Best Way Out?

We chased our pleasures here
Dug our treasures there
But can you still recall
The time we cried
Break on through to the other side
--The Doors

One argument advanced by proponents of vaccine mandates is that vaccines are the best way out of pandemic conditions. To hold credence, this line of thought requires persuasive support, much of it scientific in nature. However, theory and evidence are far from conclusive with respect to vaccines. In fact, other alternatives garner substantial support.

The human body's primary natural line of defense against viral infection is the immune system. Immune systems are networks of biological processes that detect and respond to a variety of pathogens that threaten human health. Strong immune systems ward off infections and reduce the impact of infections that do occur. They are also adaptive, meaning that once they interact with pathogens they commonly build resistance against future invasion.

General factors associated with immune system strength are well known and largely life style related. Proper rest and nutrition. Exercise and fitness. Supplements such as Vitamin D and zinc can bolster immune system strength particularly during winter months when exposure to sunshine is reduced.

It should not be surprising that these customary principles of immune system strength appear to apply to the CV19 context. For example, studies have shown that Vitamin D deficiency is associated with CV19 mortality. Seasonality patterns associated with CV19 patterns are also evident. I have also seen several papers (not cited here) suggesting significant relationships between individual fitness levels and/or self-reported degrees of exercise and susceptibility to CV19 infection, hospitalization, and death. We also know, of course, that CV19 generally does far more damage to the elderly and those with serious comorbidities--a skew that coincides with generally compromised immune systems.

Their endogenous, preventative nature make immune systems an intuitive, and economical 'way out' of a pandemic. Why public health officials have not stressed the well established benefits of natural immune system health as a principle route away from the CV19 situation is dumbfounding and, thus, subject to speculation. What we do know is that initiatives to improve natural immunity are plausible alternatives to vaccines as countermeasures to a pandemic.

Another countermeasure involves therapeutics. Therapeutics are medicines that help you get well when you get sick. Therapeutics are primarily remedial in nature. In the context of CV19, monoclonal antibodies and ivermectin are among the remedies that have been employed to help people overcome infection.

Strangely, many public health agencies and officials have downplayed, and in some cases outright criticized, the efficacy of CV19 therapeutic treatments that clearly work in many cases. Regardless, therapeutics offer another proven measure of relief from pandemic conditions.

Assisted by therapeutics or not, people who overcome infections are prone to elevated levels of future resistance against similar illnesses. Once exposed to a pathogen, immune systems develop capacity to prevent recurrence of infection. This elevated resistance is commonly durable for long time periods. This leads us to yet another 'way out' of a pandemic supported by scientific principles: herd immunity.

The notion of herd immunity is intuitive. Thanks to our adaptive immune systems, it is difficult for us to get sick from the same pathogen twice in close by time frames. In the case of an infectious virus, as more people get sick from the virus and then recover, there are less hosts for virus to subsequently infect. At some threshold, enough people have contracted the virus and developed subsequent resistance to reinfection that it is difficult for the virus to subsequently spread. The herd has effectively become immune to the virus. 

Precisely what percentage of a population must contract a pathogen to achieve herd immunity has been subject to considerable scientific debate. Evidence suggests that herd immunity thresholds are pathogen dependent and may not be discernable until after the fact. What we do know is that cumulative infections create barriers to more infection, providing another route away from a pandemic. 

Compared to the above alternatives, a vaccine does not offer a clearly superior 'way out' of a pandemic--particularly in the case of CV19. The primary objective of a vaccine is motivate immune systems to develop defenses against particular infectious diseases. They typically do so by injecting agents into the body that resemble the disease-causing micro-organism. These agents are often sourced from weakened or dead forms of the microbe. The immune system detects the agent as a threat and then activates the usual self-defense mechanisms.

Finding the right agents for a vaccine--one that both provides effective defense against the pathogen with a safety profile free of significant side-effects--usually takes years. The time lag suggests the impracticality of building public health policy around the development of a effective, safe vaccine to combat a novel virus that creates pandemic conditions. By the time the vaccine is developed, the virus may have run its course. 

