COVID-19: Relax, Mike Pence is in charge

By the time you read this, some of this information may be outdated. That said, I’ll jump in anyway. Unless you have just beamed down from another planet, you are well aware of the global COVID-19 epidemic caused by the coronavirus named SARS-CoV-2. Perhaps someone out there was comforted by learning that Mike Pence was placed in charge of managing the US response to the epidemic. I was not.

Such things are best left to people who know what they’re doing, like the doctors and scientists at the CDC, the NIH, and academic institutions. Watching the recent press conference on the COVID-19 situation given by Donald Trump would have been amusing had it not involved something so serious. While he significantly understated the number of cases in the US, and said the number of cases here was decreasing, officials from the CDC and NIH stood next to him and gave higher numbers, while sharing data about the increasing number of cases. Trump stood side-by-side with these dedicated doctors, each “side” contradicting the other. While Drs. Schuchat and Fauci warned of probable spread of COVID-19 throughout the US, Trump downplayed that possibility, as if lying about it would somehow influence the behavior of the virus. Dr. Schuchat looked nervous standing next to Trump, as if she was afraid to say something he might not approve of. Already, a health care worker who pointed out deficiencies in the isolation procedures at Travis AFB had been transferred in retaliation to her warning. Going forward, all information regarding the epidemic is supposed to be cleared by Pence, a proposition I find downright scary.

I believe the main motivation behind Trump’s decision to hold the press conference was the spectacular stock market plummet. Supply chains have been interrupted. GDP growth has gone south. While I believe the economy will recover, there will be no making up for the loss in economic growth.

Trump’s downplaying of the epidemic appears to be a desperate attempt to will the economy to turn around. In case it doesn’t, Trump pathetically tried to blame the stock market decline on the Democratic presidential debate. He knows that many of supporters are under the impression that he is responsible for our so-called booming economy, as judged by low unemployment and high stock market. These findings are in actuality a continuation of the economic growth started under the Obama administration, further fueled by Trump’s insistence on low interest rates, the latter affording us very little ability to lower interest rates to stimulate the economy if there is an economic downturn. Additionally, our low tax rate gives us little wiggle room to stimulate the economy by decreasing taxes even more.

It is worth noting that Trump’s dismantling of the epidemic monitoring and command group set up by Obama here as well as abroad (including China) has likely made the epidemic worse, and therefore the stock market plunge more severe. I think it is fair to say that at least some of the negative economic effects of the epidemic have nothing to do with him, similar to his lack of causation for much of our recent economic “success”.

No one knows exactly how bad this epidemic will be. Hopefully, it will fizzle out as we enter the spring season, much as flu season begins to dissipate then. There is, however, a lot of uncertainty and we must be prepared and be able to count on the information our government gives us. This should not be a political matter, but Trump is turning it into one. I, for one, trust the doctors and scientists. While I am not familiar with Dr. Schuchat, Dr. Fauci has a long record of accomplishments. He was a major investigator during the AIDS crisis in the 1980’s and beyond and has advanced our knowledge in the field of virology considerably. I trust what he has to say. He is not a known liar.

Is this Armageddon? Is this going to be a repeat of the 1918 Spanish flu? I doubt it will be that bad, but we should be vigilant and prepared. We need to have a unified source of information we can trust (for a glimpse of what can happen when the government lies to the public, see my previous blog on Chernobyl).

For those of you not in the medical field, you might enjoy taking the following quiz to test your general knowledge of viruses and the current epidemic.

1. Are viruses alive? Do they all contain DNA?

2. Are antibiotics effective in treating viral infections?

3. What is the death rate of COVID-19 compared to flu?

4. Did COVID-19 originate in birds, like most strains of the flu?

5. Is there any medication that can fight off COVID-19?

6. How is COVID-19 diagnosed?

7. Is there a vaccine for COVID-19?

8. What happened to SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome) and MERS (Middle East respiratory syndrome)?

Answers:

1. No and no. Most scientists do not consider viruses to be alive. At best, they occupy a gray area between living and non-living, because they do not grow and cannot replicate without using the apparatus found in the living cells they infect.

Viruses contain a nucleic acid, either RNA or DNA, which can be double-stranded or single-stranded. The COVID-19 virus contains single-stranded RNA. RNA viruses appear to mutate more easily than DNA viruses.

2. No. antibiotics work against bacteria. They do not affect viruses.

3. Current information indicates COVID-19 kills about 2% of people infected. This is likely an overestimation, as there have probably been many infected people who have not been included in this determination. Lethality is highest in older persons. Interestingly, there have been no recorded deaths in young children.

The flu kills about 0.1% of those infected. As there is much more information available on the flu, this is probably a fairly accurate number. The very young and very old are most susceptible to the flu.

Death rates from the flu in the US:

2017-2018: 79,000

2018-2019: 34,000

2019 -2020 (so far): 12,000 to 30,000

4. Every year, a new variety of the flu arises, usually from birds in Asia. The origin of the COVID-19 virus has not yet been determined. The latest theory is that it spread from bats to Chinese pangolins to humans. Pangolins are odd scaly mammals on the endangered species list. In China, they are poached for their meat and scales. The coronavirus found in pangolins has a 99% match with the virus responsible for the current outbreak.

