Speculations on Information flow and Covid

Entering speech-to-text experiment. Please let me know in the comments what you think of this and the previous text to speech experiment. Is it any different from my normal writing style with my fingers? Since this is our second experiment, I’ll be in a little better at using this technology. One thing I noticed last time was that I was talking too fast for the technology to really keep up with, and so in the end I had some very garbled paragraphs that I had to completely discard because I couldn’t tell what they were supposed to say anymore. I’m sure the app was doing its very best to figure out what I was saying, but this time I’m going to speak more slowly–I know you can’t tell that on your end, but I do wonder if it does something to the writing process.

Much as I would like to talk about something other than corona, when everyone is talking about corona, well, you talk about corona. Watching how people react to this pandemic has been very interesting to watch (the pandemic itself, of course, is awful). I can’t discuss corona from the point of view of a doctor or an epidemiologist or a virologist because I’m not one of these things. I can discuss it from my point of view as a lay person, watching the the social dynamics unfold. Early on in China, we had a few doctors noticing that there was an unusually bad flu and pneumonia season going on. I believe the first doctor reported on this was actually an ophthalmologist–an eye doctor–not a not an emergency, not a flu or pneumonia doctor. I’m not sure how this opthamologist actually knew that their bunch of pneumonia was going on–he must have been talking to other doctors, maybe some doctor friends of his. This means he wasn’t really the first person to notice that something bad was happening; he was just the first person to try to convey the information more broadly, perhaps because he already perceived it as well-known among people he knew.

He reported this in, I think, a doctor-based chat group he was in and and then, as we know, he was censored. Interestingly, he wasn’t harshly sensor by the CCP. It’s not like some big censoring agency collects all the chat log information and automatically sensors them, or automatically reads everything produced in China. Somebody actually in his chat must have reported him to the authorities. He reported him for being sensationalist, and this report made its way up the chain of command to the police and then they came and had a talking to him and told him not to raise any more alarms. So I don’t even know if the police had actually looked into what he was saying in any substantive way at that time, or if they were just going on the authority of the guy who’d complained about it. “If someone complained about it, it must be a problem,” kind of thinking.

And I’ve seen people even in the US defending the censors. They’ve compared it to yelling fire in a crowded theater–except, the thing is, the theater was on fire.

It’s reasonable to say “don’t yell fire in a crowded theater” if the theater is not on fire, but first you have to make sure the theater is not actually on on fire. If the theater is on fire and you tell people not to yell fire, then everybody dies in a fire.

And this is the situation we have now in Wuhan and other parts of the world: things got way further out of control than they would have if the doctor had been able in the first place to report what he was seeing to the government or to the right authorities. If he’d  been able to get support instead of being told “hey, you’re being alarmist,” then things would have gone a lot better. Unfortunately, sometimes you have to be alarmist to raise an alarm.

I feel like I’ve had the same pattern of conversation many times–take Galileo. We can talk about Galileo’s theories, whether they were right or wrong, but the fact is Galileo did end up under house arrest, possibly for being rude to the pope and for having theories about the way the universe works that the pope didn’t like.

Here’s where people jump in and argue that Galileo’s theories were wrong, therefore he deserved to be put under house arrest. Utter bullshit. You don’t put people under house arrest just because they have funny theories about the tides. (Disclaimer for the confused: Galileo claimed that the tides were proof that the Earth was sloshing around in space. The Earth does move through space, but the tides are not evidence of this.)

If you want to have scientific inquiry, some of your scientists will come up with funny theories, and if you put every scientist who comes up with a wrong theory under house arrest, you will very quickly run out of scientists. Was Galileo a jerk? Was he rude? I don’t know, but we don’t put people under house arrest for that, either. If you want people who can look at the established orthodoxy, who can look at authors like Galen and Aristotle who’ve been revered for about a thousand years, and proclaim that they’re wrong, then I think you have to accept that those people tend to be, by nature, cranky misanthropes.

