Chadwick Boseman, Movie Hero Among Heros

 I am stunned by the news of the passing of Chadwick Boseman, who was not just a movie star for me, but an iconic cultural revolution.  I don't really know much about Boseman as a person, but his portrayal of T'Challa, the Chief of Wakanda,  Black Panther was enough to cement his place in history. 

This is not just a movie.  It is the first time Hollywood--as a true reflection of American society-- overcame its stupid racism long enough to make an Afrocentric superhero movie.  I believe it has unleashed a vision, a dream deferred that may awaken the imagination of millions of people

For decades Hollywood turned up its nose at rowdy Stan Lee and Marvel comics, ever since the first superhero movie (Robin Hood, in 1939).  Nobody in Hollywood thought paying customers would want to watch the likes of Spider-man or Captain-America, and if they were worried about those fellows they were absolutely petrified of Africans with their own superhero.  The cultural ramifications were enormous. 

You know what?  They were right.  They showed for the first time a VISION of a leader striving for social justice in an unjust world.  They also showed African controlling advanced technologies at the cutting edge of global advancement.

If you look at past superhero movies set in Africa (such as Tarzan or the Phantom), the African people are poor and technologically backward.  They really need a white fellow to tell them what to do and to save them from bad guys.  

The Black Panther, on the other hand, is visually stunning and beautiful.  If there were no superheros and no action in it all, it would be a great movie because of the lush scenery and the beautiful African costumes, that combine traditionalism and the modern world.  The people never chose to give up their culture to act like westerners.  They kept their culture while advancing in high tech, thanks to their accomplishments, which started with a near magic metal, but spread to metals and other high tech beyond the capabilities of even Stark Industries.  

This is the vision I believe America needs.  Yes, you can be an African kid and you can be on a spaceship that colonizes Mars.  You can invent medicine that cures cancer. You can build a building taller than anyone else has ever built before.  You can do all of these things, and you don't have to give up your identity, your roots or your culture.  This is the vision for  America.

Hollywood, despite its wretchedness and racism was amazed to find that people actually watched a movie about Africans.  The Marvel Crew, with direction and production that relied heavily upon a culturally diverse crew (i.e, with the white guys doing their best to stay out of the way this time) knocked it out of the park yet again.  

My prediction is it is going to change the way children think about themselves.   Superheroes help us to dare to do the impossible.  Up until Black Panther, American expectations for persons of African descent were much more limited.  Truly, fairy tales and superheros have a role in the human psyche.  The ability to dream powerful dreams is very important.  The suppression of these dreams, even in a movie, may seem like a minor thing, but to me it was very wrong and it persisted for decades.  

Chadwick Boseman and his colleagues smashed the stereotypes into pieces. It was a masterpiece, and freeing on so many levels.  

A similar story could be written about Gal Gadot and Wonder Woman.  For decades, Hollywood would not let a female superheroine have her own story, and would not let real-world women direct or produce it.  I can't wait to see the next Wonder Woman.

But the next Black Panther movie will have something missing in it.   I cannot believe that Chadwick is gone.  God bless you and your family, friends and fans.  Your contribution will never be forgotten and it is only now starting to be appreciated.  

Froschauer Bible pictures

List of Johannes Kennel's children.

The Right to Infect

Just because a man makes the decision to use a condom does not mean he is weak and fears becoming pregnant, so why does it offend someone's sense of masculinity to wear a mask to protect others from potential transmission of Covid-19?  

A man wears a condom to protect someone he loves from getting a dreaded disease or having an unwanted pregnancy, right?  So everyone, men and women, should willingly wear masks and gloves to slow down the transmission of Covid-19, by the same logic. 

Then I realized how foolish and naive I am.  The fact of the matter is that in this society, it is indeed a sign of great weakness to wear a condom and to give consideration to the needs of others.  The numbers say that there are enormous numbers of HIV, HERPES, STD and unwanted pregnancies routinely transmitted. The New York Times reported that at any point in time there are 110 million sexually transmitted diseases in the US.  I found that number hard to believe, but checking with the Center for Disease Control in the US, they claim there are 24 million new cases of sexually transmitted cases per year.  That is several times higher than the birth rate.  So totally preventable diseases are more or less freely transmitted in American society.  It is the norm.  

