Just another Freethought Blogs site
I am a theoretical physicist and retired Director of UCITE (University Center for Innovation in Teaching and Education) at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio. My latest book THE GREAT PARADOX OF SCIENCE: Why its conclusions can be relied upon even though they cannot be proven was published by Oxford University Press in December 2019. I am the author of three other books: God vs. Darwin: The War Between Evolution and Creationism in the Classroom (2009), The Achievement Gap in US Education: Canaries in the Mine (2005), and Quest for Truth: Scientific Progress and Religious Beliefs (2000).
You can email me at mano'"dot'"singham"'at"'case'"dot'"edu.
Don Wilson of The Ventures (1933-2022)
Radiation paradoxes 15: Some final thoughts
The Havana Syndrome mystery continues
An airplane is not the same as a football stadium
No more daft detectives!
NFTs (not) explained
People have many reasons to not get vaccinated. Almost all of them are bad
Trump's legal problems mount
Radiation paradoxes 14: What others have said about this problem
Rob Grigjanis on Radiation paradoxes 15: Some final thoughts
friedfish2718 on Radiation paradoxes 15: Some final thoughts
lorn on The Havana Syndrome mystery continues
seachange on Radiation paradoxes 15: Some final thoughts
Bernie on Radiation paradoxes 15: Some final thoughts
KeithR on Don Wilson of The Ventures (1933-2022)
Intransitive on Don Wilson of The Ventures (1933-2022)
Rob Grigjanis on Don Wilson of The Ventures (1933-2022)
Samantha Bee on the debate » « Future debate plans and schedule
Oh, the irony!
The wildest presidential campaign in modern US history just got even wilder with the news that Trump and his wife Melania have tested positive for covid-19 and are showing symptoms. Given that he constantly downplayed the dangers of the pandemic, mocked taking safety precautions like wearing masks, while at the same time boasting about how well he had dealt with the pandemic, this development has to come as a serious blow to that strategy. The news followed close Trump aide Hope Hicks testing positive yesterday after showing symptoms on Tuesday when she was part of the entourage that went with Trump to Cleveland for the debate. Trump's chief of staff Mark Meadows said that the Trumps' symptoms are mild but given the low credibility of Trump spokespeople, one can be forgiven for not taking those words at face value. Trump is very overweight and is 74 years of age, two big risk factors when it comes to the severity of the disease.
There is now a scramble to see who else was in contact with Trump in recent days.
Over the past five days the president has behaved with the same reckless disregard for public health rules that has characterised his response since January to the global coronavirus pandemic.
Viewed with hindsight, his meetings during the last week look ill-judged, to say the least. On Monday, Trump appeared in the White House's Rose Garden.
His audience was made up of members of Congress and state officials. Few wore masks. Neither did Trump or the vice-president Mike Pence, who followed the president to the podium. Other administration officials who were present included the health secretary, Alex M Azar, and the education secretary, Betsy DeVos. Earlier, Trump inspected a truck on the south lawn and met manufacturers from Ohio.
On Tuesday, Trump boarded Air Force One en route to the debate in Ohio. With him was a large entourage. It included members of the Trump family: his wife Melania, adult children and senior staff. Also there was his trusted aide, 31-year-old Hope Hicks. Since joining his campaign in early 2015, Hicks was often at Trump's side. She returned to his administration in spring, following an earlier spell as press secretary.
Trump's family watched the debate from the audience. None wore masks. This show of support for the president was – it seemed – transgressive. And in clear breach of host rules, which called for blue surgical masks to be worn. A Cleveland clinic doctor in a white lab coat had even tried to approach Trump family guests, offering a mask. She was unsuccessful. Someone shook their head at her as she came close, according to a press pool report.
The chair of the Republican National Committee Ronna McDaniel has also tested positive.
Trump has repeatedly mocked Biden for wearing a mask and keeping a distance from people and did so again in Tuesday's debate. Here he is doing so multiple times in just the last week. Taking his lead, White House staff did not wear masks at work, even if they were working in close proximity to one another. Even though Hicks tested positive on Thursday, Trump still went on a campaign fundraising trip after that news and did not wear a mask, further endangering others. There were reports that Trump looked tired and fell asleep on the plane returning from Cleveland and at the New Jersey fundraiser he appeared lethargic, suggesting that he was showing symptoms even before his own positive test. To go ahead with the fundraiser and not practice simple safety precautions such as wearing a mask and socially distance was sheer recklessness and shows a callous disregard for the safety of others. The people at the fundraiser are reportedly freaking out at the news.
