The Proven Way to Contain Coronavirus

Most of the world is struggling to contain the coronavirus,  With most countries approaching the coronavirus in a decidedly low tech and not very effective way: limiting the mass movement of people.  

The problem is that the people whose movement you really want to limit are those that are infected, but since there is inadequate testing, you don’t know who they are.  So you have to resort to mass shutdowns. Which helps but doesn’t stop infected individuals unwittingly infecting others in non-mass settings, for example the local grocery store.  

What shutdowns do effectively instead is strangle the economy, hurting almost everyone.  This should be the last resort of government, not the first resort.

But other countries - South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Singapore - have successfully used the high tech way to contain the virus: aggressively test and then track the contacts of those who test positive.  Free testing must be provided to all individuals who think they might have the virus or have been exposed to the virus.  You can’t have a successful quarantine and tracking program without adequate testing.

The companion to testing and tracking is low tech face masks.  Free face masks should be provided for all individuals who test positive or who have any kind of respiratory problem.  Face masks for those infected are essential to inhibit transmission.

What about face masks for the rest of the population?  If you live in an area of medium to high population density, and there are reported cases, then everyone should wear a face mask when they are out and about.  It makes it less likely that you will contract the virus.

Certainly no one should be allowed on public transportation … whether a bus, subway, train, plane, or ship … without wearing a face mask.  In each of these situations, you have people packed in a confined area.  Since there’s always the possibility of having contact with someone who is infected but asymptomatic, everyone should wear a mask.

So what do we need to do, at a minimum?  

1. We need to have millions of tests available ASAP, and the lab capacity to handle tests in large numbers.  All testing should be free.
2. Quarantine and tracking should be rigorous.
3. Daily temperature taking should be universal.
4. We need to assure an adequate supply of face masks and they should be supplied for free at convenient locations.
5. We need a smart nationwide marketing campaign to encourage people to practice good hygiene, get tested and to wear masks; mandatory on public transportation.
6. People need to take responsibility and self-isolate and report themselves if they feel they may have the virus, even if testing is not available, or if they have come into contact with someone who is infected.
7. Screen everyone coming into the country.

Yes, the Coronavirus Is Different from the Flu, but Acting out of Fear Is Not Smart.

I live in Massachusetts, in the Berkshires ... 7 cases as of today.  When I went to the supermarket today, the place looked like it had been ransacked.  The shelves were almost bare of canned goods, paper products, broth … all kinds of products.  What is going on?

The President has basically said, what’s the big deal?  Each year we see deaths from the seasonal flu of between 12,000 and 60,000, but the media mentions not a word about it.  In this case, even if you look at China, deaths are at around 3,100, Italy 600.  Why is the media making such a big deal about this?  It reminds me of what they do these days with bad weather events; everything is catastrophized.

There is one big difference between the seasonal flu and the coronavirus: there is a vaccine each year for the flu.  Millions of people, around half of the U.S. population, get their flu shot each year.  Because of that, people feel comfortable engaging in all normal activities during the flu season.  And because of that, there is no slowdown in production, travel, events, etc. and thus no major economic consequence, despite all the deaths.

But because there is no vaccine for the coronavirus, it’s an unknown, and it can result in death, albeit in only 1-2% of cases, people are very leery of going about their usual activities.  Especially since undoubtedly many people are walking around infected because they don’t know they are as testing is hard to come by and there is much confusion.  This fear, and the fear of countries, leads to drastic measures.  It is these measures, not the deaths or illness, that cause the economic disruptions that investors fear.

A recent article raised the question, specifically regarding China, whether the “cure” of lockdowns is worse than the danger.  That is a very good question.  If people went about their business as usual while being very conscientious about washing their hands frequently and thoroughly, you would almost certainly have more spread than with a lockdown, and more deaths,   But you would have to have 500,000 cases of virus before hitting the lowest number of deaths from the seasonal flu.

It really comes down to fear … on the part of individuals who don’t want to get sick and possibly die, and by governments that don’t want to see their citizens overwhelmed with this new “plague.”

If I look at the situation rationally, on balance I would say that healthy people should go about their business as usual unless they live in a virus “hot spot,” but they should maintain social distancing, that is not go to crowded bars or theaters ... actually such places should be closed ,,, and not go on a cruise or fly in an airplane, both of which pack people in intimate quarters.  And they should wash their hands often and thoroughly.  If you use public transportation, wear a mask.

People who think they may be infected or have had contact with someone who is or may be should be tested immediately.  People who are infected or think they may be should self-isolate so that they do not transfer the virus to others and they should wear a mask, both at home and if they do go out.  Shutting down the country is not necessary if people act responsibly.

Think about it.  You have a greater chance of dying or being seriously injured from a car accident or the flu than from the corona virus.  You should act accordingly.  For once, Trump has the right idea, even if for the wrong reason — his political self-preservation.

