Tag Archives: Precautionary Principle
Hyperbolic Scenarios, Crude Climate Models, and Scientism
Posted by Nuetzel in Climate science, Global Warming
Carbon Efficiency, Carbon forcing, carbon Sensitivity, Cloud Feedback, COP26, G20, Global Temprature, IEA, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, International Energy Agency, IPCC, Joe Biden, Joe Brandon, Judith Curry, Justin Ritchie, Net Zero Emissions, Nic Lewis, Precautionary Principle, Prince Charles, RCP8.5, rent seeking, Representative Concentration Pathway, Roger Pielke Jr., Scientism, United Nations
What we hear regarding the dangers of climate change is based on predictions of future atmospheric carbon concentrations and corresponding predictions of global temperatures. Those predictions are not "data" in the normal, positive sense. They do not represent "the way things are" or "the way things have been", though one might hope the initial model conditions align with reality. Nor can the predictions be relied upon as "the way things will be". Climate scientists normally report a range of outcomes produced by models, yet we usually hear only one type of consequence for humanity: catastrophe!
Models Are Not Reality
The kinds of climate models quoted by activists and by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have been around for decades. Known as "carbon forcing" models, they are highly simplified representations of the process determining global temperatures. The primary forecast inputs are atmospheric carbon concentrations over time, which again are themselves predictions.
It's usually asserted that climate model outputs should guide policy, but we must ask: how much confidence can we have in the predictions to allow government to take coercive actions having immediate, negative impacts on human well being? What evidence can be marshaled to show prospective outcomes under proposed policies? And how well do these models fit the actual, historical data? That is, how well do model predictions track our historical experience, given the historical paths of inputs like carbon concentrations?
Faulty Inputs
The IPCC has been defining and updating sets of carbon scenarios since 1990. The scenarios outline the future paths of greenhouse gas emissions (and carbon forcings). They were originally based on economic and demographic modeling before an apparent "decision by committee" to maintain consistency with scenarios issued in the past. Roger Pielke Jr. and Justin Ritchie describe the evolution of this decision process, and they call for change:
"Our research (and that of several colleagues) indicates that the scenarios of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions through the end of the twenty-first century are grounded in outdated portrayals of the recent past. Because climate models depend on these scenarios to project the future behavior of the climate, the outdated scenarios provide a misleading basis both for developing a scientific evidence base and for informing climate policy discussions. The continuing misuse of scenarios in climate research has become pervasive and consequential—so much so that we view it as one of the most significant failures of scientific integrity in the twenty-first century thus far. We need a course correction."
One would certainly expect the predicted growth of atmospheric carbon to evolve over time. However, as Pielke and Ritchie note, the IPCC's baseline carbon scenario today, known as RCP8.5 ("Representative Concentration Pathway"), is remarkably similar to the "business as usual" (BAU) scenario it first issued in 1990:
"The emissions scenarios the climate community is now using as baselines for climate models depend on portrayals of the present that are no longer true. And once the scenarios lost touch with reality, so did the climate, impact, and economic models that depend on them for their projections of the future. Yet these projections are a central part of the scientific basis upon which climate policymakers are now developing, debating, and adopting policies."
The authors go on to discuss a few characteristics of the BAU scenario that today seem implausible, including:
"… RCP8.5 foresees carbon dioxide emissions growing rapidly to at least the year 2300 when Earth reaches more than 2,000 ppm of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations. But again, according to the IEA and other groups, fossil energy emissions have likely plateaued, and it is plausible to achieve net-zero emissions before the end of the century, if not much sooner."
Pielke and Ritchie demonstrate that the IPCC's baseline range of carbon emissions by 2045 is centered well above (actually double) the mid-range of scenarios developed by the International Energy Agency (IEA), and there is very little overlap between the two. However, global carbon emissions have been flat over the past decade. Even if we extrapolate the growth in atmospheric CO2 parts per million over the past 20 years, it would rise to less than 600 ppm by 2100, not 1,200 ppm. It's true that a few countries (China comes to mind) continue to exploit less "carbon efficient" energy resources like coal, but the growth trend in concentrations is likely to continue to taper over time.