If you limit your scientific inquiry only to people who are polite and deferential and never in their whole lives are rude to people (especially people whom they think are imbeciles), you’re not going to get a lot of science. And if you limit your alarm system about pandemics to people who can kiss the right ass while never sounding alarmed in any way, then you’re just going to end up dead.

Looking at the way information has spread, it’s been very striking how may “official” outlets were, early on, exceedingly wrong, eg:

Fox News? Wrong. CNN? Probably wrong. My local news network? Useless. Vox? Wrong. Official British medical experts who came up with the “herd immunity” plan? Wrong. CDC? Run by morons.

At least in the early stages, these folks seemed to know less about corona and its spread than, as I put it, random nobodies on Twitter. I know my little corner of the internet is interested in China–I follow a 3D printing account based in China, for example–I think people who are interested in technology are more likely to have contacts in their information orbit who are either in or reading Chinese publications, because there’s a lot of technological development going on in China, not to mention being home to a ton of technological industry. And of course some people are fascinated by autocratic governments like China (or just like the culture), Nick Land, for example, lives in China. It’s not just right-wingers, either: I know plenty of more liberal people who pay attention to things happening in China. I think it has more to do with being interested in technology or culture, and of course diseases.

I used to have some very nice theories about liberals and conservatives being split by their emotional reactions to disease, but the data in this pandemic is not supporting that.

blog_coronavirus_partisan

The NYTimes has this poll, but broken down by state so you can compare how concerned Republicans in New York are vs Democrats in New York, but the result is the same: in every state, Democrats are much more concerned than Republicans.

What’s the big difference between this outbreak and ebola? Speculatively:

Ebola: makes you explode, terrifying
Corona: suffocates you. Slightly less visually graphic, but still awful.
Ebola: Africa. Corona: China.
Ebola: quarantine would affect mostly people returning from Africa
Corona: quarantine affects everyone
Ebola broke out during Obama’s administration, so Fox News hyped it up to show how Obama wasn’t doing enough to protect us
Corona broke out during Trump’s admin, so Fox News has been downplaying it so Trump doesn’t get blamed.

Operating theory: where you get your news from matters. Those of us who get our news from the internet were plugged into Chinese happenings (not just internet racists). Those of us who get our news from the TV, by contrast, were less informed (even the TV racists).

Or maybe normies just aren’t as concerned about disease.

Whatever was going on, for whatever reasons, people on the internet were talking about the situation in Wuhan back in January. It was difficult to get trustworthy numbers, but it was pretty easy to get very concerning reports about things like “entire cities shut down.” At the time, we didn’t know whether China was overreacting or not, and we didn’t know whether the virus would spread or not. We’ve had previous concerning viruses like Ebola, SARS, MERS; these were bad viruses, but they never spread that well. (Technically, Covid is a SARS virus.)

The early stages in Wuhan were concerning because the CCP was definitely reacting like this was a huge deal, and this is coming from a government that has not historically acted like it has a huge concern for human life and well-being (at least from the outside perspective, eg, things like the Great Leap Forward killed millions of people,) but that makes it all the more concerning. If a government that doesn’t normally seem to care whether people live or die is suddenly concerned that people are going to die, you get worried.

(It may be that the Chinese government has changed a lot in its concern for human life since the Cultural Revolution and now puts in more effort to take care of its people, but that’s waiting into the weeds of Chinese policy and I don’t really know enough about China to comment coherently.) My point is just that the Chinese response certainly looked concerning.

It was concerning enough that very online people in the US were starting to plan ahead for the pandemic shutdown back in January. For example, I have talked to people who said they had started stocking up on food gradually, just buying a little bit extra each time they went to the store, a bag of rice here, a few cans of soup there, etc. This is a sensible way to do it, because if corona had turned out to be nothing, they you’ll eat the food eventually, and if there is a quarantine, you won’t be caught flat-footed. But most people simply ignored the news back in January–I think most people weren’t even aware that anything was going on in China.