Only a Force of Light Can Defeat Trump

These have been dark years for America.  A very personal yet social alienation and hatred has attached itself to a large percentage of the body politic, both on the right and the left.  While America had witnessed an increasing lack of political civility during the Obama years because of the intransigence of Republicans, with the nomination and election of Donald Trump the situation has morphed into a deep dysfunction which threatens our democracy.

Trump is the very essence of darkness.  Many have called him a person with Narcissistic Personality Disorder, but it is much worse than that.  Not only does he have a lack of empathy, no genuine interest in others, and exploits people.  Not only does he have pathological personality traits such as grandiosity, arrogance, and haughtiness.  Not only does he require constant admiration and loyalty.  He is the master of hatred; of appealing to the basest instincts of people; of leading people away from their humanity.  He foments division and violence for his own personal gain.  Nothing that he does is in the public interest; it is all about him.

And as has happened in other countries in the past, people are attracted to this larger than life personality, to his grandiosity, to his smashing of political and social conventions.  This happened in Europe in the 20s and 30s when countries were hit by the aftermath of WWI; economies and people were down.  And although the economy may be booming here, at least in terms of the stock market and corporate profits, the middle class, the majority of Americans, has been hurting for decades and they feel, rightly so, ignored.  America is full of forgotten people.  And so they are ripe for Trump’s manipulation.

What makes this national experience even worse is that this hatred from the right has brought forth a corresponding hatred from the left, or as they are called now, progressives.  And so we have two warring tribes in America.  Even within the Democratic Party, the warring tribe of progressives threatens to sink any nominee who  does not reflect its positions.

It is a spiritual truth that only a force of light can defeat darkness.  If one looked at the Democratic debate before the New Hampshire primary and the recent debate in South Carolina, while there were no forces of darkness there (contrary to many Republican pundits, Senator Sanders is not the left’s Trump; he may be very angry but he is not darkness), most of the candidates were filled to a greater or lesser extent with this reactive hatred or hostility to the Republican right.

There is only one existing candidate who has consistently been a source of light.  Who is a voice of reason, of unity.  Who while passionate does not let his emotions get the better of him.  Who has the political and philosophical desire and wherewithal to lower the rhetoric and heal America.  To find that commonality that Americans used to feel, even if of a different mind.  To save us from a self-inflicted destruction.

That one source of light is Pete Buttigieg.  He may not be the perfect candidate.  He does not have a stirring voice.  He is young and lacks a certain gravitas.  And yet out of all the candidates, he is the right person for this time.  And I think that with more exposure, he will only get more effective and people across a broad political spectrum will be attracted to his message. The numbers aren’t there now, but he can beat Trump.

Roger Stone’s Sentencing Smile

There was a very disturbing and creepy photo in the paper today of Roger Stone, his wife, and another woman in his party arriving at the courthouse for his sentencing.  They are all smiling!  Like they were going to a party.

And why were they smiling?  Because they knew that one way or another, he will not serve any time because his friend, Donald Trump, will commute his sentence if he is not retried and found to be innocent.  Trump has made that very clear.

So the judge’s tongue lashing was all for naught.  It taught him nothing.  He didn’t even listen.

That is the state that this president has brought our criminal justice system to.

Understanding Equality/Inequality

According to a recent article in The New Yorker, there is a great deal of difficulty and confusion with the concept of equality, both as to whether people are inherently equal and how they should be treated.  This post attempts to supply some clarity.

First there’s the question of whether, indeed, all men are created equal, as it states in the Declaration of Independence.  The author cites polls that show that a large number of Americans believe that statement to be false.  The author believes in the inherent equality of all people but can’t put his finger on where that assessment comes from.  He doesn’t find any of the philosophical answers satisfying.  And religious-based answers run up against the problem of how unequally people are treated in life, the worst example being the holocaust.

The answer to this first question is spiritual, not religious or philosophical.  The mystical traditions of all three Abrahamic faiths, as well as Buddhism and Hinduism, teach that we are all born with the divine/Buddha essence inside us, that we are therefore inherently good.  This is what it means to be human.  It does not matter whether one is born into a rich family or a poor one, whether one is born with beauty or disfigured, whether one is born with an intact brain or with brain malfunctions.  So while in one sense, we are obviously not born equally, in a deeper sense we are all born equals.  Not only are we born equals spiritually, we all have this spiritual equality in us until the day we die.  Unless we forsake our humanity and turn to evil, to the devil for support.

The problem is what happens to us once we are born.  From the moment we leave our mother’s womb, we are beset by an environment which is often hostile, sometimes friendly, but one which virtually never provides the infant with the nurturing that he needs.  No matter how committed the parent, it is almost impossible not to fall short, so great are the needs of the child.  We all experience trauma in our formative years, the only question is its severity.  This creates an insecurity which only grows with time and life experiences.  It is this that forms our ego-mind, with its emotions, judgments, cravings, and attachments.  It is this that causes our suffering.