It therefore appears that the IPCC's climate scenarios, which are used broadly as model inputs by the climate research community, are suspect. As one might suspect: garbage in, garbage out. But what about the climate models themselves?
Faulty Models
The model temperature predictions have been grossly in error. They have been and continue to be "too hot". The chart at the top of this post is typical of the comparisons of model projections and actual temperatures. Before the year 2000, most of the temperature paths projected by the particular model charted above ran higher than actual temperatures. However, the trends subsequently diverged and the gap has become more extreme over the past two decades.
The problem is not merely one of faulty inputs. The models themselves are deeply flawed, as they fail to account adequately for natural forces that strongly influence our climate. It's been clear for many years that the sun's radiative energy has a massive impact on temperatures, and it is affected not only by the intensity of the solar cycle but also by cloud cover on Earth. Unfortunately, carbon forcing models do not agree on the role that increased clouds might have in amplifying warming. However, a reduction in cloud cover over the past 20 years, and a corresponding increase in radiative heat, can account for every bit of the warming experienced over that time.
This finding not only offers an alternative explanation for two decades of modest warming, it also strikes at the very heart of the presumed feedback mechanism usually assumed to amplify carbon-induced warming. The overall effect is summarized by the so-called carbon sensitivity, measured as the response of global temperature to a doubling of carbon concentration. The IPCC puts that sensitivity in a range of 1.5C to 4.5C. However, findings published by Nic Lewis and Judith Curry are close to the low end of that range, as are those found by Frank Bosse reported here. The uncertainties surrounding the role of cloud cover and carbon sensitivities reveal that the outputs relied upon by climate alarmists are extreme model simulations, not the kind of reliable intelligence upon which drastic policy measures should be taken.
The constant anxiety issued from the Left on the issue of climate change, and not a little haranguing of the rest of us, is misplaced. The IPCC's scenarios for the future paths of carbon concentration are outdated and seriously exaggerated, and they represent a breach of scientific protocol. Yet the scenarios are widely used as the basis of policy discussions at both the domestic and international levels. The climate models themselves embed questionable assumptions that create a bias toward calamitous outcomes.
Yet Drastic Action Is Urged
The UN's 2021 climate conference, or COP26 ("Conference of the Parties …") is taking place in Glasgow, Scotland this month. Like earlier international climate conferences, the hope is that dire forecasts will prompt broad agreement on goals and commitments, and that signatory countries will translate these into policy at the national level.
Things got off to a bad start when, before COP26 even began, the G20 nations failed to agree on a goal of "net-zero" carbon emissions by 2050. Another bad portent for the conference is that China and India, both big carbon emitters, will not attend, which must be tremendously disappointing to attendees. After all, COP26 has been billed by Prince Charles himself as "the last chance saloon, literally", for saving the world from catastrophe. He said roughly the same thing before the Paris conference in 2014. And Joe Brandon … er, Biden, blurted some hyperbole of his own:
"Climate change is already ravaging the world. … It's destroying people's lives and livelihoods and doing it every single day. … It's costing our nations trillions of dollars."
All this is unadulterated hogwash. But it is the stuff upon which a crisis-hungry media feeds. This hucksterism is but one form of climate rent-seeking. Other forms are much more troubling: scary scenarios and model predictions serve the self-interest of regulators, grant-seeking researchers, interventionist politicians, and green investors who suckle at the public teat. It is a nightmare of scientism fed by the arrogance of self-interested social planners. The renewable energy technologies promoted by these investors, politicians, and planners are costly and land-intensive, providing only intermittent output (requiring backup fossil fuel capacity), and they have nasty environmental consequences of their own.
The precautionary principle is no excuse for the extreme policies advocated by alarmists. We already have economically viable "carbon efficient" and even zero-carbon energy alternatives, such as natural gas, modular nuclear power, and expanded opportunities for exploiting geothermal energy. This argues against premature deployment of wasteful renewables. The real crisis is the threat posed by the imposition of draconian green policies to our long-term prosperity, and especially to the world's poor.