5. There is a smattering of anti-viral drugs, perhaps the best-known being Tamiflu which is used to treat the flu. A Trial for treating COVID-19 with the investigational antiviral treatment remdesivir, made by Gilead, has started. It has shown promise in animals for treating other coronaviruses.

Interestingly, remdesivir appeared to be promising in treating Ebola virus, but is no longer used for that as it is less effective than another treatment that was developed.

6. Symptoms of COVID-19 are non-specific, and the infection therefore cannot be diagnosed without a sophisticated laboratory test. This test is not currently available for widespread use.

7. There is no current vaccine. A new vaccine by Moderna Therapeutics will be ready for clinical trials soon. If all goes well a vaccine will be widely available in 12 to 18 months (in contrast to Trump’s claim that we are “very close” to having a vaccine).

8. Many of us remember when SARS hit the news at the end of 2002. The outbreak caused almost 800 deaths (there are already more deaths caused by COVID-19). The SARS virus, also a coronavirus, has been traced to Yunnan province bats, who passed it to civets, the source of human infections. There have been no reported cases of SARS since 2004.

MERS, caused by another coronavirus, was first identified in 2012. It arose in the Middle East and appears to be lethal in approximately 1/3 of those infected. This is likely an overestimate, as many cases may have gone unreported. It doesn’t spread as easily as SARS or COVID-19. MERS appears to have arisen in bats and spread to humans by camels. There is no vaccine, and new cases continue to be reported. However, the number of cases appears to be low.

The Hallmark Movie Guarantee

Note: I don’t watch Hallmark movies (not that there’s anything wrong with it), but I have heard them discussed.

I was surprised a few years ago when someone, I’ll call her Ann, told me she won’t read a book or watch a movie without first knowing the ending. This seemed very strange to me, as I have always enjoyed the suspense of not knowing what will happen next. I have subsequently learned that a sizable minority of people share Ann’s sentiment. Many people, in fact, enjoy reading a book or watching a movie multiple times, sometimes enjoying it better when it’s familiar. I remember being told about someone who liked the original Mad Max movie so much, she saw it over a hundred times (once was enough for me).

While I still enjoy the suspense of not knowing exactly how a story turns out, I understand why someone else might not want to invest the time it takes to watch a movie, or the many hours required to read a book, while risking disappointment at the end. For Ann, a real let down would be an ending that isn’t warm and fuzzy. I think most fiction book readers and movie watchers like a happy, or at least a satisfying ending, one that doesn’t make them feel worse than they felt at the beginning of the piece.

That would be nice for non-fiction, too, although I think most people understand that reality isn’t always happy. The endings to biographies of famous people of yore usually includes the subject’s death. Even though I knew the fate of Alexander Hamilton from my knowledge of American history, when I read his biography by Ron Chernow, I would have preferred a different ending. Same with the play. The duel was so lame, such a letdown, the story would have made for a terrible work of fiction.

There are reasons other than a depressing finish for people to be disappointed in the ending of a book or movie. Finding out that the whole story was only a dream from which the protagonist wakes up at the end can be very annoying. If the character is saved from an apparently inescapable disaster by something contrived, magical or from completely out of nowhere (called deus ex machina, which literally means a god from a machine), the reader or movie-watcher can feel ripped off. Ditto when there is no resolution to a problem, an uncertain future, or the story just collapses in a mess that doesn’t make sense (ever see Mulholland Drive?). Yet another reason some people like to find out the ending to a story before reading or watching it is that they simply can’t take the tension of not knowing what will happen.

That being said, I believe that most people, including myself, enjoy the tension of not being sure how a story ends, trying to guess what’s going to happen, and being surprised. We still, however, don’t want to be disappointed at the end (whatever disappointment means to a particular individual) and may rely on reviews or familiarity with an author or director to protect us from disappointment.

I, for one, bring my own attitude about endings to my writing. Although some disturbing things may happen, my endings are meant to be satisfying to most readers. Maybe not as saccharin sweet as a Hallmark movie, but comfortable. While the exact ending in some of my short stories may not be explicitly stated, it’s pretty clear what will happen. No magic or saviors appearing out of nowhere in my stuff. If you’re one of the few who want to experience the protagonist being beheaded with blood spurting all over, or a child being sold into slavery at the end, I’ll save you the trouble of reading the ending and tell you up front–you won’t like my stories.

That brings me to the title of this missive. What do I mean by the Hallmark movie guarantee? I mean, you know what you’re going to get. The way you can count on a Big Mac being a Big Mac without needing to vet it. The ending of a Hallmark movie is something the viewer can always count on. The couple will live happily ever after. Ann can watch one of them without first watching the ending. Satisfaction guaranteed, if you like that sort of thing.