The other thing that happens to us once we are born, is that we are all treated differently.  Whatever innate talent a child has … and all children, even those who have malfunctioning brains, have some innate talent … is either left to lie fallow and rot, is supported and burnished to a high luster, or something in between.  There is no shortage of people who are inherently beautiful or smart but because they were repeatedly called ugly or dumb by their parents have assumed that self-perspective.

And so the differences/inequality that we were born with or born into morph exponentially into a population characterized by extreme inequality on many measures.  The concept of equality, even deep equality, seems a farce to many.

The second question is how do you treat people who are so different.  Even Donald Trump is quoted in the article as supporting the concept that the law applies to all equally.  But that is an easy answer,  The harder question regarding the law is whether it should take into account the fact that we are different, unequal, and even why we are the way we are.  In order to be truly egalitarian, must the law be applied, or written, to account for this difference/inequality?

That gets to the meaning of egalitarian.  As is often the case, it means different things to different people.  But to me, dealing with each person equally is not egalitarian; that just reinforces inequality.  Egalitarianism must take into account our factual inequality.  Egalitarian refers to equality of opportunity, how each person is dealt with.  For example, equal opportunity in education.  To me this means that because children in poor inner city areas come to school so deficient in skills compared to children in more affluent neighborhoods, school funding provided by the state must account for this inequality; poor schools must be given far greater funding and talent.  What the child does with this opportunity is his or her responsibility, but the state has then met its responsibility to provide true equal opportunity.

This is just one example, but the same thought process applies in all areas.  The Declaration of Independence says that “to secure these Rights, governments are instituted.”  It is the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness … not their attainment … that is the responsibility of government.  Government, through laws and regulations, must provide the structure that provides equal opportunity.  The actualization of that opportunity is the responsibility of the individual.

But lets say that having provided everyone with true equal opportunity, some people fail through no “fault" of their own.  For example, some people will fall into homelessness because of the loss of a job.  A definition: “fault” is something one has control over; if there is no real control, there can be no blame, no fault.  Depending on the situation, one may need to accept responsibility, but not guilt.  

Because we all have traumas which impact how we respond to the opportunities presented to us, that leave us without the free will to act in our best interests … we are virtually programmed by our past … these trauma create situations and reactions for which we are not at fault, and so government has the responsibility to provide us again with equal opportunity.

Bottom line, we are indeed all created equal spiritually.  The world or genetics may have done a number on us, but we still deserve to be treated as human beings.  As for how we should be treated, egalitarianism requires that we be treated differently in consideration of our status in life so that we all end up with true equal opportunity to pursue life, liberty, and happiness.  That is the responsibility of the state.  What we make of that opportunity is our responsibility.

Sanders Voters for Trump?

I am aware that polls show that a majority of Sanders supporters will not commit to supporting whoever ends up the with Democratic nomination.  I’m aware of the intense feelings and anger, then and continuing today, at the way Sanders was treated in 2016 by the Democratic establishment.  I am aware of the stupidity of Hilary Clinton’s recent statements criticizing Sanders on various points.

However, I was shocked to read the following today:

“Only 53 percent of Sanders voters say they will certainly support whomever is the Democratic nominee. This is no idle threat. In 2016, in Pennsylvania, 117,000 Sanders primary voters went for Trump in the general, and Trump won the state by 44,292 ballots. In Michigan, 48,000 Sanders voters went for Trump, and Trump won the state by 10,704. In Wisconsin, 51,300 Sanders voters went for Trump, and Trump won the state by 22,748. In short, Sanders voters helped elect Trump.”

I have never even heard rumors of this nature, let alone seen these numbers.  Although this data were from a column I respect, I checked and found that NPR and various news outlets have reported the same findings, based on the Cooperative Congressional Election Study.  Roughly 12% of Sanders supporters voted for Trump.

Obviously a Sanders supporter would not have voted for Trump because they believed he was the best choice.  He is against everything Sanders stands for, except his objection to NAFTA and similar free trade agreements.  But the data shows that was not a factor.  That only leaves one with one rationale:  These Sanders supporters voted for Trump out of spite to deny Hilary the presidency!

Forget about whatever Hilary or the Democratic establishment did during the 2016 primaries that was ill-advised or downright anti-Sanders.  I could see them sitting out the election; that would be harmful enough.  But that any significant number of Sanders supporters would be so spiteful that they would vote to put our country in the hands of someone like Trump truly boggles the mind.