Mask Truths and Signals
Posted by Nuetzel in Coronavirus, Public Health
Aerosols, Anne Wheeler, Cloth Masks, Comorbitities, Coronavirus, Covid-19, Delta Variant, Emotional Interference, Endemicity, Germaphobia, Influenza, Mask Mandates, Masks, Michael Levitt, OCD Therapy, Outdoor Infectiions, Precautionary Principle, Randomized Control Trials, Seasonality, Viral Interference, Viral Transmission
It's been clear since the beginning of the pandemic that your chance of getting infected with COVID outside is close to zero. (Also see here). Yet I still see a few masked people on the beach, in the park, on balconies, and walking in the neighborhood. Given the negligible risk of contracting COVID outdoors, the marginal benefit of masking outdoors is infinitesimal. Likewise, the benefit of a mask to the sole occupant of a vehicle is about zilch. Okay, some individuals might forget to remove their masks after leaving a "high-risk" environment. Sure, maybe, but cloth masks really don't stop the dispersion of fine aerosols anywhere, indoors or outdoors. Of course, the immune-compromised have a reasonable excuse to apply the precautionary principle, but generally not outside with good air quality.
The following link provides a list of mask studies, and meta-studies. Several describe randomized control trials (RCTs). They vary in context, but all of them reject the hypothesis that masks are protective. Positive evidence on mask efficacy is lacking in health care settings, in community settings, and in school settings, and the evidence shows that masks create "pronounced difficulties" for young children and "emotional interference" for school children of all ages. Here's another article containing links to more studies demonstrating the inefficacy of masks. Also see here. And this article is not only an excellent summary of the research, but it also highlights the hypocrisy of the "follow the science" public health establishment with respect to RCTs. Compliance is not even at issue in many of these studies, though if you think masks matter, it is always an issue in practice. Even studies claiming that cloth masks of the type normally worn by the public are "effective" usually concede that a large percentage of fine aerosols get through the masks… containing millions of tiny particles. In indoor environments with poor ventilation, those aerosols remain suspended in the air for periods long enough to be inhaled by others. That, in fact, is why masks are ineffective at preventing transmission.
Another dubious claim is that masks are responsible for virtually eliminating cases of influenza in 2020 and 2021. Again, to be charitable, masks are of very limited effectiveness in stopping viral transmission. Moreover, compliance has been weak at best, and areas without mask mandates have experienced the same plunge in flu cases as areas with mandates. A far more compelling explanation is that viral interference caused the steep reduction in flu incidence. The chance of being infected with more than one virus at a time is almost nil. Simply put, COVID outcompeted the flu.
Again, I grant that there are studies (though only a single randomized control trial out of India of which I'm aware) that have demonstrated significant protective effects. Even then, however, the mixed nature of this body of research does not support intrusive masking requirements.
Nevertheless, masks are still mandated in some jurisdictions. Those mandates usually don't apply outdoors, however, and not in your own damn car! Mask mandates contribute to the general climate of fear surrounding COVID, which is wholly unjustified for most children and healthy working-age people. Public health messaging should focus on high-risk individuals: the elderly, the obese, and those having so-called comorbidities and compromised immune systems. Those groups have obvious reasons to be concerned about the virus. They have excuses to be germaphobic! Still, they are at little risk outdoors, the value of masks is doubtful, and breathing deep of fresh air is good for you in any case!
The incidence of COVID has declined substantially in many areas since early September, but the virus is now almost certainly endemic and is likely to return in seasonal waves. However, the Delta wave was far less deadly than earlier variants, a favorable trend many believe will continue. These charts from the UK posted by Michael Levitt demonstrate the improvement vividly. Perhaps the mask craze will fade away as the evidence accumulates.
The pandemic has been a moment of redemption for germaphobes, but no reasonable assessment of risk mitigation relative to the cost, inconvenience, discomfort, and psychological debasement of face jackets can prove their worth outdoors. Their value indoors is nearly as questionable. Yet there remains a stubborn reluctance by public health authorities to lift mask mandates. There are far too many individuals masking outdoors, and to be nice, perhaps it's mere ignorance. But there are still a few would-be tyrants on Twitter presuming to shame others into joining this pathetic bit of theatre. I believe Anne Wheeler nailed it with this recent tweet:
"This is one of the first things you learn in OCD therapy – you don't get to make people participate in your compulsions in order to lesson your own anxiety. It's bizarre that it's been turned into a virtue."