It would be nice to have a rating for movies and books (short stories, too, while I’m at it) to ensure that the ending fulfills certain parameters. We can easily find out if there is violence, explicit sex, or vulgar language. But there is no rating to warn us of movies or books that have depressing endings, endings that make no sense, or involve magic or dreams. If such a rating existed, those who worry about the ending could have the joy of being surprised without being concerned about wasting time on something they will ultimately hate.

I haven’t even touched on the phenomenon of being able to choose from a selection of alternative endings. For those of you who prefer that option, please decide which of the following finishes to this blog you prefer:

1. I must confess that I enjoy watching Shawshack Redemption from time to time. I’ve probably seen it at least five times (more than any other movie). Don’t think I would tolerate a hundred, though.

2. I see it’s time to wrap this up. My guests, a group of eight adorable ten-year-olds, dressed in warm jackets, wool hats and mittens, has just arrived. It is a multi-racial gathering and includes two children with disabilities. All the kids have clean faces and bear bright smiles. I will serve them hot cocoa and delicious-smelling chocolate chip cookies that have just finished baking in the oven. We will laugh, tell jokes (all clean) and share stories for the next three hours. Yeah – in your dreams.

Have You Ever Smashed Your Cell Phone?

One of my novels features a shy, brilliant graduate student. In the original version (which has been changed several times), a woman he has a crush on makes it clear in a cell phone conversation with him that his feelings aren’t reciprocated. He is devastated, and lies curled up on his bed, unable to face the world for several hours. A reasonable reaction, I thought.

A developmental editor who was advising me thought I had it all wrong. The character, in his opinion, should have smashed his phone to smithereens, then thrown everything off his desk, in a fit of rage. I argued that such a reaction wouldn’t fit the character (in fact it would fit very few characters, in my opinion). A highly achieved academic would hardly be expected to destroy his own cell phone and throw the papers on his desk into disarray, the re-organization of which would likely take several hours. We argued back and forth, each insisting on our respective positions. In the end, I won as it was my novel and I therefore had the final say.

This brings to mind emotional intelligence, a description popularized in 2005 by Daniel Goleman in his book Emotional Intelligence: Why It Can Matter More than IQ. Emotional intelligence refers to one’s ability to control and express emotions. One of the components of emotional intelligence is self-regulation. I would argue that intentionally destroying one’s own cell phone and trashing the surroundings is a manifestation of very poor self-regulation. Not a desirable trait.

A common expression used by members of the creative writing community is “show, don’t tell.” In other words, instead of simply saying “Steve is sad,” describe Steve’s reaction. Write about a tear trickling down Steve’s face, a lack of energy, a somber expression, loss of appetite, maybe even an achy breaky heart (credit to Billy Ray Cyrus, Miley’s dad). That’s all good. Realistic, and more descriptive and interesting than simply stating “sad.” But trashing the place? Bad idea.

I don’t remember ever wanting to destroy property, especially my own, because things didn’t go my way. Not even as a little kid. I’d be thinking “I like that thing, and don’t want to be without it,” or “I worked hard on that and I certainly don’t want to do all that research, writing, or organization again,” and “I sure don’t want to have to clean up a mess.” Although I’m not aware of anyone I know ever doing this, I realize there are some people who actually do throw things around (usually at someone) when they’re really pissed off. But let’s face it, people who do that sort of thing are generally a bit emotionally unhinged to begin with. So unless a character has shown a tendency towards irrational behavior, or the author wants to show such a proclivity, he or she shouldn’t suddenly start destroying their (yes – it is now considered grammatically proper to use “their” instead of “his” “her” or “his or her”) own property.

So why did this editor think I should have my intelligent, logical, law-abiding character throw his stuff around? I may be wrong, but I have concluded this is a new fad. I think it started in television because after the discussion with my editor, I started noticing many instances of TV characters getting upset, then clearing everything off their desk or other surfaces with one angry swoop of their arm, breaking things and making a mess. If this emotional outburst happens to take place in a kitchen, food is involved. I realized that I’d noticed this before and had always found it disturbing and unrealistic. But my discussion made me aware of this new writing low, which now appears to be common in movies, too. To see this in visual media is especially perplexing, where if the actor is at all decent, they should be able to convey a feeling of disappointment or anger by using their acting skills in a realistic way. They shouldn’t need to resort to a violent, over-the-top reaction.

I can often tell if someone is angry or upset by their behavior, without having to witness them smash their cell phone or throw dishes on the floor. All you TV and Movie scriptwriters out there, please pay attention. You’re better than that. Don’t have your character smash things. Write something realistic.

For instance, in Rain Man, the 1988 movie about a young man (played by Tom Cruise) who finds out he will not be getting the inheritance he expected after his father’s death because the money is being left in a trust for his autistic brother (played by Dustin Hoffman), there are several scenes where the Cruise character gets angry, but he doesn’t break things. The most he does is kick some dirt by a phone booth. There are plenty of other good movies that rely on acting, not silly stunts, to get the point across. Try watching some of them, and decide for yourself whether films (and books) need to rely on violence towards objects to convey feelings of anger. Is it really necessary to portray low emotional intelligence as the norm?