CDC has released a new wastewater monitoring dashboard, according to Forbes, which oddly does not link to the new dashboard or even tell us the name of it so it would be easy to find. Wastewater monitoring to me seems like a very useful tool in the toolbox to monitor public health and diseases of concern, whether common or exotic, well known or emerging.
Intercept tries to explain the recent developments on the lab leak hypothesis, but it still leaves me a bit confused. Here are the facts as I understand them:
So, there’s a fair amount of circumstantial evidence and second- or third-hand eyewitness accounts here. And the U.S. State Department is not averse to twisting facts to fit a narrative it thinks is in the U.S. national interest. Nonetheless, there are an awful lot of coincidences here. Maybe the U.S. government would like to pin this on the Chinese government, but there is a certain irony if they managed to f— over all of humanity together. And this would be the first plague unleashed on international humanity as a result of biological engineering.
The WHO has taken upon itself development of an international agreement (hopefully, eventually, a treaty), to prepare and respond to the next pandemic. There’s nothing too surprising here, but hopefully it will help to have a playbook next time around.
Speaking of public.substack.com, they say there is evidence that three scientists engaged in “gain of function” lab at the Wuhan institute of virology were the first to be infected by Covid-19. Matt Taibbi also covers this story.
This narrative holds together logically for me. There is still the problem however that I don’t trust U.S.-based reporting about China. I’m not saying everything we hear is an outright lie, I am saying there is a whiff of propaganda in the air that taints every news story so it is hard to tell truth from half-truth.
Even if this is true, there is the question of whether the research was for civilian or military purposes and who funded it (some reporting suggests the U.S. government played a role). It’s hard for me to buy the idea that this was a bio-weapon because it doesn’t seem to have been a very good one. Is a good bioweapon one that initially did not spread all that fast and kills less than 1% of people it infects, skewed towards the elderly? And one that no vaccine was yet available to the party that supposedly created the bioweapon? If there is anything suspicious, it is that the U.S. government pretty much had the vaccine technology developed and just had to figure out how to commercialize and distribute it. Even though this seemed excruciatingly slow when you lived through it, similar processes in the past took decades that this time around were accomplished in a year or so.
Well, I’ve finally done it to myself. My posting rate has flagged because I have overshot the limits of how much one person can reasonably do between work, family, school, and life. You can overshoot the limits for awhile, even quite a while, but eventually you pay that debt in the form of burnout at a minimum, and mental and physical and social difficulties if you wait too long to address it. Not to worry, in the medium term this problem is solvable and I will solve it. Because reading, thinking, writing, and then more thinking (mostly in that order) or very important to me. Anyway, here are some picks from the posts I did manage to make in February.
Most frightening and/or depressing story: The Covid-19 “lab leak hypothesis” is still out there. Is this even news? I’m not sure. But what is frightening to me is that deadly natural and engineered pathogens are being worked with in labs, and they almost inevitably will escape or be released intentionally to threaten us all at some point. It’s like nuclear proliferation, accidents, and terrorism – we have had a lot of near misses and a lot of luck over the last 70 years or so. Can we afford the same with biological threats (not to mention nuclear threats) – I think no. Are we doing enough as a civilization to mitigate this civilization-ending threat? I think almost certainly, obviously not. What are we doing? What are we thinking?
Most hopeful story: Just stop your motor vehicle and let elephants cross the road when and where they want to. Seriously, don’t mess with elephants.
Most interesting story, that was not particularly frightening or hopeful, or perhaps was a mixture of both: Chickie Nobs have arrived!
The lab leak hypothesis is back baby! Well, there is no new scientific evidence. But the U.S. “intelligence community” has now reported that it is officially split on the issue, with some agencies favoring the hypothesis. Snopes has a good explainer. The intelligence agencies’ main argument seems to be that…there is no new scientific evidence. So do the scientists and intelligence community even disagree? Or is there a science communication problem here? The scientists may be saying a natural origin is more likely than not, but the evidence is not so strong that they are willing to completely reject other hypotheses. The intelligence agencies meanwhile may have a much lower bar in terms of uncertainty, and they have an axe to grind with China. I haven’t forgotten their “intelligence assessment” of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, on which there was unanimous agreement.