The numbers show that men surely do NOT protect their lovers from these terrible outcomes.  I joked about men having no fear of becoming pregnant, but they are not afraid of getting women pregnant, either.   Condom companies are obviously lousy investments, because evidently almost nobody is using them.  

If you are one of the few men who are using a condom, God bless you.

Evidently, however, many men are willfully transmitting these diseases to women who foolishly trust that their men are telling the truth that they do not have the ability to transmit these diseases ("trust me, I'm sure I'm clean, baby") or that they are willing to be responsible for the outcome ("of course I'll respect you in the morning!").  These are lies, of course.  Numbers this huge cannot be accidental.  There is a very high probability of transmitting the disease, not like Covid-19 in which at any point in time the chances of being a transmitting carrier is rather low.  

Hence, there is a pervasive belief in the right to infect others, and the right to lie.  So if men are not going to wear condoms and are willing to tell lies in order to avoid using them, they sure as hell do not care one iota about wearing a mask to save your life from Covid-19.  Get serious.  Protecting the health of a random member of the public from a serious but usually temporary illness is just not that high of a priority once they have deliberately given their lover a disease that may have lifetime implications. 

Only a minority of people are considerate enough to take even the smallest of actions to help each other..  The rest are just going to cough on you and feel that it is part of their constitutional rights.   It probably isn't, but you would have to go to court to prove it, so good luck with that.     

For that matter, if you get too close, you may also wind up with herpes, AIDS, venereal disease and what will you name the baby?   

No mask.

No condom.

No responsibility. 

No regrets.

In that context, it is very understandable why many people, especially men are offended by the idea of being asked to wear a mask.  Sadly, it is considered un-American by many of us and will take a long time to change.  

I'm wearing my masks and gloves anyway, to protect even stupid people who believe I am un-American and unmasculine.  I accept those terms.   

So Why are New Cases of Covid-19 Decreasing in Sweden?

Why are new cases per capita of Covid-19 apparently decreasing in Sweden even as critics blast the country for failing to control the disease?  This is a statistically significant trend.   I wish to make up my own mind about the situation and I find that the story lines published in media do not make logical sense to me.  

Briefly, the situation is that the Swedish government imposed fewer mandatory restrictions on young, healthy people, while asking older, more vulnerable people to try to isolate themselves.  The rest of the world asked everyone to isolate, healthy or not.  The Swedish idea was that the general population would build up some level of resistance to the disease, keeping in mind that this disease has no cure and that there are no established right answers to refer to.  

This suggests to me that the world urgently needs to be open minded and try to study and learn from what others are doing.  Okay, the entire world has made mistakes starting with the highest medical authorities in the world, but we all have a job to do to look after one another, so let's assign blame later, shall we?  

If the Swedish concept was wrong, what we should have seen is a widespread exponential increase among the young less isolated young people, while the  more isolated elderly people should be about the same as other like countries, right?

Instead, we see the opposite.  The death rate among the elderly was very high early on, among the  highest in Europe.  The incidence of new cases in Sweden is now seen to be significantly decreasing.  This is the exact opposite of what the critics predicted.

Incidentally,  I have noticed that Swedish data for new cases goes up and down with a seven day cycle, apparently because their test rate varies during the week.  I have plotted the per capita new infection rate for Sweden (blue) compared to the same stat for Ohio (red), where I live.  Of course there are a number of variables that affect the number of cases, but Ohio is generally thought to have had a well controlled situation especially early on, while Sweden has become a target for world criticism.    Nevertheless, for months they  tracked similarly, at about 50 new cases per day per million residents (Sweden has about 10.2 million residents, Ohio 11.7 million so we are similar populations too).  Recently Ohio has attempted to restart its economy and is seeing a rise in the number of new cases.  

According to NPR's Bill Chappell, (Swedish Disease Expert Calls WHO's COVID-19 Warning 'A Total Mistake' June 26, 2020) Swedish state epidemiologist Anders Tegnell says  Dr. Hans Henri P. Kluge, the WHO's regional director for Europe,  made "a total mistake"when it concluded Sweden is seeing a surge of coronavirus cases. Kluge said on Thursday that Sweden, among others, has "accelerated transmission has led to very significant resurgence that if left unchecked will push health systems to the brink once again in Europe." 