There's also no question that masks are still in vogue as a virtue signal in some circles, but a mask outdoors, especially, is increasingly viewed as a stupid-signal, and for good reason. I'll continue to marvel at the irrationality of these masked alarmists, who just don't understand how foolish they look. Give yourself permission to get some fresh air!
CDC Makes a Bum Lead Steer: Alternate Reality vs. The Herd
Posted by Nuetzel in Herd Immunity, Pandemic
Adam Kucharski, Andy Slovitt, Anthony Fauci, CDC, Degrees of Separation, Herd Immunity, Herd Immunity Threshold, Joe Biden, Jordan Schachtel, Nathan D. Grawe, Obesity, Phil Kerpen, Pre-existing Immunity, Precautionary Principle, Reproduction Rate, Seroprevalence, Sub-Herds, Super-Spreader Events, Vaccinations, Vitamin D, Zero COVID
Jordan Schachtel enjoyed some schadenfreude last week when he tweeted:
"I am thoroughly enjoying the White House declaring COVID over and seeing the confused cultists having a nervous breakdown and demanding the continuation of COVID Mania."
It's quite an exaggeration to say the Biden Administration is "declaring COVID over", however. They're backpedaling, and while last week's CDC announcement on masking is somewhat welcome, it reveals more idiotic thinking about almost everything COVID: the grotesquely excessive application of the precautionary principle (typical of the regulatory mindset) and the mentality of "zero COVID". And just listen to Joe Biden's tyrannical bluster following the CDC announcement:
"The rule is now simple: get vaccinated or wear a mask until you do.
The choice is yours."
Is anyone really listening to this buffoon?Unfortunately, yes. But there's no federal "rule", unless your on federal property; it constitutes "guidance" everywhere else. I'm thankful our federalist system still receives a modicum of respect in the whole matter, and some states have chosen their own approaches ("Hooray for Florida"). Meanwhile, the state of the pandemic looks like this, courtesy of Andy Slavitt:
False Assertions
The CDC still operates under the misapprehension that kids need to wear masks, despite mountains of evidence showing children are at negligible risk and tend not to be spreaders. Here's some evidence shared by Phil Kerpen on the risk to children:
The chart shows the fatality risk by age (deaths per 100,000), and then under the assumption of a 97% reduction in that risk due to vaccination, which is quite conservative. Given that kind of improvement, an unvaccinated 9 year-old child has about the same risk as a fully vaccinated 30 year-old!
The CDC still believes the unvaccinated must wear masks outdoors, but unless you're packed in a tight crowd, catching the virus outdoors has about the same odds as a piano falling on your head. And the CDC insists that two shots of mRNA vaccine (Pfizer or Moderna) are necessary before going maskless, but only one shot of the Johnson and Johnson vaccine, even though J&J's is less effective than a single mRNA jab!
Other details in the CDC announcement are worthy of ridicule, but for me the most aggravating are the agency's implicit position that herd immunity can only be achieved through vaccination, and its "guidance" that the unvaccinated should be dealt with coercively, even if they have naturally-acquired immunity from an infection!
Tallying Immunity
Vaccination is only one of several routes to herd immunity, as I've noted in the past. For starters, consider that a significant share of the population has a degree of pre-existing immunity brought on by previous exposure to coronaviruses, including the common cold. That doesn't mean they won't catch the virus, but it does mean they're unlikely to suffer severe symptoms or transmit a high viral load to anyone else. Others, while not strictly immune, are nevertheless unlikely to be sickened due to protections afforded by healthy vitamin D levels or because they are not obese. Children, of course, tend to be fairly impervious. Anyone who's had a bout with the virus and survived is likely to have gained strong and long-lasting immunity, even if they were asymptomatic. And finally, there are those who've been vaccinated. All of these groups have little or no susceptibility to the virus for some time to come.