It seems to me there are some different flavors of the lab leak hypothesis though. We know the Wuhan lab was working with bat viruses. We know they at least applied for funding at some point for genetic engineering experiments on bat viruses, because a U.S. organization was a party to that and it has been made public. We know their safety standards have been criticized. So…a lab researcher or employee could have been exposed and infected by a naturally occurring virus that was being studied there. Or they could have been exposed and infected by a genetically engineered virus that was being studied there. If the latter happened, that genetically engineered virus could have been under study for legitimate medical and public health reasons, even safety standards were inadequate. Or, maybe this is a biowarfare laboratory run by Dr. Evil. Nobody does bioweapons research by international treaty, and I just assume everybody including the United States does it.
If the problem is not the existence of adequate safety standards, but their implementation and enforcement, there are fairly obvious things that could be done to minimize the risk of a future lab leak. Training, inspections, accountability. Something akin to the IAEA’s nuclear weapons inspection regime could work. It would be in everyone’s best interests to agree and follow this course of action, right?
First, my heart goes out to anyone who suffered hardship or lost a loved one in 2022. People still died from Covid-19 of course, not to mention other diseases, violence, and accidents. People are living, dying, and suffering horribly in war zones from Ukraine to the Middle East to Myanmar. Having said all that, for those of us living relatively sheltered lives in relatively sheltered locations like the United States, 2022 does not seem like it will rank among the best or worst of years in history.
These are the posts I picked each month as most frightening and/or depressing, most hopeful, and most interesting.
Most frightening and/or depressing stories:
Most hopeful stories:
Most interesting stories, that were not particularly frightening or hopeful, or perhaps were a mixture of both:
Technology
The last couple years, I led off with other things and came around to a technology roundup towards the end. This year, I’ll just shake things up (yes, I’m wild and crazy like that) and lead off with technology developments during the year.
Solar energy has been a long time coming, but 2022 was a year when it really started to be at the forefront of the energy conversation and hard for the skeptics to ignore. We keep hearing that it is now the cheapest form of energy to build and put into operation. That means it is now limited by the materials needed to produce the panels, by the space needed to deploy the panels, and by the transmission and temporary storage infrastructure. Building rooftops take up a lot of space and are mostly not used for other things, so this seems like an obvious place to put the panels. The oceans of pavement we use to operate and park vehicles make up another somewhat obvious place – we can toughen the panels and drive on them, or we can put cheap roofs over the pavement and cover them with panels. Materials can be an issue because many of them are mined and sold by unsavory characters and governments, and there is clearly an environmental impact. But remember that we are trading this off against today’s coal, oil, and natural gas industry, not against some socially and ecologically blameless party. This industry intentionally lied to the public for decades and in the process did immeasurable damage to a planetary biophysical system.
Metals and minerals are also just limited. But even in hard-nosed economic terms, if solar panels are the lowest-cost option as we are hearing, they are holding their own with the costs of extracting, transporting, and burning fossil fuels. We could tax social and environmental impacts at international borders if we had the courage to do so, but even without that it is hard to imagine a system more damaging and irresponsible than the one we have been dealing with for the past century or so.
People will also say we haven’t kept the distribution infrastructure up to date, and this is true. In the United States at least, we don’t keep public infrastructure in a state of good repair. But we do create infrastructure when big business demands it, and they will demand an electric grid that can support their products when it comes to electric vehicles, devices and facilities. There may be a period of pain between when big business demands it and when the U.S. government provides it, and other countries will almost certainly outdistance us.
Longer term, as Fully Automated Luxury Communism tells it, space for solar panels will not be a problem because we will put them in, well, space. And this is not a far-future fantasy. The technology to gather the energy in space and beam it to the Earth pretty much exists now and governments and companies are seriously working on practical implementation. They swear it is safe, and even if it is not totally risk-free remember again all the death, pollution, and permanent planetary destruction the fossil fuel sociopaths have wrought.