Tegnell claims that this big June surge is simply due to increased testing. 

Okay.....so.....IS IT TRUE?   Since peaking on June 24, the Swedish incidence of new cases, is headed distinctly lower.   Are they reporting fake data?  Deaths peaked on April 15 and have been steadily decreasing ever since.  Is it TRUE OR FAKE?  

I've heard some experts say that Swedish society is way for away from being able to resist the disease based on the percentage of people who have antibodies present.  Well, I'm not an expert but it seems to me that  people do not fully understand this disease.  Although many experts are disappointed in the percentage of the population in Sweden and elsewhere that carry Covid-19 antibodies, others have questioned the role that T cells (T lymphocytes) might play in augmenting the human immune system. I'll have to defer to the experts to determine whether T-cells actually change the equation for resisting and slowing down the disease.  Maybe antibodies, T-cells, social distancing and some other x-factor all have roles to play and we ought not just dismiss it as nonsense.  

I think everyone agrees that Sweden would like to have changed procedures to better protect the elderly, because the death rate as of April 15 was much too high, but that's not what this is about, is it?  The question was whether they can avoid the catastrophe of an exponential increase in which  a large fraction of the entire society is ill simultaneously and overloads the medical system.  Instead, we all  hoped to "flatten the curve" to avert a shortage of hospital beds at least until a vaccine or medicines are created.  

I do not wish to use the term "herd immunity" because it is so emotionally charged now that it is a meaningless term.  But what I do want to say is the following:  the numbers now say the number of new cases of Covid-19 peaked on June 24 and have decreased by a statistically significant amount in Sweden, to the point that they are now significantly lower than the numbers in Ohio and the US as a whole.  Either the Swedish government is lying or is not testing or....perhaps it is not so ridiculous to suggest they are succeeding in controlling this disease.  

       

One thing is for sure, there is no let up in relentless criticism of Sweden from the highest levels of international organizations down to supermarket tabloids.

      

Boycott Swedish meatballs at the grocery store if you must.  However, it behooves us to determine whether the numbers are correct before concluding we have nothing to learn from the approach this highly advanced country has taken.

  

Trump Cannot Win, but Biden Can Lose. It depends on whose meltdown is more spectacular.

    President Trump has unintentionally succeeded in energizing the left to such an extent that he cannot overcome their lead by rallying his troops on the right.  What the President taught us in 2016 is that the old adage is completely wrong:  "run right in the primaries, run to center in the general election."  He proved to get out the vote, the candidate should do things that appeal to crazy people who would normally not vote. Run right and stay right.  But if the left is fully mobilized, there is too large of a numerical majority for the right to overcome it.  