Enter the mRNA vaccines developed in response to CV19. Unlike traditional vaccines, prospective mRNA vaccines can be designed and produced in a matter of months--making them attractive as timely pandemic countermeasures. Unfortunately, the science associated with mRNA vaccines remains unproven. All previous mRNA projects have failed, meaning that vaccine candidates developed in response to the CV19 pandemic should be regarded as experimental in nature. 

One would think, then, that the allure of quick development time would be offset by a prolonged period of careful evaluation--extra careful in the case of an unproven, experimental vaccine technology. 

That hasn't happened. Instead, the CV19 vaccines were subjected to small numbers, short period, narrowly focused tests with little evaluation of long term effects, and rapidly 'approved' by regulatory agencies.

There is growing evidence that the CV19 vaccines provide, at best, short term protection against infection that erodes over the course of months. Natural immunity built from previous infection appears to be significantly more durable. There is also increasing evidence of undesirable side-effects.

Proponents of vaccine mandates, it seems, will need to reach for another argument, as ones based on scientific theory and evidence are unfavorable.

Reviving Nullification

Gonna break it

Gonna shake it

Let's forget it better still
--The Who

Last week the Supreme Court declined to interfere with a Texas statute that provides for civil litigation against abortion providers in the state. Because the high court had previously upheld the principles of Roe v. Wade that has legalized more than 60 million abortions since 1973, Judge Nap reasons that the a five majority on the court is signaling that the concept of nullification is being revived.

Nullification stems from the notion that any state, via legislative or judicial means, can determine that a federal law or mandate is unconstitutional. If it does so, then the law is 'nullified,' meaning that the state can legally ignore it.

The idea of nullification was supported by many of our founding ancestors, including Jefferson and Madison. Nullification was employed several times in the early days of the United States--perhaps most notably in response to the Alien and Sedition Acts of the late 1790s. However, it has not been applied seriously since the outcome of the Civil War--an outcome which called into question the true sovereignty of the states.

A nullification-based interpretation of last week's ruling would be that Roe is unconstitutional, and that Texas has the sovereign power to declare it as such. 

It should be noted, however, that the Supreme Court's decision amounts to a temporary ruling. Challengers mount cases that ultimately will put the issue before the high court again. At that point, customary full briefings and oral arguments will require more transparency among the justices concerning their views on the legality of nullification.

Until then, the Texas ruling revives hope in the utility of nullification--perhaps, as the Judge call it, "the most effective peaceful tool for returning the federal government to the confines of the Constitution.

Stripping Down

"Looks like we're going for a night out in Vegas!"
--Swamp Thing (Con Air)

Rallies in Nevada today to protest CV19-related mandates in schools. Focal point is Clark County/Las Vegas.

Parents have pulled kids out of school and hundreds of school staff have 'called out' sick. Many have gathered on the Strip.

Have a feeling we're gonna see a lot more of this.

Ignoring the Skew

Here I am in silence
Looking 'round without a clue
I find myself alone again
All alone with you
--Information Society

When the media reports CV19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths, they rarely make an effort to split the results out by the associated demographics. Consequently, when people read that CV19 numbers are increasing, they naturally see themselves or people similar to them laying in the ICU bed.

But as Stanford's John Ioannidis once again reminds us, CV19 data are skewed toward the elderly, particularly those in nursing homes and possessing comorbidities. 

Lower age groups sport small infection fatality rates (IFRs). For example younger people face the following risk of death from CV19 infection as estimated on p. 12:

0-19 yrs: 0.0027% IFR

20-29: 0.014%

30-39: 0.031%

40-49: 0.082%

50-59: 0.27%

60-69: 0.59%

For comparison, median IFR in community dwelling elderly was estimated to be 2.4%--with nursing home residents even higher (p. 11).

The results once again suggest the prudence of public health strategies that focus on protecting the elderly and other higher-risk groups rather than the general population. 

They also suggest the ethical problems associated with media reports that ignore the skew.

Bad Breadth

The news is blue
It has its own way to get to you
What can I do?
I'll never remember my time with you
--Sniff 'N' the Tears

Despite new highs in major equity indexes, stock market breadth has been weakening. This means fewer and fewer names are propping up the averages.

When investors become more risk averse, they first rotate out of higher beta, racier names and into stocks deemed 'safer.' Money flows to mega caps thought to be market stalwarts and less susceptible to big declines. This means names like Google (GOOG), Apple (AAPL), Microsoft (MSFT), Amazon (AMZN), et al have been attracting disproportionate funds at the expense of smaller issues. 

