The COVID Vaccine: The Long Pole in the Tent

"The Long Pole in the Tent" is a common term used by the US Army to describe the most difficult, or time-consuming, or resource-intensive task in getting a job from start to finish. Often, it is all three. We are in the midst of a nearly year-long effort to develop a vaccine that will fix the pandemic. Victory is in sight.

Not so fast. Vaccines don’t save lives. Vaccinations save lives. For that to occur, far more is needed than developing the molecules for a messenger RNA (mRNA) virus, or manipulating a cold virus (adenovirus) to carry elements of another cold virus (COVID19) that will prompt the human immune system to develop the necessary tools to kill the latter virus. That work is critical, and can only be done by highly-educated and disciplined scientists familiar with how to work at the molecular level with biology, how to develop and choose among candidate vaccines, how to establish testing methods and protocols, and thirty thousand other things few people on earth are qualified to do. We owe them a debt of gratitude.

Their work is in vain, though, until a vaccine becomes a vaccination, which is a vaccine that is injected into a patient. This brings us to the long pole in the tent: getting a manufactured vaccine safely and securely into the syringe to be injected into the patient.

The next step is manufacturing the vaccines. Why we need more than one is a story guaranteed to cure insomnia. Each vaccine uses a separate mechanism to interfere in the virus’s nefarious activities. None is “the best” for everyone, and some carry risks for certain groups but not risks for others. Why that is so will cure insomnia relapse.

Vaccine manufacturing isn’t like home-cooked meth. Very strict procedures, highly technical machinery, well-trained workers and pure ingredients are needed. Each batch must undergo quality assurance. When the vaccine is finished, it must be carefully measured into individual vials, usually of five doses each. Vials go into cartons of either 200 or 1,000 vials. Three vaccines are on the verge of being approved for manufacturing.

Each of these three vaccines each operates a bit differently, and each follows a different track in the supply chain. Obviously, all are tamper-evident sealed, bar-coded, receipted all the way through. Only one of them can remain effective at room temperature, let’s call that one ATZ. Ideally, everybody takes ATZ. Except it carries different risks for different people than the other two. And, ATZ, will have to re-enter Stage III trials to correct a testing error, so it won’t be ready immediately.

When it is ready, it’s easily handled with existing secure processes. On arrival at port it is offloaded, undergoes customs inspection and payment of any import fees, turned over to the consignee who is probably a Third-Party Logistics (3PL) provider. Because the vaccine does not require refrigeration, the contents are broken down in a warehouse for separate shipments to hospitals, pharmacy chains, group practices, distribution centers and government stockpiles. This will work well in First World Counties, even in landlocked countries such as Switzerland, Andorra, San Marino, the Vatican, and small nations such as Singapore, New Zealand, Iceland and Monaco.

The Third World is not so lucky. Much of the world is tribal, and vaccines entering a tribal country are likely to be kept by the ruling tribe to keep subjugated tribes in line. Keloptocracies and mob-ruled countries will make equitable distribution problematic. Lack of reliable roadways or railways will delay deliveries and lose some vials. Stops at international and intranational borders offer opportunity for mischief. And, keeping track of where things are is difficult enough in First World countries; in Third-World countries, the basics are still aspirational.

Even first-world countries such as Bahamas face a daunting task reaching individual islands. Small countries, such as Palau or Samoa, will never be a priority for scheduled air travel nor ocean cargo. Then, there are dozens of areas of active conflict, ranging from Donbass in Ukraine to war of starvation in Yemen. And India still struggles with the basics.

All of this is for the best case. The other two vaccines present much greater logistical challenges and will be dealt with in Chapters Two and Three. Where we are will then be addressed in Chapter Four.

Continue ReadingThe COVID Vaccine: The Long Pole in the Tent

When U.S. Race Relations Soured

I recently read a thread on another forum in which 100 out of 140 posts declared that we became a divided nation under Trump and it was Trump's fault. I then found Gallop data that tracked opinions on race relations historically. I found it fascinating. What jumped out at me was the legacies of the last two presidents, when things began to fall apart, and the disappearance of the "No Opinion" response.

Obama, who took office in 2009 inherited a relatively united country from Bush. A majority of both blacks and whites felt similarly that race relations were "very/somewhat good." When Obama left office, a majority of both races felt that race relations were no longer "very/somewhat good." Things started falling apart around 2013 and the downward trend line simply continued under Trump. Over time, the number of people expressing no opinion shrank to near-zero.

The lines moved in parallel. Even when the gap reached 20% in 2007, both groups were still positive. Joe Biden will inherit a divided nation. If we focus on blame without understanding that this trend began in 2012, we will not reunite.

I understand that attitudes on racism are extremely complex. That said, my first significant indication of coming trouble was John Lewis's characterization of John McCain in 2008 as a "racist." I had always respected both men, and although by then I was becoming accustomed to hearing Democrats cut off debate by pointing at the nearest white Republican and yelling, "Racist!," that was unlikely to apply to McCain. He had matured in the US military, arguably one of the least racist institutions in the country.

My second indication came in 2011, when prominent civil rights leaders repeatedly proclaimed that the only reason to disagree with Obama was racism. His approval rating at inauguration was 70%. Less than three years later it was in the low 40s. One-quarter of Americans had become racists in very short order, apparently.

Bureau of Justice Statistics is not, IMO, intentionally obfuscatory, it's simply standard bureaucratic denseness. It's difficult to tease out, but the numbers don't support a narrative of black victimization at the hand of whites. Interracial violence is unusual, and while black-on-white crime is more common than the inverse, it's still relatively rare.