Meanwhile, the reaction from governments and governmental bodies was much more muted. It’s been amazing to watch official medical folks working for the British government come out with ideas like “let’s just go for herd immunity,” which any idiot could have told you was terrible terrible idea. At that point, we had the examples of Iran and Italy in addition to China, so there’s really no excuse for proposing this terrible idea. Being ignorant about what an absolute disaster the Italian hospitals were at that point seems like almost willful ignorance, which is rather frightening.

Unfortunately the same thing is true here in the US. The CDC completely flubbed its early response to Corona. I’ve read a few of the emails released from the CDC, and I don’t see a lot of malice in these documents; I simply see a slow-moving organization that can’t get its act together and doesn’t realize how fast it needs to act. Some of this is probably because most of the health problems in the US, prior to Corona, were slow-moving problems. Our biggest issues these days are things like obesity and heart disease, conditions that will only kill you after multiple decades. The only major new communicable disease we’ve had is AIDS, which also takes years to kill you and hasn’t been a huge deal since the 90s. (You also generally have to be involved in some specific activities to catch AIDs. You can catch corona, by contrast, just by breathing.) So the CDC has not had to actually deal with a new, fast-spread epidemic disease in a very long time (if ever) and weren’t ready to act quickly. For example, they tried to deploy a digital questionnaire to airports for screening international arrivals, but the questionnaires had major problems, like an inability to save the information entered. Unfortunately, “predicting pandemics” and “coding questionnaires” are two different skillsets.

I think these people working for the CDC were probably watching ordinary TV news, which hasn’t done a great job of getting on the ground information about what’s going on with corna in different countries–CDC employees aren’t magic, after all. They have to get information from somewhere, and most of them are probably ordinary people who watch ordinary sources. If you watch MSNBC and MSNBC is not airing frontline reports from inside Chinese or Italian hospitals, then you have to go on YouTube to see videos of people dying in the hallways of Italian hospitals (maybe that’s not even on YouTube anymore. Maybe you have to go to LiveLeak). If you’re not the kind of person to seek out this information in the first place, or maybe you’re not in a group of people online who are talking about it, then you might not hear about it. It’s possible that maybe these CDC guys really just did not realize how serious this is and how fast they needed to act. They’re watching the media for information, and meanwhile the media is taking its cues from the CDC, and the whole thing becomes a circle with insufficient “official” sources of information.

As I’ve joked, early on you could have gotten better information from some random guy on Twitter named something like AnimeNaziTits999 than from the official government websites, but the CDC obviously can’t go getting its information from random anons. I can, because I’m just a random person with a blog, but the CDC has to get its information from official sources, or at least sources that don’t have really embarrassing names. The way some information sources are designated “official” is interesting, too. Sometimes that works–sometimes you really need to go to the official experts. For example, if you want to know about quantum thermodynamics, it’s really best to find an actual professor or read a real textbook on the subject, rather than listen to random lay people. People who haven’t put a lot of effort into learning quantum thermodynamics tend not to know anything about it (I don’t know anything about it, either), but there’s a ton of feel-good woo bullshit on anything related to “quantum.”

By contrast, there’s clearly no official route to get information from Wuhan, China, (or Italy) to the CDC–or if there are official routes, they have numerous choke points where people are suppressing information.

It’s not just China that’s suppressing information. I noticed the official news here in the US, until very recently, has had very little coverage of what’s actually been going on at the hospitals. I understand why we didn’t get much information about what was happening in Wuhan hospitals, but what about Italian hospitals? Our media can bring us a drone footage of migrants marching through Mexico, they can get into the front lines of refugees trying to cross from like turkey to Greece, they can even get embedded in military operations in places like Afghanistan or Iraq, but they couldn’t get into an Italian Hospital.

I don’t believe that for an instant.