It's not necessary to vaccinate everyone to achieve herd immunity, nor is it necessary to reach something like an 85% vax rate, as the fumbling Dr. Fauci has claimed. Today, almost 47% of the U.S. population has received at least one dose, or about 155 million adults. Here's Kerpen's vax update for May 14.
Another 33 million people have had positive diagnoses and survived, and estimates of seroprevalence would add perhaps another 30 million survivors. Some of those individuals have been vaccinated unnecessarily, however, and to avoid double counting, let's say a total of 50 million people have survived the virus. Some 35 million children in the U.S. are under age 12. Therefore, even if we ignore pre-existing immunity, there are probably about 240 million effectively immune individuals without counting the remaining non-susceptibles. At the low end, based on a population of 330 million, U.S. immunity is now greater than 70%, and probably closer to 80%. That is more than sufficient for herd immunity, as traditionally understood.
The Herd Immunity Threshold
Here and in the following section I take a slightly deeper dive into herd immunity concepts.
Herd immunity was one of my favorite topics last year. I'm still drawn to it because it's so misunderstood, even by public health officials with pretensions of expertise in the matter. My claim, about which I'm not alone, is that it's unnecessary for a large majority of the population to be infected (or vaccinated) to limit the spread of a virus. That's primarily because there is great variety in individuals' degree of susceptibility, social connections, aerosol production, and viral load if exposed: call it heterogeneity or diversity if you like. Variation across individuals naturally limits a contagion relative to a homogeneous population.
Less than 1% of those who caught the virus died, while the others recovered and acquired immunity. The remaining subset of individuals most vulnerable to severe illness was thus reduced over time via acquired immunity or death. This is the natural dynamic that causes contagions to slow and ultimately peter out. In technical jargon, the virus reproduction rate "R" falls below a value of one. The point at which that happens is called the "herd immunity threshold" (HIT).
A population with lots of variation in susceptibility will have a lower HIT. Some have estimated a HIT in the U.S. as low as 15% -25%. Ultimately, total exposure will go much higher than the HIT, perhaps well more than doubling exposure, but the contagion recedes once the HIT is reached. So again, it's unnecessary for anywhere near the full population to be immune to achieve herd immunity.
One wrinkle is that CIVID is now likely to have become endemic. Increased numbers of cases will re-emerge seasonally in still-susceptible individuals. That doesn't contradict the discussion above regarding the HIT rate: subsequent waves will be quite mild by comparison with the past 14 months. But if the effectiveness of vaccines or acquired immunity wanes over time, or as healthy people age and become unhealthy, re-emergence becomes a greater risk.
Sub-Herd Immunity
A further qualification relates to so-called sub-herds. People are clustered by geographical, social, and cultural circles, so we should think of society not as a singular "herd", but as a collection of sub-herds having limited cross-connectivity. The following charts are representations of different kinds of human networks, from Nathan D. Grawe's review of "The Rules of Contagion, by Adam Kucharski:
Sub-herd members tend to have more degrees of separation from individuals in other sub-herds than within their own sub-herd. The most extreme example is the "broken network" (where contagions could not spread across sub-herds), but there are identifiable sub-herds in all of the examples shown above. Less average connectedness across sub-herds implies barriers to transmission and more isolated sub-herd contagions.
We've seen isolated spikes in cases in different geographies, and there have been spikes within geographies among sub-herds of individuals sharing commonalities such as race, religious affiliation, industry affiliation, school, or other cultural affiliation. Furthermore, transmission of COVID has been dominated by "super-spreader" events, which tend to occur within sub-herds. In fact, sub-herds are likely to be more homogeneous than the whole of society, and that means their HIT will be higher than we might naively calculate based on higher levels of aggregation.