    Well, the left is energized now. All the taunting and put-downs during three and a half years of the Trump Presidency have finally boiled over. We have not seen anything like this since the Viet Nam era. The catalyst, of course is Black Lives Matter.  The left seems very motivated to go out and vote, and they have a large majority around he country.  If this holds till November, former Vice President Biden will surely win.  
      In order for the President to win, the left is going to have to collapse, yet that could actually happen.  
      The political right is going to point out that the former Vice President acts as if he has dementia at times.  In fact, the left-leaning Washington Post says the same thing, so it is a viable campaign issue, like it or not.  I'm no doctor, but anyone can see that the former Vice President at least acts like he is demented at times.  Even Biden attempts to laugh it off, calling himself a gaffe machine. In any case, mental fitness is a real issue, and probably the only issue large enough to cause a meltdown larger than the meltdown already being experienced by the President.  
     Truthfully, I think that the Democratic Party apparatus is demented, if dementia is defined broadly as a persistent disorder characterized by dysfunctional impaired reasoning. Put it this way, they were ill in 2016 and there is very little sign of recovery.  In fact, they  have provided the American people with a candidate that avoids their greatest fears, but in so doing, seems made to order to lose to the President.   Covid, and Trump's foolishness, is the main factor that can save the Biden campaign.
     Biden won the nomination because the Democrats are paranoid, and completely intimidated by the President. I mean this in absolutely the worst, uncomplimentary way.  Their fear of Trump has paralyzed their reasoning ability and they were not able to make rational decisions in the candidate selection process.  
     They could have selected a young energetic candidate like Amy Klobuchar, who is anti-war and a moderate.  But they were afraid that a woman can not beat Donald Trump. On this point we have been scolded  by any number of party loyalists.   That is simply fear speaking.  
     They also could have chosen Peter Butigieg, the most dynamic leader and Afghanistan War veteran, but they were pathologically fearful that President Trump would call him vile names and he would lose.  They were afraid that an openly gay candidate cannot beat President Trump.   
     They could have even chosen Bernie Sanders, the people's choice in 2016 over Hillary Clinton if not the party's choice.  Sanders is the conscience of the Democratic Party, if not its top accountant. Like the President, he believes in the power of the printing press to replace fiscal responsibility; however, Sanders has human values and Donald Trump does not.  But no, they were afraid that Trumponomics would rip Sanders to shreds.  I believe the opposite, Sanders' free stuff is only a fraction of the terrible cost of President Trump's free stuff. Sanders should have eaten Trump's lunch on the massive tax cut to finance the upper class, which was just bad economics.  
     They could even have selected my favored candidate, Tulsi Gabbard, who is the closest thing that we have to a fiscally restrained liberal. But--oh that's right--a woman cannot beat Donald Trump. Ditto for Elizabeth Warren, the most organized and structured planner and best executive.  Since Hillary Clinton could not beat the President, the party has decided to give up on all other female Presidential candidates, is that it?    
     So what are we left with?  Good old Joe, a 78 year old white guy who acts like he does not know where he is at times.  In 1988 I was disgusted by then-Senator Biden's bragging about his academic record, especially when it turned out that he was lying about his accomplishments.  Good grief. 

     The right slanders people all the time so it is easy to assume that it is all slander.  But wait a minute.  What if he goes into gaffe mode when his finger is on the button controlling the largest nuclear arsenal in the universe?   
     We are going to have to think this through in a campaign that will largely be carried out in TV studios rather than in front of microphones with big crowds. There is some chance that if Biden does have some impairment, the party can successfully hide it.  
        If the Democratic Party found out that the candidate had some condition that made him unfit to govern, would they do the honest thing and pull him from the candidacy for the good of the country, or would they cover it up for the good of the party?  I don't have any evidence, but I feel the party would hide it as best they could. 
         Joe Biden is going to have to convince the American people that he is absolutely sharp, absolutely not affected by early stage dementia.  Otherwise, the Democrats present us once again with a very difficult decision.   
       President Trump has embarrassed us, or at least those of us with any common sense.  But the alternative is a fellow who acts like he lost one too many boxing matches in his youth. It is an absolute fact that he will be 78 years old in November, and the job is a grueling one.  Does that inspire anyone?  If so, who?   
     Is it wrong to feel that the party system has let us down?  
     

Sweden's Covid-19 Policies Bashed, But What do the Numbers Say?

Bashing Sweden for its allegedly lax rules on coronavirus lockdown does not make much sense to me.

In theory, Sweden intended to lock down the elderly and other vulnerable citizens more or less to a similar degree as in other countries. But, they intended to allow somewhat more relaxed, volutary regulations to healthier younger citizens who are more likely to survive. Thus if the strategy were carried out successfully, the death rate should be lower for Sweden than in other countries but the exposure rate and infection rate should be higher especially with the more mobile young people. Countries with more regulation should have a lower rate of infection.

The numbers are not so simple. According to Worldometers, as of June 11, there have been a total of 48,288 cases in Sweden or 0.0478 cases per capita. That is twentieth highest in the world (but lower than several western countries including San Marino, Andorra, Luxembourg, Spain, USA, Iceland, Belarus, Gibraltar, Belgium and Ireland).

However, in terms of per capita death rate, Sweden is seventh. So if you wish to bash other countries, go for San Marino, Belgium, Andorra, UK, Spain, and Italy. But America is tenth, so there aren't that many countries we can legitimately bash.

Sweden is followed by France, Netherlands and the USA. Hence, judging from the recent press, many Americans evidently feel they are in a position to criticize and ridicule these other countries for having more fatalities per capita, especially Sweden. But wait. It's not that simple.