I think somebody didn’t want this information getting out. Not necessarily because they’re evil, scheming people, but for the same reasons that the police didn’t want that doctor talking in China: they didn’t want people to be alarmist. Or they just weren’t set up to write articles on the subject. Clearly the New York Times was ready to write articles about Catholic highschool students who smiled awkwardly at Native American activists, but they weren’t ready to write articles about pandemics overwhelming Italian hospitals.

So we end up with very strange reports. We get told that in Spain they’ve commandeered ice rinks to store the bodies. That’s pretty graphic, but the net effect is like a media blackout on was actually going on in hospitals in the US.

Or perhaps the doctors don’t want things to reflect badly on their hospital, or are too busy to go pursuing media contacts. As an acquaintance pointed out, it’s very normal for employees to not be allowed to speak directly to the media about their jobs. So in China they have centralized censorship and in the US we have decentralized censorship. Great. Huge improvement.

But even if doctors can’t say much, you’d think media personnel who pride themselves on their investigative journalism heritage as the descendants of Woodward and Bernstein would say, “screw non-disclosure, I’m taking a camera down ER.” Folks who could get themselves embedded in a war ought to be able to manage an Italian ER, but I guess not.

We needed to know just how bad this was back in January. We needed to be making plans in February. At that point, people were still playing games and writing articles about how the flu was a bigger deal than Covid. The CDC needed to be raising the alarm and going on full alert, yelling that this was going to be a huge problem, but I don’t think they realized just how bad it was going to be, because they didn’t have the right information because their information chain, while normally good, wasn’t going through the right people and there were too many people with choke points on crucial information. We’ve got too many HR managers, too many PR guys at the hospitals telling people not to talk with the press, and too many people in the press saying that random anons on the internet are not valid sources of medical information (even though many of these folks on the internet are actually epidemiologists, virologists, doctors, etc).

An this has been happening in tandem with attempts by different organizations like Google, Twitter, and Facebook to crack down on the “invalid” information sources. Censorship, basically. Google has changed parts of their search algorithm to decrease results from blogs and increase results from more official websites, for example (before you run off to Duck Duck Go, I don’t think my blog is even indexed on Duck Duck Go). Shortly before corona really blew up, the social networks were debuting a beta program for identifying “fake news.” We can just imagine in a case like this where there has been a lot of incorrect information just because it’s a developing situation and we don’t know what’s going on yet, (we may never know how many people actually died in Wuhan) many legitimate news stories could get censored. Trying to weed out all of the fake news puts a damper on the real news and too many real things will get labeled as fake because we don’t know they’re real, yet. The real is in the future; it’s still developing. We don’t know what it is, yet. Too many real stories will sound, like the ophthalmologist raising the alarm in Wuhan, like a guy yelling fire in a crowded theater when the theater is actually on fire.

This is why I am against censorship and in favor of letting people run around saying dumb things, like that the tides prove the Earth. Yes, Galileo was wrong–and yet, the Earth moves.