Joe and Jill Biden have tested negative but the virus can lie low for a couple of days before showing up in tests and so you will have to see the results of re-testing in a couple of days before others can be reassured. The Bidens have wished the Trumps a speedy recovery. Given that Trump is an awful human being, you can only imagine how Trump would have reacted if the roles had been reversed and it was Biden who had tested positive. Trump and his supporters would jumped up and down in glee and possibly suggested that Biden was faking it to use as an excuse to avoid the next debate because he was scared because, in the fever swamp of their minds, Trump had done so well in the first one.
Actually, you don't need to imagine how Trump would have reacted. Here is Trump's disgusting reaction back in October 2016 when Hillary Clinton was laid low with pneumonia.
Donald Trump mocks Hillary Clinton over her pneumonia outbreak pic.twitter.com/feHjV6cLDa
— The Telegraph (@Telegraph) October 2, 2016
Trump's recklessness in dealing with the pandemic and his mocking of scientific expertise and the taking of simple, commonsense precautions is well documented. What Trump and his supporters refuse to accept is that science deals largely with probabilities, not certainties. By taking some actions, you can reduce the chances of getting the virus, by flouting them you increase the chances. By refusing to take the steps recommended by scientists, Trump was, out of sheer ignorance and bravado, needlessly stacking the odds against himself and encouraging his followers to do the same. It was all so unnecessary.
It is telling that when Trump tweeted that he had tested positive, he referred to the disease by its proper name COVID-19, in contrast to when he is talking about it at other times or when other people get it. Then he refers to it as the 'Democrat hoax' or the 'kung flu' or the 'China virus'. I wonder if any reporter will ask White House spokespeople about Trump's condition using one of those alternative labels. Probably not. Most people are decent human beings.
Politics, Science
Reginald Selkirk says
Here's hoping Biden stays healthy.
Numenaster says
I wish the country a speedy recovery. My thoughts are with the virus at this difficult time.
StonedRanger says
Oh my dear lord, Im so sorry for him. No, thats not right.
How could this happen to such wonderful people? Hmm, thats not right either.
This is just unfair and should not have happened to him. Shoot, still not right.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. LET ME GRAB MY BELLY! Thats the one.
The cheeto in cheef got just what he deserved. I dont want to say I hope he dies from this, but I hope he suffers as much as all the suffering he caused before he does die. Piece of crap.
sonofrojblake says
Given that he constantly downplayed the dangers of the pandemic, mocked taking safety precautions like wearing masks, while at the same time boasting about how well he had dealt with the pandemic, this development has to come as a serious blow to that strategy
This makes me so furious. Why are people on the left STILL this deluded after four years???
This is NOT a blow to his strategy. NOTHING short of his actual death will be a blow to the strategy. This is a HELP to his strategy.
Consider: Alexander Johnson, the British PM who is a bit like Trump but with a functioning brain, boasted of visiting hospitals with Covid patients and shaking everyone's hand. He got the virus, and got it bad, and recovered. His chief adviser flouted lockdown rules and was not sacked, didn't resign, and gave an excuse so ludicrous as to be insulting. Johnson is still in power and no worse off. He benefited from the sympathy.
Consider: there are three ways this can go.
1. Trump has a mild case and gets better quickly. Result: he can call people who died of it "weak" and "losers" or similar, AND HIS BASE WILL AGREE. Calling military veterans suckers doesn't seem to have damaged him, why would something like this?
2. Trump has a bad case… so the election gets postponed. If you would bet against this scenario, again, I think you're deluded.
3. He dies. In some ways a win, obviously, but then we get President Pence and Vice President Ivanka, probably, on a wave of sympathy. Don't think for a second this scenario isn't already being run through simulations.