Note that in terms of death rate per capita, all ten of these countries rank lower for per capita infection rate.Every single one in the Top 10. In other words, each country is experiencing a relatively high death rate compared to the infection rate. That is the opposite of what might be expected for these advanced Western medical care systems.

Let's take a look at other countries with high per capita infection rate. Qatar has the highest per capita infection rate in the world, but only the 70th highest death rate. That means a higher percentage of infected people in Qatar are getting well than in the European countries, and it's not even close.
Consider Singapore has the ninth highest infection rate per capita, but only 128th highest death rate.

So if you want to bash Swedish medicine, fine, but do not forget to heap immense praise on countries such as Qatar and Singapore, who are greatly outperforming the west. I am not aware of a simple explanation why this is true. However, look at the stats for Sweden (Statista.com) and you will see their high death rate is associated with a large number of deaths of people who are over 70 years old.

Perhaps, if you must bash Sweden (and I wish you would not), they could be bashed for not being able to protect elderly persons. But even after adjusting for age groups, the numbers say that the cure rate is much higher in so-called third world countries than in Europe. And within Europe, Sweden's numbers are comparable to or a little better than some of its neighbors. So, are bad regulations in Sweden causing high death rates in these other European countries, higher than in Sweden? How could that be possible? There must be something else besides rules that needs to be considered.

We have to admit that we do not have a cure for Coronavirus. As long as there is a single death from this disease, it is too many and as a society, we must all strive to do better. The ability to protect people from contracting the illness, and the ability to treat the illness are going to improve with time. Different countries are trying different things, and we can all learn from one another if we quit bashing each other and figure out what works well and what does not. It is inappropriate to issue harsh condemnation of policies and medical care in any country, especially one that is not your own, because this disease breaks all the rules. It is NOT simple to understand, and we ALL have much to learn about it. It is not just Sweden that wants to improve its performance.

So, in my opinion Sweden is not insane and not a rogue nation. Sweden does not deserve to be bashed. They should not be accused of medical malpractice. Yes, they can and should evolve better prevention, detection and treatments. So should we all.

Sweden and Ohio both Combating COVID-19

I've been following the progress of COVID-19 in Ohio, and recently also started to follow Sweden, which has been in the news lately. 

Ohio was one of the first states to lock down, and has received mostly favorable attention for having done so.  I'm grateful to our governor and director of health for having acted quickly; though I have been mildly critical of their use of numbers that do not seem to be supported

Swedish health officials are variously described as pariahs for not enforcing lockdowns to the same extent as other countries; or are considered geniuses for not enforcing lockdowns to the same extent as other countries. 

I'm not sure who is on what side, but certainly I expect one political party in America to embrace what Sweden has done, and the other party will deplore it. This is wrong. There are any number of reasons why conditions are different in one location compared to another. 

We can't just say, well Sweden should copy Ohio, or Ohio should copy Sweden. 

What we should do is see if there are differences in approach that are beneficial, and see if we can learn from these differences.   Different regions will try different approaches.  Can we learn from what another region does, and apply that in our own situation?   Learn and adapt, don't just  judge and condemn.  

Anyway, one of my friends who is a respected professional asked me to share what I know (or don't know).   I took trouble to plot the Sweden data on daily new cases  to compare it to the Ohio data for daily new cases.  Sweden has a population of some 10.2 million and Ohio is around 11.7 million so the population base is comparable.  Sweden encountered COVID at least a week before Ohio.  

The question everyone wants to answer is whether the limited quarantine of Sweden can be close to the same effectiveness as the stronger quarantine of Ohio. 

My opinion, as of today, April 12 2020, is that I cannot make a definite comparison between Sweden and Ohio.  The Ohio data appears to be leveling off, but the Swedish situation is not possible to resolve yet. Here is why:

1.  We do not know who is being tested and who is not in either country.  Buzz in Ohio is that we did not have enough test kits early on. Do we have enough now?  I have not seen the number, though they are still saying they believe that there are more cases than show up in the statistics.  On the other hand, what about the people who have the bug but are not sick enough to go to the doctor?  They may just decide to stay indoors for a while and are not counted.  These effects could be different for any number of economic, cultural and situational differences in different countries.  Bottom line is that someone like me can graph the data, but it takes someone with real knowledge of the local conditions to infer the true situation. 