In 2014 Michael Brown was shot and killed by white police officer Darren Wilson in self-defense. The "hands up, don't shoot" false narrative came out of this. Some forty FBI Agents were dispatched to Ferguson, Missouri, and three White House representatives attended the funeral. The town of Ferguson was seriously damaged and the "Ferguson Effect" was born, with police officers hesitant to approach black suspects not for fear of being shot, but for fear of criminal charges.

Events occurring during the Obama presidency put U.S. race relations on a downward track. Trump, to his discredit, has only made things worse. My point is that we shouldn't be focusing on Trump alone, overlooking events from the preceding years. We need to acknowledge the longer duration and complexity of this unfortunate trend to begin to fix what has gone wrong.

Continue ReadingWhen U.S. Race Relations Soured

Misc Thoughts . . .

I'm subscribed to Greenwald and Taibbi. I haven't felt this good about being a liberal in more than a decade.

I have serious difficulty dealing with people dying from Trump Derangement Syndrome, all convinced that I am a committed Trump supporter. I'm opposed to the Far Left which styles itself Progressive, and claims it's the same thing as liberal. It is fundamentally illiberal.

A friend is a committed Christian and committed Trump supporter. He sent me a message asking if I knew what 2020 divided by 666 was. I did the math in my head, knew the answer instantly. It's 3.0330. I replied that I had no idea that God was limited to Base 10. He's furious. Just assume for a second that there is a God. Why would he ever use Base 10? Binary or Base Eight is infinitely more sensible.

As you know, there are 10 kinds of people: Those who understand binary, and those who don't.

Continue ReadingMisc Thoughts . . .

Complexity’s Stern Challenge to Understanding

I just finished reading Michael Crichton's Complexity, & Environmental Management in the 21st Century. It's a long read, but well worth it. Crichton was a true Renaissance Man.

I first learned of the existence of complex systems in about 1975, when I observed that the world did not operate in a linear manner. The next thing I learned was that, while many people considered themselves clever by defining crazy as "Doing the same thing and expecting different results," that was more cleverness than truth. Anyone who is married will understand this. It is possible to do exactly what you did earlier, and your spouse will react in a completely different manner. With teenagers, it's more probable than possible.

Everywhere I looked I found complex systems, and began to do some self-study. The first thing I learned is that complex systems are highly sensitive to initial conditions, and we are foolish to believe we know all of them. In the "spouse" example, above, the second interaction is not a precise duplicate of the first. Your spouse weighs 2.4 grams less than yesterday, talked with your mother-in-law in the intervening period, and got a massage. All of these things affected your spouse and you're interacting with a different person.

The lecture is about fear, complexity and environmental management. Crichton set out to write a book about a global catastrophe in the late 1990s, so he looked at the Chernobyl meltdown. He read the predictions of up to 3.5M or more eventual deaths and the destruction of ecosystems. Articles about the event were heavily sprinkled with fear-inducing words such as cancer and catastrophe, and there were calls for urgent immediate action to save the planet. Then he looked at reality: 56 people died. The health issues with residents near Chernobyl were largely a reaction to bad information about direness, certainty of destruction, urgency, cancer, catastrophe, etc.

He winds his way through a series of predicted civilization-ending imminent catastrophes with calls to set aside all normal rules and turn over resources to "experts'" control, none of which actually came to pass. He concluded that the planet is far more resilient than doomsayers understand. And the pattern is too obvious to ignore. We are controlled through fear, created by bad information from authorities. Today's existential crisis is decarbonization, but Crichton notes that is already underway without surrendering control to authority. That appears typical of the successes claimed by authorities due to their actions. They urged action that was already underway, and he uses Y2K as an example. Governments' contribution to solving the real problem was negligible, not to mention unnecessary, since banks, heavily dependent on old mainframe systems, had already identified the problem and were working to fix it.

We're told many things by authorities, who are rarely held accountable for prior bad information, to maintain a State of Fear, the title of one of one of his last books. About global warming, we're assured that the earth will end in 12 or 50 or 100 years, and this time we're smarter because we've got all the information. That is exactly what we were told about Global Cooling in the 1970s. "But, this time is different." Right.

Continue ReadingComplexity’s Stern Challenge to Understanding

The Shifting Political Sands

I participate in an online forum where, most members are knowledgeable of Meyers Briggs Type Inventory. The moderators and the majority of the members call themselves liberals, but are intolerant of any deviation from leftist ideology. Those people aren't liberals.

In the politics sub-forum I routinely criticize Democrats, because I used to be one, and they abandoned me. I refuse to worship at the altar of statism for good reason, and I find the tactics of Democrats infuriating. The precedents that have been set are injurious to our society. Perjury is OK because Trump. Falsifying evidence is OK because Trump. Screaming in people's faces, encouraging your supporters to keep political opponents out of the public space, is disgusting. I'm accused of being a Trump supporter for this. The idea that principles, hence precedents, matter, is justifiably dismissed because Trump.

I recently called out a venemous progressive who said my protestations of impartiality are a fraud, because I only criticize Democrats, therefore I am a Republican partisan. I have paid a heavy price for my obstinacy. My participation has been limited, and I suspect I'm not yet banned only because the forum has become a near-perfect echo chamber. The problem with driving out all opposition so that the only thing left is an echo chamber. That's the first strike of the bell announcing a funeral. If there is no enemy, there's no reason to exist.

Continue ReadingThe Shifting Political Sands