If you think Trump catching this thing just after his tax affairs were made public is a bad thing for him, you are kidding yourself, in the teeth of the evidence of the last four years. That level of self-delusion would have been forgiveable in 2015, but in 2020 it is, to use one of the orange idiot's favourite words, sad.
KG says
Johnson is still in power and no worse off. He benefited from the sympathy. -- sonofrojblake@4
He's managed to convert a 26% opinion poll lead just before the pandemic struck to a 4% deficit to Labour in the latest poll. There's open grumbling abnout his incompetence among Tory MPs, he was forced to give ground to a revolt over imposing new restrictions without parliamentary approval, and his Chancellor, Rishi Sunak, is being widely talked about as a possible successor, less than a year after his triumphant general election victory.
Trump has a mild case and gets better quickly. Result: he can call people who died of it "weak" and "losers" or similar, AND HIS BASE WILL AGREE.
Of course he would, and of course they would. He may also get some sympathy, bizarre as it seems. But he has been doing his utmost to move the campaign away from the covid-19 issue, where polls show a large majority think he has done badly. This puts the focus right on it.
Trump has a bad case… so the election gets postponed. If you would bet against this scenario, again, I think you're deluded.
You're the deluded one, as so often. The election can only be postponed if both houses of Congress pass a law to do so.
He dies. In some ways a win, obviously, but then we get President Pence and Vice President Ivanka, probably, on a wave of sympathy.
That depends on what the states would do if a candidate dies before the vote. I haven't yet seen an analysis of this, I'll bet it would differe from state to state -- I'm waiting until I do before I decide whether I want Trump to die,
flex says
While I don't agree with all of sonofrojblake's comment, I suspect the first scenario he outlines will be the one that happens.
One of the important points to remember in viral infections is the viral load. The more exposure, or the longer time before the virus is noticed and treated, the sicker someone becomes (typically, not always).
I imagine that the Trump team gets tested very regularly, and it is very likely that his viral load is small. He has some factors really working against him, his age and (lack of) fitness, but it was probably found early enough that he won't have more than a mild case. Testing positive from a nasal swipe does not guarantee it has established itself strongly in the lungs. This result is just an indicator, not any assurance that he will get deathly ill. Unlike Boris who visited a hospital full of cases, and probably breathed a lot of the virus in at once.
Frankly, it is too early to tell what the results of this positive test will be. We'll know more in another week. But my suspicion is that he'll get better and this one anecdote will be used as evidence that no more restrictions on distancing or masks are necessary. Causing more needless death. I don't wish him to die, but I don't think it would stain my (non-existent) soul to much to desire that he be in pain for 2-3 weeks. If there is anyone who needs schooling in empathy it is him.
garnetstar says
I had to share this "best comment seen today" that was posted on Pharyngula:
"Justice Ginsburg, in her first appearance, successfully petitions god."
What I immediately thought (I also said on Pharyn.) was that, what goes arournd, comes around. In all ways.
Some Old Programmer says
garnetstar @7
On a related note, the Boston Globe reports that US Senator Mike Lee, on the Judiciary Committee has popped positive for COVID-19.
And he met with the nominee yesterday.
Owlmirror says
Trump has a bad case… so the election gets postponed.
If Trump+Pence are not re-elected, for whatever reason, their terms of office expire on Jan 20, 2021 regardless.
@KG,5 (and Owlmirror at 9):
The election can only be postponed if both houses of Congress pass a law to do so
You are, of course, correct.
And the evidence of the past five years shows clearly that if Donald Trump has one rock solid principle in his life, it is his respect for and adherence to the law, rules and norms of government. When his term of office expires, he will of course leave office /s
Trump has already refused to guarantee a peaceful transfer of power in the event of losing an election, he's explicitly stated that the only way he believes he can lose is if the election is rigged. He's not just dogwhistling this shit any more, he's sounding a fucking airhorn directly into your face and you're still spluttering "but, but, but… the law…" like it's some kind of magic spell or something.
It always leaves me speechless when someone talks about cheeto boy and the law. He doesnt respect the law, he doesnt care one whit what the law says. He should just croak and do us all a giant favor.
Some Old Programmer says@8,
Wow, this is just like Greek tragedy, isn't it? Like a 2020 re-make of "Oedipus Rex".
