” Kaiser Health News has reported.

Her focus is on why the White House’s testing protocol failed so dramatically but the applicability of her observations are not limited to the White House or to testing. Neither testing, wearing facemasks, social distancing, nor even an effective vaccine is a panacea, not even if they were all used appropriately and effectively, and, indeed, there’s moral hazard associated with each or all of them.

You might want to take a glance at this Lancet article on reinfection by SARS-CoV-2. The part that most caught my attention was in their Conclusion which considers the implications of reinfections for vaccines:

Our findings have implications for the role of vaccination in response to COVID-19. If we have truly reported a case of reinfection, initial exposure to SARS-CoV-2 might not result in a level of immunity that is 100% protective for all individuals. With respect to vaccination, this understanding is established, with influenza regularly showing the challenges of effective vaccine design.30 A major limitation of our case study is that we were unable to undertake any assessment of the immune response to the first episode of SARS-CoV-2 infection. We also could not assess fully the effectiveness of the immune responses (eg, neutralising antibody titres) during the second episode, when the individual was antibody-positive for total antibody assay to the SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid protein. If our patient is a case of natural viral evolution in vivo (although highly unlikely in view of the requirement of four reversions to reference genotypes) then the implications of these data are that SARS-CoV-2 can adapt with enough genetic dexterity to avoid a natural immune response in a manner to re-establish detectable levels of infection in an individual. If our patient is a case of reinfection, it is crucial to note that the frequency of such an occurrence is not defined by one case study: this event could be rare. The absence of comprehensive genomic sequencing of positive cases in the USA and worldwide limits the advances in public health surveillance needed to find these cases. Certainly, limitations in screening and testing availability for SARS-CoV-2 exacerbate the poor surveillance efforts being undertaken not only to diagnose COVID-19 but also to obtain actionable genetic tracking of this agent.

Maybe I’m misinterpreting that but I read it as suggesting gently that we simply don’t know enough about the virus yet to determine whether a vaccine is effective or for how long.

Just about six years ago I purchased an 8″ Amazon Kindle HDX. Since then I have used it in eight countries and about a dozen states, used it for reading on the plane, and streaming wherever I stayed. It has served me well. I’m aware that electronics do not last forever and for the couple of years I’ve been shopping around for a replacement. My problem: it won’t last forever and nothing I have found presently on the market is better. They all have lower resolutions. Fewer pixels per square inch and I can see the difference. My Kindle is as clear as can be; even the best devices today look fuzzy to me.

Why, Amazon? Why don’t you have a successor model to my Kindle that is at least as good as it is, maybe updated with a faster processor, faster wireless, and more memory? I’m willing to pay for it. I’m just reluctant to replace my still-working Kindle with a device that is worse.

This post is an attempt at casting some light on how our dysfunctional political system actually impedes solving problems. In this instance the problem under discussion is one about which I have been writing for some time: the higher mortality rate due to COVID-19 among some racial and ethnic groups, blacks in particular. Consider two contrasting posts.

The first post is by F. DuBois Bowman and Marschall S. Runge at RealClearHealth. They attribute the higher mortality to systemic racism full stop:

Our colleagues across the health sciences must acknowledge that racism is a public health crisis. Instead of overinvesting downstream in the treatment of the disproportionate effects of COVID-19 and other diseases on people of color, we must have the forethought and discipline to invest in an underfunded public health infrastructure. We need public health expertise now more than ever to create systematic, long-term change. This starts with investing in prevention and education to improve population health, which will ultimately decrease health care costs.

Other than adding staff to public health departments, there is nothing actionable in their prescription. The overwhelming predisposition of such institutions is to do what has been called “admiring the problem”, i.e. investigating it, studying it, analyzing it, and complaining about it without being willing or able to take whatever steps are necessary to address the problem.

It contrasts with the views expressed by Connor Harris in a piece at City Journal:

The Covid-19 pandemic in the West has disproportionately harmed racial minorities, especially those of African descent. According to a United Nations report from June, African-Americans in the United States had twice the death rate from Covid-19 as other races, as did black and South Asian ethnic groups in the U.K. Death rates among black minority groups in France and Brazil were also markedly elevated.

Many have taken it for granted that these differences stem from poverty and racism, which force nonwhites into crowded housing and jobs with high disease exposure. For Michelle Bachelet, the United Nations High Commissioner on Human Rights, Covid-19 “expose[d] what should have been obvious—that unequal access to healthcare, overcrowded housing and pervasive discrimination make our societies less stable, secure and prosperous.”

But a September 10 article in the Journal of the American Medical Association by three doctors at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York identified another possibility: racial differences in levels of TMPRRS2, a protein in cell membranes that many viruses, including coronaviruses, use to gain access to cells. The authors reported that in a sample of 305 patients at Mount Sinai, black patients had stronger expression of the gene that codes for TMPRRS2 in the tissue lining their nostrils than white, Asian, Hispanic, or mixed-race patients.

Some time ago I also pointed out a study from the NBER that reached similar conclusions: even when controlling for income, education, age, location and so on mortality due to COVID-19 is higher among blacks. I have also pointed out the difference in the ability to synthesize Vitamin D as a possible difference and one that could be addressed.

As long as we focus on admiring the problem and condemn potential action items out of hand, the problem will remain. That’s fine for those whose jobs depend on continuing investigation, study, analysis, etc., not to mention adding additional staff but not so fine for those on whom the burden falls.