I find myself largely in agreement with the editors of the Washington Post, unsurprising since they’re now saying much what I’ve been saying all along:

VACCINE OPTIMISM is understandable in these days of anxiety about the virus. Almost every day, there are upbeat reports about a vaccine starting a new phase of clinical trials, and the worldwide research effort spans technologies old and new. Surely a safe and effective vaccine must arrive before too long — as promised, in “warp speed,” such as later this year or early next?

A dose of realism would be prudent. Vaccines are truly remarkable medicine and have proved effective in stopping diseases such as measles and polio. But they are not simple to discover, manufacture or distribute. Many research efforts fail. The first clinical trial for an HIV vaccine was in 1987, and there still isn’t one, despite much hard work. As Carolyn Y. Johnson reported in The Post on Monday, once a vaccine is found to be safe and effective, the process will be at the beginning, not the end. Vaccines must be manufactured to exacting standards. Distributing the vaccine fairly to people in the United States and around the world will strain health networks, the supply chain, public trust and global cooperation. This may take months or, quite likely, years.

Another reason for caution is that the vaccine timeline depends on human physiology. It may take a while to build up the antibodies to fight the novel coronavirus. A second inoculation may be required. Immunity could be short-lived or partial. Also, it is possible that the first vaccines to win approval may not be perfect, and not work all the time on everyone.

That last is one area of disagreement. I think that a vaccine whose benefits are extremely short-lived or, worse, unpredictable in its prophylactic effect would actually be worse than no vaccine at all.

They conclude:

Let’s suppose it is summer of 2022, and there is still no vaccine. What would we wish we had done today? Let’s do it.

Okay, what would that be? And should we be preparing for a vaccine at all? My speculation is that of materials and personnel personnel will be the graver bottleneck. Maybe I’m overestimating that since nowadays every Walgreens is offering flu vaccinations.

I think we should be preparing for the eventuality that a practical vaccine for SARS-CoV-2 is never developed. What would we be doing in that case? I don’t know but I know what we should not be doing. We should not be threatening to close down businesses due to a rising test positivity rate as long as the risk of a system failure in the health care system is nominal as is the case in Illinois.

I wish more people recognized the reality of what Sarah Zhang says in her piece in The Atlantic on the most likely scenario for COVID-19:

The coronavirus is simply too widespread and too transmissible. The most likely scenario, experts say, is that the pandemic ends at some point—because enough people have been either infected or vaccinated—but the virus continues to circulate in lower levels around the globe. Cases will wax and wane over time. Outbreaks will pop up here and there. Even when a much-anticipated vaccine arrives, it is likely to only suppress but never completely eradicate the virus. (For context, consider that vaccines exist for more than a dozen human viruses but only one, smallpox, has ever been eradicated from the planet, and that took 15 years of immense global coordination.) We will probably be living with this virus for the rest of our lives.

I have thought that since January. The conclusion I draw is not that we’ll be in lockdown forever but that we’ll accept a higher level of risk. And that will be true whether a vaccine is developed and effective treatments are found or not.

It’s also why I think that elected officials like Illinois Gov. Pritzker, who has been warning about the need to tighten up on the restrictions he’s (illegally) imposed despite the reality that there are no signs that COVID-19 is threatening the health care system but there’s loads of evidence that the restrictions are hurting people financially, are either fools, cowards, or malicious. I don’t think he’s a fool.

I encourage you to read Andrew Sullivan’s essay on the “roots of wokeness”. Here’s its peroration:

My view is that there is nothing wrong with exploring these ideas. They’re almost interesting if you can get past the hideous prose. And I can say this because liberalism can include critical theory as one view of the world worth interrogating. But critical theory cannot include liberalism, because it views liberalism itself as a mode of white supremacy that acts against the imperative of social and racial justice. That’s why liberalism is supple enough to sustain countless theories and ideas and arguments, and is always widening the field of debate; and why institutions under the sway of Social Justice necessarily must constrain avenues of thought and ideas. That’s why liberalism is dedicated to allowing Ibram X. Kendi to speak and write, but Ibram X. Kendi would create an unelected tribunal to police anyone and any institution from perpetuating what he regards as white supremacy—which is any racial balance not exactly representative of the population as a whole.

For me, these theorists do something less forgivable than abuse the English language. They claim that their worldview is the only way to advance social progress, especially the rights of minorities, and that liberalism fails to do so. This, it seems to me, is profoundly untrue. A moral giant like John Lewis advanced this country not by intimidation, or re-ordering the language, or seeing the advancement of black people as some kind of reversal for white people. He engaged the liberal system with non-violence and persuasion, he emphasized the unifying force of love and forgiveness, he saw black people as having agency utterly independent of white people, and changed America with that fundamentally liberal perspective.

