Neither Taiwan nor Japan conducted widespread coronavirus testing. Neither implemented countrywide “stay-at-home” lockdowns. And yet, as of April 13, the coronavirus-related death rate in both Taiwan and Japan is less than one death per million residents, compared to Spain’s mortality rate of over 350 deaths per million residents - and Spain went into total lockdown a month ago. What did Taiwan and Japan do right? The full answer to that question is still being worked out, but the widespread use of facemasks in both countries clearly played a major role in limiting viral spread. Facemasks broke the chain of transmission when infection rates were low, nipping contagion in the bud.
Are some government responses to the coronavirus more successful than others? By “successful”, I mean preventing virus-related deaths. Deaths as a percentage of a country’s population is a decent proxy for how many residents are infected, as well as the rate of serious infection - at least for developed countries with similar age demographics and where medical care is roughly similar. (Confirmed coronavirus cases is a poor indicator of virus prevalence, because so few people have been tested.)
So let’s look at the death rates as of April 10…
Here’s a definition of hope: “the perceived ability to execute envisioned routes to desirable future goals.” Hopeful people are able to envision pathways to success and feel confident in their ability to follow those pathways to achieve their goals. Socially mobile societies tend to be full of hopeful people, because they provide a foundation for hope: opportunity, personal experience, and the example of others.
The above headlines are referencing the April 5 Coronavirus Task Force Press Briefing, during which President Trump and task force members discuss the anti-malaria drug hydroxychloroquine as a possible treatment for coronavirus. Here are the relevant excerpts, with some text underlined for emphasis…
For some weeks now, President Trump has been hyping the potential of the drug hydroxychloroquine to treat COVID-19. Governor Cuomo has has expressed similar sentiments: “The president is optimistic about these drugs and we are all optimistic that it could work”. Yet only Trump gets slammed by the media for “peddling false hopes” by “touting unproven drugs”. For example…
By March 4, California had reported 53 confirmed cases of COVAD-19 while New York had reported 11 cases. At the time, there had been one coronavirus-related death in California and none in New York. Fast-forward to the March 26 death count*. California: 65. New York: 365. Why did New York spiral out of control?
Yes, a large majority of people under 60 who have been infected with the coronavirus have only mild symptoms. And I guess if someone is only concerned about their own health, that's enough to be cavalier about the possibility of getting sick. But higher risk individuals can get seriously ill and, given how contagious the coronavirus appears to be, the more people who get sick with mild symptoms, the more people who will get seriously sick in the general population.
As the above excerpt illustrates, status is about access to scarce resources in competitive situations. Higher status means greater access….Of course, one doesn’t want to be too obvious about one’s status aspirations - that reeks of desperation, which is a low-status emotion. Then again, once a person takes their high status for granted, it ceases to be sought or protected so strenuously. Ah, what a pleasant way to live: comfortable, confident and secure.
We resort to the brute force of willpower when when we have failed to avoid exposure to temptations. Willpower often works in these situations, but it can be exhausting. Willpower works best when used sparingly…Better smart self-control than hard self-control.
The following stats are care of the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), part of the U.S. Department of Justice. First, data on time served in state prisons, based on prison release records for 2016 from 44 states…So, how are US prisoners doing upon release? Turns out, not so good. This from a BJS nine-year follow-up study of state prisoners…
A bunch of studies have concluded that effective psychotherapy is almost entirely associated with factors common to all therapies but specific to none (Laska & Gurman (2014), Wampold (2015), Cuijpers, Reijnders, et al. (2019). These common factors include….
Turns out our little friend is not a preprogrammed automaton but an unpredictable creature of “unexpected depths”, a complex and strategic decision-maker capable of “changing its mind” in response to failure. For example, Stentor roeseli “can dodge, duck or flee” to avoid a threat, alternating these evasive maneuvers in a seemingly random manner until the threat is gone. Here’s a nice illustration …
Why is self-efficacy so important to how we approach the challenge of climate change? Because self-efficacy is associated with persistence, tolerance of uncertainty and risk, creativity, resourcefulness, and resilience. Qualities we all could use in the coming decades.
Money holds the promise of future satisfaction. Purchases hold the promise of fading excitement. So at least in some contexts, money may be worth more than what you can buy with it. Which doesn’t mean the economists are wrong. Only that intuitions sometimes speak to truths that economists don’t care much about.
Researchers and zookeepers know their animal charges need enriching environments to be happy in their species-typical way. Per Wild Welfare, enrichment is about “creating choices for animals so they feel more in control of their environment.”
The inspiration for these thoughts was a recent paper, “Techno-Optimism and Farmers’ Attitudes Toward Climate Change Adaptation”, in which the authors initially define techno-optimism as “the belief [in industrialized societies] that human ingenuity, through improved science and technology, will ultimately provide remedies to most current and future threats to human well-being”.
To simplify the authors’ argument:
“There are a few standard explanations for unequal outcomes. But those explanations do not explain all the variance in outcomes. Therefore, unobservable facts reflecting systemic barriers explain the rest and they are the ultimate cause of injustice. Elimination of these barriers will require fundamental change in the nature of our society.”
“Out of those [scientists] surveyed, 25 per cent said exaggerated findings, a lack of detail, and poor conclusions make research outputs untrustworthy.” Says one scientist: “There’s always someone trying to pull the wool over your eyes…”
…twice as many Democrats as Republicans consider astrology “very” scientific and Republicans are more likely than Democrats to consider astrology “not at all” scientific. What’s going on here? Is there a solid scientific case for believing in astrology?
Verheggen et al gets the final word:
“Different surveys are not directly comparable, due to different groups of people being asked different questions…. Different surveys typically use slightly different criteria to determine their survey sample and to define the consensus position, hampering a direct comparison. It is possible that our definition of “agreement” sets a higher standard than, for example, survey question[s] about whether human activity is ‘a significant contributing factor’.”