From what I read, Sanders supporters are just as angry and vicious as ever.  Will a significant number do the same in 2020 if Sanders is not the nominee?  It is a scary thought but one which realistically one has to consider a possibility, especially with Hillary continuing to make ill-advised remarks.  

This does not mean I would vote for Sanders in the primary even if I thought he could beat Trump.  Because I don’t like his anger and I don’t like the absolutism of his ideology.  Anyone who is that sure of himself is dangerous.  

But if he were the nominee, I would certainly vote for him.  That wouldn’t even be a question.  If Sanders does not win the nomination, he needs to speak to his supporters loud and clear, and not only urge them but instruct them to vote for the nominee.  That their being responsible for another 4 years of Trump would be a sin that they could never atone for, a ticket to hell.

Existential Inequality - To Abide in Peace or Not

There has been much focus on the glaring income inequality in the U.S.  On the immorality of some people having so much, more than they could ever possibly make use of, while so many people have so little, not being able to make ends meet, homeless, even while working, while many others barely keep their heads above water.

Clearly, income inequality has a huge impact on the lives that people are able to live.  The extent of creature comfort and financial security they are able to obtain.  The education their children are able to get.  And the list goes on.

But does income inequality impact whether a person experiences peace and happiness in his or her life?   The answer is no.  Acquiring material things, while they may satisfy ego needs and desires and make you feel good, does not in practice equate with peace and happiness.  Nor does the lack of material security equate with the lack of peace and happiness.  Ask any psychologist or therapist, watch bio-documentaries, and you will find this is true.  

This seems counter-intuitive.  Certainly if you live in poverty, how can you have peace and happiness?

Before going any further, we must first define peace.  Peace is the absence of fear, anxiety, hatred, guilt, shame, doubt and confusion … or better put, it’s not the absence of these emotions but not being controlled by them. It’s also being free of an intense desire for things you don’t have or to be someone other than you are.

Without question, most people who live in poverty do not have such peace.  But then most people of affluence also don’t have such peace.

The answer to this riddle is the following.  The only way to achieve peace and happiness is through a spiritual practice that frees you from the emotions, judgments, cravings, and attachments of the ego-mind.  Whether rich or poor, the only people who experience true peace and happiness are the ones who have rediscovered their true selves and freed themselves from the control of their ego-mind.

“So?” the reader may ask.  Since there is nothing more important to the human soul than experiencing peace and happiness, the greatest inequality in our country, and in the world, is between those people who have achieved a spiritual practice that provides freedom from the control of their ego-mind, or who have made progress in that direction, and those who are bereft of a spiritual life and are subject to the control of their ego-mind and thus to the whims and vagaries of our culture and their immediate surroundings.  It is more damaging to suffer psychically than materially.

What happens when you free yourself from the control of your ego-mind?  

1. When your buttons are pushed, you will have no emotional reaction.  You will be aware, but you will not react.  
2. You will know that you have everything inside you that you need to be at peace and happy and allow nothing to disturb that peace and happiness; you need nothing outside of yourself.  You will undoubtedly desire other things, whether its someone special in your life or material things, but those are all icing on the cake; their absence or presence does not impact your peace and happiness.  You will not attach to them.
3. You will know that all you need to be at peace and happy is to offer yourself and others joy, respect your mind, respect your body, be in touch with nature, and live within your means.  And if you have loved ones and friends, to be in contact with them.
4. You will know that you will be ok, safe, regardless what life throws your way because you have returned home to your true self, free of your ego-mind.
5. You will as a result experience true freedom, the ability to do what is in your true best interest.  What your ego-mind tells you to do, and thus what you want to do, is not in your best interest because it is captive to all your anger, fear, and doubt, to your learned experience, to your conditioning.  (See my post, “Freedom - What Does It Mean,” on www.thepracticalbuddhist.com.)

I know of no surveys that assess who has a spiritual life and who does not.  Certainly, questions commonly asked about religious practice are not a marker for having a spiritual life.    Many people “believe” in God or in Jesus Christ, even feel they have a “personal” relationship with Christ, but nevertheless do not lead their lives as God or Christ would have them do, even if they are orthodox and follow all the prescribed rituals.  For their relationship with themselves and the world around them is controlled by their ego-mind, not by their divine essence.

Just looking around me at what I see happening both in my immediate surroundings and in the broader world, it is safe to say that the number of people who have freed themselves from the control of their ego-mind is relatively small.  And as long as that continues to be the case, we will live in a world primarily characterized by its dysfunction, whether within the family, the workplace, or the broader world.

Those people who follow a spiritual path, and those traditions that support the teaching of our God/Buddha essence and the purity of our natural state, thus need to expose more people to this teaching.  Not by proselytizing but by making their teaching/beliefs on this subject known so that people who are suffering have the opportunity to say, “I think there may be something here,” and take the step to begin their own inquiry into their true self, their soul.