Now, what about nuclear power? If we had really focused on it decades ago, we might not be in the climate change mess we find ourselves in now. It could still be a solution to the climate change mess in the future. But given how long it takes to bring new nuclear technology online at a large scale, and how fast solar energy appears to be scaling up and how reliable it appears to be, is it time to stop working on nuclear? I’m talking about known fission technology here. As for fusion, given that it is “always 20 years away” (no matter the year we are actually in), is it time to stop working on it and just throw all our research efforts at solar?
And materials will not be a problem either because we will produce them from asteroids and bring them to Earth, ending material shortages forever. I say, good but better to just use them to build things in space because we are running out of capacity to absorb the byproducts of the materials we already have down here. Just digging things up that were already in the ground and pumping them into the atmosphere and oceans has caused enough trouble.
By the way, once we are in space and messing around with asteroids, government and private actors will be able to divert their trajectories. It is easy to imagine scenarios where this is a great thing that actually saves all life on the planet. It is also easy to imagine scenarios where industrial accidents or intentional government actions threaten life on the planet. An international treaty and some oversight of this seems like a good idea as the messing-with-asteroids industry really starts to get going.
I don’t have my pet mini-mammoth yet, but biotechnology is continuing to gain steam. The idea of treating aging as a disease to be cured seems almost too obvious, but it seems to remove some bureaucratic obstacles that have been holding science and medicine back. Covid-19 was probably, maybe, perhaps not a lab leak. But it could have been, because the technology to make something like it, or much worse, exists in labs right now. It could be made if it has not already, and it could be leaked accidentally or intentionally, if it has not been already. And like nuclear technology, it will proliferate. Compared to nuclear technology, I think it will proliferate much faster and be much easier to hide. I have trouble envisioning any solution to this that does not involve heavy-handed surveillance.
On the positive side, biotechnology may be able to feed us when there are a lot more of us. With cellular agriculture, we can theoretically make meat or just about any kind of plant or animal tissue, and then we can eat it. We may finally be on the verge of modifying plants so they can make more efficient use of the sun’s energy, which is both exciting and scary. With a combination of abundant cheap electricity (from solar energy), abundant cheap materials, and highly efficient lighting though, we might be able to grow all the food we need in high rises without needing frankenplants.
And finally, the idea of controlling the weather with windmills is pretty fascinating. If we figure this one out, we might be able to end damage from floods, droughts, and hurricanes. But obvious Bond villain Elon Musk will also be able to use this to hold the world hostage for ONE HUNDRED TRILLION DOLLARS. That doesn’t really matter though because he is probably already planning to crash an asteroid into us anyway.
Propaganda, Social Media, and Truth
Social media is being blamed for a lot of our social ills at the moment. When we hear “social media” discussed, it seems to mean first and foremost interactive sites like Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc. where anyone can post a short snippet of any information they want and make it available to anybody else on the platform. Youtube also seems to fit this mold to some extent, although Youtube is a mix of personal and professionally-produced content. Then, underlying all this are Google search and other algorithms or “search” engines which are searching both for content to show individuals and individuals to show content. There are bloggers using WordPress and a million other tools and sites trying to get their content out, usually not all that widely if my personal experience is any indication (to the 5 or 6 people worldwide who read this blog regularly?) Then there is the huge ecosystem of Amazon and all the other sites trying to sell us stuff. Then there is professional journalistic media and traditional publishing companies trying to have their say (and sell us stuff), and finally there is some sense of the broader internet underlying all this.
Beyond trying to sell us stuff, corporations and non-profit entities are trying to manipulate all these communication channels to get their messages into our heads. This is propaganda, with the main goal being to sell us stuff and a secondary goal being to create awareness and positive images of their brands so they can keep selling us stuff. Also so people won’t complain to politicians about whatever the corporations are doing and risk those politicians meddling in the system in ways that are averse to corporate profits. At the same time, these companies and special interest groups are paying off the politicians to support their interests behind the scenes. This works out well for them (the corporations, special interests and politicians).
Finally we have the U.S. government and governments around the world trying to influence public opinion, occasionally by providing accurate information, sometimes outright lies, and often something in between.
All this is competing for our “attention”. Personally, I strongly prefer having more information to less, and I do not want to see regulation aimed at reducing the amount of information available to me. I believe, perhaps naively, that I have some ability to distinguish truth from falsehood, fact from opinion, and objective/honest communication from dishonest attempts to influence me. Regulation to protect children might be an exception to this – if social media sites are facilitating bullying and leading to mental health problems and even suicides, that is worth dealing with.