I guess that that makes the media, or we internet commenters, the chorus.
consciousness razor says
That depends on what the states would do if a candidate dies before the vote. I haven't yet seen an analysis of this, I'll bet it would differe from state to state — I'm waiting until I do before I decide whether I want Trump to die,
Changing the name(s) on the ballots is pretty much out of the question at this point. Beyond that, a whole lot of things may happen, so we can't be certain of very much. This article from Election Law Blog goes into a little more detail about how contentious and confusing it could be.
For simplicity, let's assume Trump would (otherwise) be the undisputed winner of the electoral college. Assume any important recounts are resolved quickly enough. The idea is that (in this limited sense) we do have a definite result by the first week of December, and that was supposed to be Trump/Pence.
However, Trump's dead/incapacitated and can't be president. It matters when specifically this happens, because different options are available at different points in the process. (Death is not ambiguous, but when do they decide he's "incapacitated"? Whenever it suits them, I guess.)
So, this potentially involves a bunch of different actors: RNC leaders, electors in each state, state legislators, governors, Congress, courts. It could be a gigantic mess. But if everybody falls in line with the RNC's choice for a replacement, then it would just be the ordinary type of EC mess that we're accustomed to in every presidential election.
— December 8: "States must make final decisions in any controversies over the appointment of their electors at least six days before the meeting of the electors. This is so their electoral votes will be presumed valid when presented to Congress. Decisions by States' courts are conclusive, if decided under laws enacted before Election Day."
— December 14: The electors meet to record their votes in each state.
— December 23: Those records are supposed to be received by the President of the Senate (current VP Mike Pence) and the Archivist. If the Archivist needs to take "extraordinary measures" to get these records (whatever that means), they're given a bit of time to do so.
— By January 3: Those are handed off to Congress.
— January 6: A joint session officially "counts" the votes, with the VP presiding….
If any objections to the electoral votes are made, they must be submitted in writing and be signed by at least one member of the House and one Senator. If objections are presented, the House and Senate withdraw to their respective chambers to consider the merits of the objection(s) under procedures set out in Federal law.
If no Presidential candidate wins at least 270 electoral votes (a majority of the 538 available votes), under the 12th Amendment to the Constitution the House of Representatives decides the Presidential election. If necessary, the House would elect the President by majority vote, choosing from among the three candidates who received the greatest number of electoral votes. The vote would be taken by State, with each State having one vote. (The District of Columbia does not vote because it doesn't have voting members in the House of Representatives.)
As it says there, each state delegation gets a vote, not individual representatives. In our current situation, Republicans hold a majority of those in the House, rather than Democrats as one might have assumed.
Heidi Nemeth says
It's not just Trump. The USA has a serious cultural problem -- we ignore our sicknesses. Many workers have no health insurance, no sick days, insufficient funds to visit a doctor, a fear of being fired for losing too much work (You can be fired without cause in many states), a requirement of a doctor's note of illness to get time off, nobody to care for sick children if they stay home from school (transmitting the cultural value to our children), and/or friends, family, coworkers and bosses who think nothing of going to work with a sniffle or a temperature or a day or two after surgery or a week or two after giving birth. We are rarely told by the medical establishment to stay home and take it easy when we are sick. The slick brochures from the medical titans here in Cleveland often show photos of seniors biking or hiking with the caption that they had surgery a few days before the picture was taken. How can we expect people to recognize their covid-19 symptoms and take them seriously enough to quarantine themselves when our whole culture is built on ignoring ill health? I think changing the culture so Americans respect illness and accept the need for appropriate rest, isolation and recuperation will be the biggest challenge of this pandemic
Pierce R. Butler says
What Trump and his supporters refuse to accept is […] science …
FTFY.
Ars Technica recently posted a summary of a Pew Research poll on citizens' trust in science by nation & political orientation. The most distrust, by far, was found in "conservatives" of a notably exceptional country.
Well I won't be buying any of that. Rushed to the hospital after one day, receiving at least two experimental therapies (Regeneron antibodies and Remdesivir). If Trump does recover, any claims that it is due to his excellent health and manliness are not going to fly.
@8: On a related note, the Boston Globe reports that US Senator Mike Lee, on the Judiciary Committee has popped positive for COVID-19.