10 thoughts on “Speculations on Information flow and Covid

  1. This is reminiscent of the coal fire in Centralia, Pennsylvania. Accidentally started by a burning brush pile at the town dump, it gradually spread, and at every stage of its growth, half-measures were taken that were much more expensive than full measures would have been at the previous stage. Finally, with large chunks of land randomly collapsing into giant sinkholes, the entire town had to be abandoned, and the fire still burns today.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. I suppose I will add my perspective, as an Illuminati Lizard from Lizardtown, USA. First of all, when it comes to information, it really isn’t the case that powerful people are insulated from the Meme Internet. As I’ve said before, a noble is a sort of cousin to an autist. I baneposted IRL with one of my close friends in college, a man with a sterling bloodline of well-pedigreed thugs. It became increasingly clear in late January that shelter-in-place orders would be issued – I recall a service which sells bunkers to government and officials sent out an advisory to begin stockpiling ammunition for long arms. So why wasn’t word spread? There are certain barriers. First of all, the topic came up a lot at work, at my sinister Deep State Megacorp. And you know what? Nobody thought I was crazy. The thing about that is that if you’re surrounded by people who *don’t* think you’re crazy, it means you’re in an environment where talking about it doesn’t spread info to anyone new. And if people *do* think you’re crazy, then you’ll be shouted down. That’s barrier one. How would I reach “normal people”? It’s a serious problem – I don’t know many. Barrier two, why would someone like me care? They’re not in my mental tribe. My care for most Americans comes down to an imagined sense of community and noblesse oblige, which is pretty abstract. What if someone doesn’t give a fig about U-S-A U-S-A U-S-A and sees themselves as a “citizen of the world”, which in practice means a citizen of the wealthy world? Indifference. Barrier three, you could go on the internet and shout into the blogosphere. The people who are on the blogosphere often already know, and people have little reason to trust you. Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding, a very fine and respected figure, was shouting into the void from January onwards. You really cannot get more credible than Harvard. What happened? Who listened? Very few people.

    Okay, so let’s say you’re talking big guns then. Not just words, but action. Imagine it’s February 10th, and you start announcing measures to contain the virus, and how it’s going to play out. You tell America that a virus will come here, it will breach containment, and that there will be shelter-in-place for a month. Starting today, all airports will be locked. You don’t have to imagine it because it stalled out at step 1. The first preventative measures were crushed by a media campaign to fight xenophobia, because racism is the real disease. Imagine three million angry redditors swarming through the country. Imagine the fat, deformed denizens of a r/politics meetup busting down your front door, every one shot down being replaced by another, until they seize you and your husband and rape you to death, before setting your children on fire. Many of my friends have either personally been through times like that, or their parents have. My college friend, as a child, had to learn how to use and care for a gun, out of necessity, since every time his father left, it was uncertain he would ever return. Why stick your neck out when the consequence might be a gun to your head? Those Congressmen being run through the wringer for selling stock while lying to the public to the public? The rest of Congress, and many outside of Congress, are just as guilty. They’ve been singled out to offer up as scapegoats to the mob. Am I proud of that? No. It’s a very shameful thing. But I’m not going to risk my own skin for them. So I’ll have to live with that, may God forgive me. What’s the payoff if you hush everything up instead and swoop in with a response later? Instead of being crucified, you’re hailed as a 11th hour liberator, a savior on a white horse. You can see which option is more attractive from a cynical sense. It’s not necessarily a partisan issue even.

    Lastly, suppose you do want to act, and damn the political fallout. You’ll go down a hero, even if only God will see that. How are you going to make anything happen? Do you know what bureaucrats are like? Bureaucrats don’t believe in things like this. Bureaucrats have a brain which can be described as an extreme normalcy bias. They can’t bend the rules for even very ordinary things, let alone actual crises. People like to talk about the tentacular reach of the donor class! It’s true! But it’s also false. A quick check of OpenSecrets shows I have the gold star sticker of being in the top 100,000 donors in the US. Sure, if you want to get some pork, that’s easy. It’s not *their* money. If you want to rub someone out, hey, it’s not *their* family. All good. But if you want to help the country? That’s an existential threat to bureaucracy. If the problem is solved, why have a bureaucracy? Exactly. What we need is more policy, always more policy, never less policy. How can such people exist? Well, people aren’t motivated by profit maximization like some foolish economists claim. People want status, they want ego pumps. People can get their ego pump from many sources. Some people take pride in their work, some their families, some their money, some their friends. I take my satisfaction from stroking off to PURE BLUE BLOOD UPPER MIDDLE CLASS BOBO, STEP ASIDE PEASANTS. What kind of a person becomes a bureaucrat? Well, some of them want to help people, the sorts of goody two shoes who volunteer for Teach for America. They get chewed up. Disproportionately, bureaucrats are a kind of person who went to a second-rate college after a school career of perfect scores. They’re straight A students who always cross their Ts and never had an original thought in their lives. So how do they validate? Teacher said they did the Right Thing. You’re not Teacher. I’m not Teacher either. The organization is Teacher. And in real life, there is no Right Thing, only hard and messy choices laden with tradeoffs.