When he says “liberalism” he means Enlightenment values not progressivism. I’m not as optimistic as Mr. Sullivan. He sees what’s presently emerging is liberalism clawing its way back from the pit. I don’t believe that accommodation with the “woke” is possible. Those of us who continue to believe in Enlightenment values can submit to the authoritarian tribunals which will police the new and ever-changing cacophony of “wokeness” or we can betray Enlightenment values by suppressing the “woke”. There is no living with them; there is no middle ground and they cannot leave us alone. Allowing others to believe as they wish is an Enlightenment value.

There is a video of George Floyd’s arrest making the rounds that begins somewhat earlier than previous videos. In this video Mr. Floyd is saying “I can’t breathe” before he is arrested and before a chokehold applied to him. The claim has been made that Mr. Floyd had taken fentanyl, one of the likely side effects of fentanyl overdose is cessation of breathing, and that’s what killed him.

Does it make any difference? I don’t believe that a single individual who has taken to the streets in protests could be convinced by any evidence that Mr. Floyd was not killed by the Minneapolis police in the course of an arrest.

It would certainly make a difference to the impending court cases. I have little doubt than an acquittal will result in another round of demonstrations and riots.

In an op-ed in the Washington Post ornithologists Gabriel Foley and Jordan Rutter argue that birds named for individuals, i.e. “eponymous” names for birds”, should be renamed:

When we name an animal species after the person who first made it known to science, we are effectively honoring that person’s contribution. Unlike a name describing a bird’s color or habitat, there is nothing “natural” about honorific names: They imply a choice, and we can also choose not to honor the person whose name has been affixed to the species. Bachman’s sparrow, Townsend’s warbler, Bendire’s thrasher, Hammond’s flycatcher, McCown’s longspur — these are all examples of North American common bird names. For the bird community — ornithologists, bird-watchers, conservationists and more — these names are collectively referenced every day. For many, the esteem inherent in these names is unconsciously overlooked, and comfort lies in their familiarity.

Yet these honorific names — known as eponyms — also cast long, dark shadows over our beloved birds and represent colonialism, racism and inequality. It is long overdue that we acknowledge the problem of such names, and it is long overdue that we should change them.

I would bet that 9,999 of 10,000 readers who hear the words “Townsend’s warbler” would have no idea it was named for someone with a reprehensible past. As long as consciousness-raising exercises are eschewed, it seems to me the harm is very, very limited.

Oral language allows us to exchange information with each other. Written language allows us to exchange information across time and space. Eliminating names that have been accepted and standard for years, in some cases for centuries, necessarily means that everything written about them in the past would become incomprehensible.

This loss would not be limited to a handful of obscure bird names. It would be applicable to hundreds of thousands of names of birds, animals, plants, physical phenomena, place names, mathematical and philosophical terms, and every field of human knowledge. The gain from such renaming would be minor; the loss would be incalculable.

⁶And the Lord said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.

⁷ Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech.

⁸ So the Lord scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city.

⁹ Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the Lord did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the Lord scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.

The editors of the Wall Street Journal have got this story wrong:

Can police keep citizens safe from lawless mobs if they have to worry about being safe in their own homes? That’s the question this week in Seattle, after a group of what Police Chief Carmen Best characterized as “aggressive protesters” targeted her home in Snohomish County Saturday night.

In a letter to the City Council, Chief Best says her neighbors kept the protesters from trespassing on or engaging in other illegal behavior “despite repeated attempts to do so.” She urged the council to “stand up” and denounce the behavior before “this devolves into the new way of doing business by mob rule.”

The chief is right. A big reason demonstrations have turned illegal and violent in so many U.S. cities is because progressive mayors and city councils have looked the other way or egged them on. Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkan cheered on demonstrations for weeks and called a police no-go zone “a summer of love.” But on June 28 protesters marched on her home. Two days later the mayor issued an executive order to clear up the occupied zone, and the next morning it was carried out.

or, at least they haven’t figured out what actually happened. What actually happened is that Chief Best’s neighbors engaged in vigilante law enforcement. That’s what happened in the much-publicized incident in St. Louis’s West End in which firearms-waving homeowners pushed back against “demonstrators”.

When law enforcement stops enforcing the law it will not be replaced by nothing. People will defend themselves and each other. We call that “vigilantism”.

IMO elected officials must enforce the law. Otherwise we’re just one itchy trigger finger away from a major incident and each jurisdiction in which law enforcement is left to vigilantes makes that more likely.

Updated

At least one of the “neighbors” was visibly armed.

When the local government doesn’t say “no”, it’s up to us to say “no”.

said one of the interviewees.

I found Joel Kotkin’s critique of California in City Journal interesting:

What the state’s minorities need is not less policing, or systematic looting of upscale neighborhoods, or steps to reimpose affirmative action, or kneeling politicians; they require policies that empower working-class citizens of all races to ascend into the middle class.

The state’s leaders should prioritize improving middle-class jobs and opportunities, replacing indoctrination with skills acquisition, and encouraging local businesses. Considering the nature of California politics, this can happen only if minority Californians demand something different.

but puzzling in some respects. For example, I couldn’t reconcile this claim:

Based on cost-of-living estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau, 28 percent of California’s African-Americans live in poverty, compared with 22 percent nationally. Fully one-third of Latinos, now the state’s largest ethnic group, live in poverty, compared with 21 percent outside the state.

with this table from KFF although both Mr. Kotkin and the KFF claim to be referencing the same source.