Because of their huge market caps, these stocks can move the indexes higher even though most issues aren't going up. The bulls still feel good, however, because the indexes are still increasing.

As sentiment continues to shift, however, investors decide that even the big names are vulnerable and begin to unload them. When that happens, there is nothing left to support higher prices.

The bears then slide into the driver's seat.

no positions

Camp Fires

Now did you read the news today

They say the danger's gone away

But I can see the fire's still alight

There burning into the night
--Genesis

It is hard not to wonder just how many people would do just this.

Theory suggests that the answer is 'a lot.' When people face threats, they are generally less prone to review options and they centralize decision-making authority. They fail to think things through.

When the threat is a novel one, this can be maladaptive behavior.

Disarmed Down Under

I come from a land down under
Where beer does flow and men chunder
Can't you hear, can't you hear the thunder
You better run, you better take cover
--Men at Work

Over the past couple months, Australia has emerged as a leader in draconian CV19 policies. Lockdowns where people are not permitted outside. Mandatory vaccinations. Police wielding night sticks in the streets, arresting curfew violators and beating protestors.

The degree of authoritarianism on display has been stunning and runs counter to common belief in the good natured, low key, independent nature of Australian people. After all, is this not the country of Crocodile Dundee?

Sadly, decades of anti-gun policy and sentiment have greatly reduced the capacity of Australian citizens to defend themselves against such tyranny. Laws that prohibit gun ownership for self-defense purposes. Gun buyback programs. Amnesty periods where people could turn in 'illegal' weapons without punishment.

The Australian situation offers a textbook example of what is liable to occur when a citizenry disarms itself.

Misery Loves Company

Mitch Leary: Do you believe in the nobility of suicide?
Frank Horrigan: No, but if you wanna blow your goddam head off, go ahead. Be my guest.
Mitch Leary: Nicely put, Frank, but I don't want to leave this miserable world alone.
--In the Line of Fire

Why are some people so opposed to the notion of freedom? Two plausible answers appear below.

Another is desire for shared misery. Free people live their lives, not someone else's. Those who choose not to do this will be miserable. And they will want others to share their misery--even if it takes force to do so.

Misery, as it is said, loves company

Compliance and Agency

Hans Gruber: Who are you then?

John McClane: Just a fly in the ointment, Hans. The monkey in the wrench. The pain in the ass.
--Die Hard

In authoritarian states, a crucial attribute of human behavior is compliance. A compliant person obeys rules and commands--ideally without question or protest.

As authoritarian states grow, demand for compliance extends beyond the ruling class. Obedient followers exert exert pressure on other citizens to be compliant as well. 

What stops growing isomorphic pressure from creating a completely compliant state? In the language of institutional theory, the word is agency. Agency occurs when individuals act strategically to advance their own personal interests in manners that defy status quo institutional demands. 

Agents almost always constitute minorities in strong institutional fields. But when agency becomes active, they can, much to the authoritarians' chagrin, muck up the best laid plans for compliance.

Rose Colored Glasses

And now that your rose is in bloom
A light hits the gloom on the grey
--Seal

Which of these rival hypotheses is more valid?

H1: Government officials and their political operatives will seek to manipulate information, including the reporting of events, in manners that favor their interests.

H2: Government officials and their political operatives will not seek to manipulate information, including the reporting of events, in manners that favor their interests.

Given no particular context, most people will likely choose H1. Government officials, like all people, will be prone to spin information in self-interested manners. Government officials have even more capacity to do so than Everyman, given their influence over media sources and the intellectual set. 

But here's the thing, insert the name of particular government officials and political operative into the hypotheses above and response profiles associated with the above question are certain to change. Respondents who are familiar with and oppose the political ideologies of the named official will still choose H1.

But respondents who are familiar with and partisan to the political ideologies of the named official will be more prone to choose H2. 

Among the theoretical bases for this prediction is social identity theory. Members of the 'ingroup' are most likely to be perceived as good and unbiased. They say, "Cut me some slack," and ingroup partisans oblige.

'Outgroup' members get no slack. No rose colored glasses for them.

Political affinity alters perception of general truths.