    The day we had to start coloring outside the lines, all those bureaucrats freaked out and panicked. I suspect the need to dampen panic is not for the sake of proles, who seem sanguine and willing to sacrifice for their fellow man, bless them, but for the massive bureaucracy state which employs 17% of workers directly, and another 10% through NGOs. I saw people, these bureaucrat types, 180 from scoffing at the virus to hoarding toilet paper (???).

    There’s also plain incompetence and bravado. De Blasio’s administration wanted people to maximize social contact and party as much as possible. Gotta prove… something. Now New York/New Jersey account for half the cases in the US.

    It’s rambly, but that’s wot i thunk.

    If you want something calming, then you can at least know that a production ramp up began in February, not just now.

    Like

      • It is and always was. The weak need support to prop them. And they worship and serve the state Moloch to get them . At whatever cost and whatever sacrifice. Beauty, truth , children – all goes to the fire

        Liked by 1 person

      • Bureaucracy may be the devil, but it’s an inevitability of complex governments. A government run by citizen-amateurs can only have so many laws. And this sounds great to some people! But many people now think the job of the government is to fix a variety of social ills, which requires a bureaucracy. And most of all, a bureaucracy creates the illusion of control. People crave control – rather, they crave the notion that events are controllable. Rules make the disorderly look orderly, but destiny respects no laws. Times like these demonstrate that.

        Anyways, this isn’t the end of the world. I think the response has been adequate, though improvement is definitely possible. People will die from coronavirus, but for every point of unemployment, 40,000 die… or something like that.

        Anyways, I hope that wasn’t too boring a comment. It’s not just bureaucracy, but incentives pushing crisis response over prevention, and social distance between the classes.

        Liked by 1 person

  3. 1/ MM was the first public intellectual to point out the implications of Covid-19 (that I know of) and he’s about as far right as you can get: https://americanmind.org/essays/rip-globalism-dead-of-coronavirus/

    2/ As Monsieur le Baron pointed out, I think you’re ignoring the importance of culture and institutions. Ours are culturally incapable of making difficult choices. Even now, it seems unlikely that NYC will be placed under quarantine even though this is probably the correct call to make (Wuhan was placed under a much more stringent quarantine a lot earlier judging by known cases).

    3/ You can’t simultaneously claim that (a) the news out of China looked concerning, and (b) that the CDC didn’t have information sources to rely on. It’s the CDC’s job to evaluate “concerning” news and decide if people should in fact be concerned about it! You should go back to your original thesis: the CDC (and the FDA for that matter) is full of morons.

    Regarding text-to-speech: it feels like your posts are longer and less structured. I’m not a fan personally (but it’s your blog so you’re of course welcome to do as you please). For example, that digression on the right vs. the left on ebola vs. corona seems pretty unnecessary and under-studied compared to your other posts.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Thanks.

      (The digression seemed necessary because, for accuracy reasons, I need to admit when I’ve made a theory that doesn’t hold up and revise accordingly. But it might have been better off in its own post.)

      Like

  4. People see things that confirm what they already believe. The ‘internet-right’ wants borders closed and industry returned to America. In January, a new virus appeared which justified both these policies. Naturally, the internet-right found it plausible and, just as naturally, the left moved to neutralize this threat with accusations of racism. The left wants Donald Trump humiliated and destroyed. When the local epidemic grew bad enough to embarrass and potentially discredit the president, the left suddenly found it plausible. The normie-right’s is either not terribly concerned by politics or motivated by the pathetic goal of ‘owning the libs.’ Once the left finally adopted the position that the virus would in fact be terrible, the normie-right naturally took the exact opposite position.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s