Mostly I see what has happened in California as the logical culmination of the foolish policies we’ve been following for most of the last half century. A prosperous white upper middle and upper class, impoverished mestizos and blacks. A lot like Mexico, in fact.

What struck me about the piece is that his prescription would be bitterly opposed by the “build absolutely nothing anywhere near anyone” (BANANA) environmentalists who appear to wield more influence in California than anywhere else in the country. The state’s zoning requirements, high energy prices, and skepticism about manufacturing work synergistically to push housing costs up and wages for most people down.

I found this piece by Kuni Miyake at Japan Times on how Sec. of State Mike Pompeo’s July 23 speech about China played in Japan pretty interesting:

Tokyo’s reaction to the July 23 speech by U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on “Communist China” seems to be ambivalent at best. The editorials of Japan’s major newspapers were divided, reflecting a lack of consensus among pundits and people at large in Japan on how to deal with the inevitable rise of China.

The liberal newspapers neither endorsed what Pompeo said nor criticized what Beijing has done, pretending to be as neutral as possible between the two great powers. Most conservative dailies, while agreeing with what Pompeo had proposed, only urged both China and the United States to stop further retaliation.

People in Tokyo seem to be puzzled. After the tit-for-tat closures of the consulate-generals in Houston and Chengdu, my phone kept ringing with questions such as: “Is the United States really serious?”; “How long will this last?”; “What would happen to the global economy?”; and “What should Japan do?”

While as readers of this blog must surely know, I have no objection to a tougher attitude towards China or trying to enlist Japan, South Korea, and the Philippines in our efforts regarding China, I have little interest in changing China’s behavior. The reason for that is simple: I prefer achievable foreign policy goals and changing China’s behavior is not only beyond our ability it’s beyond the ability of any alliance of countries we might cobble together.

I’m a lot more interested in changing our behavior since not only do I think that is achievable, I think it would have broad political support in the U. S.

You owe it to yourself to read Matt Taibbi’s remarks at Substack about Thomas Frank’s (What’s the Matter With Kansas?) latest book, The People, No, a history of anti-populism:

In 2016, it was clear only a few people in the lefty media world understood what Trump was up to, and why he was a real threat to win. Michael Moore was one, and Frank was another. I don’t think it’s a coincidence both were Midwesterners. Frank released his next book, Listen, Liberal, in May of 2016, just as Trump was seizing the nomination. It began with the following observation:

In the summer of 2014, with the Dow Jones Industrial Average hitting all-time highs, a poll showed that nearly three-quarters of the American public thought the economy was still in recession—because for them, it was.

which was panned by the critics because it was critical of the political and social views held by the critics. Apostasy is an unforgiveable sin.

It’s full of short jibes, both by Taibbi and Franks himself, viz:

After Trump’s election in November 2016, the first instinct of everyone wandering amid the smoldering wreckage of Democratic Party politics should have been to look in all directions for anyone with an explanation for what the hell just happened.

Of course the opposite took place.

or

The new conception of populism, as popularized by historians like Richard Hofstadter, pitted the common run of voters against a growing class of elite-educated managerial professionals, philosopher-kings who set correct policy for the ignorant masses.

The model of enlightened government for this new “technocratic” class of “consensus thinkers” was John Kennedy’s “Camelot” cabinet of Experts in Shirtsleeves, with Robert McNamara’s corporatized Pentagon their Shining Bureaucracy on a Hill. This vision of ideal democracy has dominated mainstream press discourse for almost seventy years.

Here’s as good a summary of where we are now as I’ve seen:

Imagine the reaction in these places now, to editorials in the New York Times instructing white liberals to cut off their relatives (by text, incidentally) until they donate to Black Lives Matter, or a CNN tweet instructing “individuals with a cervix” to start getting cancer screens at age 25, or to widespread denunciations of Mount Rushmore as a “monument of two slaveholders” when visited by Trump, after those same outlets praised its “majesty” just four years earlier.

These stories are as incomprehensible to Middle America as the pictures of MAGA fanatics going maskless and dying of Covid-19 to own the libs are to blue-state audiences. Yet both groups are bombarded with images of their opposite extremes, with predictable results: we all hate each other.

But that’s only a half truth. We don’t all hate each other. While I think it’s quite possible that the progressives who get all of their news from the NYT and CNN and Stephen Colbert and think that the protests in Minneapolis, Seattle, and Portland have been completely peaceful hate everyone who isn’t in lockstep with their thinking while those who get all of their news from President Trump’s tweets, Fox News, and talk radio hate all citydwellers, when I look around at my neighbors here in Chicago, a remarkably diverse group encompassing every race or confession of humankind what I experience on a daily basis is compassion and caring. They’re almost as cynical as I am about political corruption and routinely vote for Democrats because only Democrats are running.