“Great Power Competition”, the “International Order”, and the United Nations
A major world leader of our time died in 2022. Okay, two world leaders if you really want to count Queen Victoria, but I am talking about Mikhail Gorbachev. To me, he represents a moment when optimism and visionary leadership had a chance to flower to the benefit of our civilization. He had a vision of long-term peace and stability, with powerful nation-states ceding some of their power to some form of world government. The basic vision was that no nation-state, no matter how powerful, would be able to succeed through violent means if it was opposed by all other nation-states acting together. With the threat of catastrophic war mostly behind us, humanity could have focused on solving all the other thorny problems, from food to energy to pollution to inequality. This was a beautiful vision, but unfortunately its moment passed us by, and we are back to the old cynical idea of coalitions of “great powers” arrayed against each other.
With the threat of catastrophic violence hanging over us, we are not focused on solving those other problems. The United Nations was supposed to at least be the seed of that new order that would usher in long-term peace and prosperity for our species. To be sure, the United Nations has accomplished a lot when it comes to human rights, science, agriculture, refugees, and other areas. It has also been a place where all the not-so-great powers of the world can band together and make their voices somewhat heard. But the Security Council was supposed to be the One Ring to Rule Them All and make “great power competition” obsolete. This has failed utterly, with the Security Council considered all but irrelevant at this point. Not only is “great power competition” ascendant, we seem to be proud of ourselves for bringing it back. If there is a devil, he must truly love “great power competition”.
With the threat of catastrophic violence hanging over us, we have failed utterly to solve other existential problems such as food security, global warming, sea level rise, ever-growing concentration of wealth, and the specter of a Captain Trips extinction plague whether of natural or manmade origin.
Resilience. Despite taking a gut punch, at the end of 2022 it feels as though our planetary civilization weathered the storm of Covid-19 and has more or less rebounded to something like the trend it would have been on. This is the textbook definition of resilience, and something to feel good about. If we get some time in between gut punches, we at least have an opportunity to work on our other problems while also preparing for the next gut punch. If we don’t make progress, maybe we can at least reach a state of stagnation rather than a self-actuated collapse. Can a civilization be resilient and stagnant at the same time? Maybe this is where we find ourselves, at least in the near term.
This STAT article surveys not what they recommend to others, but what they are actually doing. The sample size is 34, so I am not sure this qualifies as a scientific survey. But to summarize, they are ALL getting the bivalent booster. Almost all are wearing masks when they go shopping. Most are eating indoors and attending family gatherings, but they are testing first. Most are letting their children and grandchildren engage in more or less normal activities, but requiring or encouraging them to wear masks.
So, it seems at least this group of people with scientific/medical knowledge about Covid-19 are being more conservative than the public at large.
This makes some sense to me. By getting jabbed with needles as much as possible, we train our bodies to deal with a wide range of diseases, including ones it hasn’t seen yet.
How can a vaccine designed to protect against one disease be effective against a different disease?
Researchers think the vaccine trains the body to respond more quickly and more effectively to any pathogen it sees, Bruxvoort said…
One hypothesis is that different viruses have common characteristics that apply to all, said Dr. Lara Jehi, the Clinic’s chief research information officer and co-author of the Clinic-Brigham and Women’s study.
Cleveland.com
I remember reading about the BCG vaccine, which is a vaccine given to babies in tropical countries where tuberculosis is common. It leaves a scar, unfortunately, but I wonder if it could be part of the reason tropical countries in general seem to have been more resistant to the disease. Although I think another possible factor could be that people in tropical countries and poorer countries (which often go together) are just more used to and accepting of disease and their experience with Covid was not as thoroughly reported.
This article in PNAS estimates that a universal health care system in the United States could have prevented 212,000 deaths in 2020 alone. That is a big fraction of the total Covid deaths that year – I don’t have the number at my fingertips but total deaths over the whole pandemic (and caused by the pandemic) recently passed one million. I assume this does not count all the deaths from other causes that a health care system could have prevented. This sounds like a pro-life policy to me!