2.  As noted previously Sweden is not Ohio.  We simply can not rule out differences in climate, lifestyle, population density.  Rather, we need to try to account for these differences as we seek to learn from each other and save lives.  

3.  The recent data from Sweden shows two statistically significant peaks, one on 4/2 and the other about 4/9.  These peaks are too large to be attributed to random statistical variation. It could be something as innocent as a backlog of test data for a few days, and then getting caught up a few days later, or  something like that.  Or maybe there were outbreaks  that raised the number of positive tests.  I do not know what caused the apparent peaks, but until there is a s better understanding, I can not conclude whether that the true number of cases is rising exponentially, or whether it may be leveling off.   I just don't know yet.  

WASH YOUR GLOVES WITH SOAP AND WATER VS COVID-19

Yes wear gloves.  That way you can touch the grocery cart at Wal-Mart, which might be chock full of Covid-19 viruses, and they won't infect your hands, at least for a while.  That is a good thing.

However, those viruses can live for quite a long time on the surface of your gloves, and at some point they will find some other path to infect you.

SO WASH YOUR GLOVES IN SOAP AND WATER. I'm not talking about putting them in the washing machine, but leave them on and use hand soap and water.   So far I have never heard any health professional recommend this, but it is common sense.  Soap contains surfactants, which are molecules that have one end that likes water, and the other end likes to stick to things.  Surfactants also stick to COVID 19 and MESSES THEM UP.   It's better than alcohol, so they say.

In the interest of sharing contrary views, I've listed an article below which advises against using gloves.  The arguments can be  valid in many situations:  because you probably don't use them right; they will get dirty;  you will get overconfident; you don't know how to take off the gloves, etc).  But nowhere does the article discuss the possibility of washing the gloves. 

Instead, you are recommended to go to Walmart you handle all the foodstuffs and the grocery cart with your bare hands, even if they may have been touched by people who have the virus. So if there are viruses to be had, you put them on your hands first.  THEN  you wash your hands.  I thnk that is stupid.  

Shouldn't you kill the viruses BEFORE they have a chance to infect you instead of AFTER?  This is so obvious to me, although I admit that many professionals who know more than me recommend the opposite.

I carry a little squeeze bottle with soap and water to wipe my gloves, wipe the grocery cart handle and then repeat the procedure upon leaving the store.  

We know that surfactants (the stuff that is in soap) is lethal to Cononavirus, because the surfactant sticks to the virus and rips it apart.  You can use hand cleaner containing over 60% alcohol and it works okay, but the alcohol will soon evaporate.  Everything I've read says that soap and water is better, so I'm carrying a bottle with me now in a little squirt bottle.

Why haven't we heard anybody advise washing gloves with soap and water?  Maybe fashion experts have told you not to wash expensive leather or silk in water, but I'm here to tell you that lives may be saved if you do. You'll get the money back someday, it's not worth it to risk your life to preserve a fashion statement. 

I have some knit fabric gloves with a thin rubber coating for $5, and they are awesome. 

Plus a soapy residue (if the gloves are damp for several minutes) may not be a bad thing because, remember, soap destroys coronavirus.  The soap may still work for us much longer than alcohol. Caveat:  this is my opinion as a scientist, but not supported by experimental evidence at this time.  

If you want to read a viewpoint that is 100% opposed to mine, here is an example, but note that the author does not even mention the possibility of washing gloves. I suspect that many writers may simply not have thought of it..   https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/wellness/you-shouldnt-be-wearing-gloves-to-go-grocery-shopping/ar-BB11YPuZ

Reference for soap killing corona virus: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/13/health/soap-coronavirus-handwashing-germs.html

Why do Coronavirus.ohio.gov numbers differ from Governor DeWine's daily reports?

The data sets from Coronavirus.ohio.gov and Cleveland.com (taken from Governor DeWine's daily briefings) do not seem to match, unless I have horribly misunderstood something.  

Coronavirus.ohio.gov shows cases in Ohio that existed before March 9, have a rise to a maximum of 153 on March 17, and show now that the number of  new cases per day is diminishing.   