Amy Coney Barrett Was Diagnosed With Coronavirus Over the Summer: Report
In which case she should have at least partial immunity.
He's not just dogwhistling this shit any more, he's sounding a fucking airhorn directly into your face and you're still spluttering "but, but, but… the law…" like it's some kind of magic spell or something. -- sonofrojblake@10,
That's plain dishonest. @5 I contradicted your claim that if Trump becomes seriously ill, the election will be postponed. You now admit that I'm right: the election can only be postponed by law, a law which would have to pass both houses of Congress. But you couldn't just admit you were wrong, you had to make the completely unjustified claim I quote above. I said nothing whatever about whether Trump would accept losing the election and leave office, because that was not the topic under discussion. If he does lose, of course he won't accept it, of course he will try every recourse, legal, semi-legal and illegal, to stay in power -- if he's still alive, and well enough to do so. That's a good reason to hope he dies or becomes permanently incapacitated. Pence might try the same, but he lacks hold Trump has over his followers, or the Republican Party.
Sorry, I screwed up the blockquoting @18.
[I fixed it. -Mano]
consciousness razor@14,
Thanks for that link. It confirms my hunch that what happens if Trump dies before the election will be different in different states. It also suggests it would be rife with possibilities for legal argument and political shenanigans.
It always leaves me speechless when someone talks about cheeto boy and the law. He doesnt respect the law, he doesnt care one whit what the law says. -- StonedRanger@11
Of course he doesn't, but that doesn't automatically make the law irrelevant. In the current case, Trump (or presumably Pence, if Trump is incapacitated) could issue an "executive order": "The election is hereby postponed", but that would not stop voting or vote-counting taking place unless the state authorities obeyed this clearly ultra vires order (the states run the election, although they are supposed to do so in a way consistent with federal law). How many would do so? Obviously, none of those where the Democrats have sufficient power to continue with the election, But even where Republicans are in power, following the order might well be a step too far for the local leadership; it would, in effect, signal support for an outright coup, and straightforward self-interest might make them unwilling to do that.
We'll know more in another week. But my suspicion is that he'll get better and this one anecdote will be used as evidence that no more restrictions on distancing or masks are necessary. -- flex@6
But it's not just him who has tested positive. Hope Hicks, Melania Trump, Bill Stepien (his campaign manager), two Republican senators (both on the Judiciary Committee), Kellyanne Conway, the President of Notre Dame University -- all these people were at the event where Trump nominated Amy Coney Barrett. We don't know that one of them infected the rest there, but most of them were sitting close together, without masks. There could hardly be a clearer demonstration of Trump's recklessness with regard to the viurs. Chances are that more attendees, andor those they have since associated with, will also test positive. Even if Trump recovers quickly, it won't be easy for him to spin the episode in his favour, particularly as a clear majority in polls already say he has handled the epidemic badly.
It confirms my hunch that what happens if Trump dies before the election will be different in different states. It also suggests it would be rife with possibilities for legal argument and political shenanigans.
Yes, it could. The states have a significant amount of autonomy, and within each state, there may be factions which try to steer it in different directions.
If the process is more or less kosher and uneventful in December (not sure how likely that is), then I don't really expect Congressional Democrats to raise objections in January, meaning they'll just accept whatever replacements the RNC has chosen. They have a strong sense of decorum, as well as a bunch of lapsed or former Republicans who are backing them. Besides, that would create another big crisis for the country, on top of the ones we're already dealing with, so I doubt they'd be willing to do that right after a big electoral loss.
Republicans are somewhat divided, but I figure Pence would be the least offensive option for president. The RNC can probably get their electors to do whatever they're told, and they should've already planned for things like this.
It's hard to say who they might pick as VP, but people tend to care a lot less about that position. Also, they don't really need to find a candidate to excite their base and give a boost for the election (which is already finished in this scenario), merely someone who won't piss them off too much over the next term or two.
mnb0 says
"Probably not. Most people are decent human beings."
In my view it would be the decent thing to ask such a question indeed -- in a polite manner. Something like: "Mr. President, is there a reason you don't call the virus "Democrat hoax", "kung flu" or "China virus" anymore? And what would that reason be?"