However, if you go back and plot the number of announced cases at each day's conference with Governor DeWine, you get a significantly different picture.  There were no confirmed cases of Coronavirus prior to March 9. The cases thereafter increased with a steeper exponential and perhaps only in the last few days starting to (maybe) slow down, if the trend continues.

This is shown in my graphs below, and just to prove I didn't make it up, I photographed the coronavirus.ohio.gov graph of the data.  

How can this be? I am certainly not one to allege a conspiracy theory.  I suppose that the Coronavirus.ohio.gov graph must be a model that assumes the virus was present before it was detected, and the ability to detect the virus has improved, so it looks like the cases are increasing.   Still, they should explain the difference so that people like me don't get upset.  

Here is a clean version of the coronavirus.ohio.gov numbers (blue) superimposed with the numbers reported at the governor's daily briefings, transcribed by the author using Cleveland.com summaries.

The graph below is just the daily new cases, or the daily total minus the previous day's total.  The upshot is that if you accept the ohio.gov numbers, the virus has been here longer than we previously thought, therefore the increase is not as rapid as it appeared.  The information from the Governor's briefings are a bit more threatening, although it too seems to show leveling off at some number around 300.

Hopefully someone can clarify for me.  Again, I'm not an expert, I'm just trying to make sense out of the numbers.   

This cell phone screen shot (sorry for poor quality) shows the total cases (light blue), with just a few new cases each day.  On this graph there are 33 cases shown on March 9, even though the news media reports that that was the date of the first confirmed case.  The darker blue upper part of the bar shoes the daily number of new cases, which reached a maximum of 153 on March 17. 

Is Pete Butigieg the Real Future?

Congratulations to Mayor Peter Butigieg for winning the Iowa ruckus, I mean, caucus.  At least that's what the news reports are saying with 96% of the vote counted and several discrepancies still to be resolved.

All the experts say that the 2020 Democratic candidate will be an elderly white guy, either Joe Biden, or Bernie Sanders, and perhaps this is so.  But it is very hard to imagine how they can win with a candidate who is several years older than Donald Trump--who himself was the oldest candidate ever elected President.

These elderly candidates managed to not serve in the military during the Viet Nam period, but now wish to be Commander-in-Chief.  That Viet Nam generation--both Democrat and Republican--was the most divisive, self-destructive, argumentative and obstinate generation since the American Civil War.  

The political parties, aided and abetted by American voters, have attempted to refashion the President into a super-legislator who will create policies and laws to be ratified by Congress. However that is not what the Constitution specifies. The President is supposed to be the Chief Executive, supervising the government organizations carrying out the will of Congress, and also the Commander-in-Chief of the most powerful military in the world.  

Pete Butigieg is one of only two candidates who actually served in the US military. The other is Tulsi Gabbard, who may be the closest person to being a fiscally conservative Democrat in the race.  

  

Sanders, on the other hand, was a Conscientious Objector.  How do you have a Conscientious Objector in charge of the organization that he objects to??  Biden, gosh, wanted to serve in Viet Nam, but he had asthma as a kid and just couldn't do it. Tsk, tsk.  President Trump, too, had five deferments from the draft, by the way.  

Viet Nam was a stupid war, and it is hard to blame people for not wishing to be a part of it, but on the other hand they simply did not earn the credentials to be military leaders.  It doesn't mean they are pariahs, but how can they be Commander-in-Chief?  

Is it narrow minded to want to escape these people?  If so, I apologize, but I sincerely want to escape them.  I just want someone who can act like a grown-up, rather than an angry, spoiled child.  That entire group deluded themselves into thinking that they could rid themselves of President Trump via a partisan impeachment process, even though the simply did not have the votes in the Senate.  I think it's time for them to go play golf and other, younger, leaders are going to have to take over.  Unfortunately the oldsters will probably will not go gracefully, but instead will go kicking and screaming. The impeachment process has already boosted President Trump to a -150 betting favorite (translating to an implied win probability of 60%.  Nevertheless, the oldsters will insist on losing the election their way, and the oddsmakers are saying they will get their way.  

I have not made up my mind whether Butigieg is my favorite Democrat, nor will I necessarily vote Democratic this fall.  But I am happy to see someone running for President who was not yet born in the Gilligan's Island era.