We have seen local, state, or regional contagions peak and turn down when estimates of total incidence of infections reach the range of 15 – 25%. That appears to have been enough to reach the HIT in those geographically isolated cases. However, if those geographical contagions were also concentrated within social sub-herds, those sub-herds might have experienced much higher than 25% incidence by the time new infections peaked. Again, the HIT for sub-herds is likely to be greater than the aggregate population estimates implied, The upshot is that some sub-herds might have achieved herd immunity last year but others did not, which explains the spikes in new geographic areas and even the recurrence of spikes within geographic areas.
It's unnecessary for 100% of the population to be vaccinated or to have pre-existing immunity. Likewise, herd immunity does not imply that no one catches the virus or that no one dies from the virus. There will be seasonal waves, though muted by the large immune share of the population. This is not something that government should try to stanch, as that would require the kind of coercion and scare tactics we've already seen overplayed during the pandemic. People face risks in almost everything they do, and they usually feel competent to evaluate those risks themselves. That is, until a large segment of the population allows themselves to be infantalized by public health authorities.
Bottom-Line Booster Shots
Posted by Nuetzel in Coronavirus, Public Health, Vaccinations
1918 Influenza Pandemic, Antibodies, B-Cells, Booster Shots, Coronavirus, COVID Vaccines, Immunity, Killer T Cells, Moderna, Monica Ghandi M.D., Non-Pharmaceutical interventions, Pfizer, Precautionary Principle, SARS Virus, T-Cells, Vaccine Passports
The barrage of precautionary COVID missives continues, and with a familiar "follow-the-money" twist. The CEOs of both Pfizer and Moderna say that booster shots are likely to be needed a year after initial administration of their COVID vaccines, and almost certainly every year thereafter. Of course, this message is for those who felt compelled to be vaccinated in the first place, whether out of concern for their own health, high-minded community spirit, fear of social ostracism, or fear of possible vaccine passport requirements. It's probably also intended for those who acquired immunity through infection.
There are reasons to believe, however, that such a booster is unnecessary. This case was made a few days ago in a series of tweets by Dr. Monica Ghandi, an infectious disease expert and Professor of Medicine at UCSF. Ghandi says immunity from an infection or a vaccine can be expected to last much longer than a year, despite the diminished presence of antibodies. That's because the immune system relies on other mechanisms to signal and produce new antibodies against specific pathogens when called upon.
So-called B cells actually produce antibodies. Another cell-type known as T cells act to signal or instruct B cells to do so, but so-called "killer" T cells destroy cells in the body that have already been infected. Dr. Ghandi's point is that both B and T cells tend to have very long memories and are capable of conferring immunity for many years.
While our experience with COVID-19 is short, long-lasting immunity has been proven against measles for up to 34 years, and for other SARS-type viruses for at least 17 years. Dr. Ghandi links to research showing that survivors of the 1918 flu pandemic were found to have active B cells against the virus 90 years later! The COVID vaccines cause the body to produce both B and T cells, and the T cells are protective against COVID variants.
A last point made by Dr. Ghandi is intended to dispel doubts some might harbor due to the relatively ineffectual nature of annual flu vaccines. The flu mutates much more aggressively than COVID, so the design of each year's flu vaccine involves a limited and uncertain choice among recent strains. COVID mutates, but in a more stable way, so that vaccines and adaptive immunity tend to retain their effectiveness.
While I'm sure the pharmaceutical companies believe in the benefits of their vaccines, there are undoubtedly other motives behind the push for boosters. There is money to be made, and much of that money will be paid by governments eager to jump on the precautionary bandwagon, and who are likely to be very insensitive to price. In fact, the vaccine producers might well have encouraged those pushing vaccine passports to include annual booster requirements. This would be another unwelcome imposition. The very discussion of boosters gives government officials more running room for other draconian but ultimately ineffective mandates on behavior. And the booster recommendation gives additional cover to public health "experts" who refuse to acknowledge real tradeoffs between the stringency of non-pharmaceutical interventions, economic well being, and other dimensions of public health.
Risk Realism, COVID Hysteria
Posted by Nuetzel in Uncategorized
All-Cause Mortality, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Association of Sciences, Asian Flu, Covid-19, David Zaruk, Engineering and Medicine, Hydroxychloraquine, Infection Fatality Rate, Mollie Hemingway, Precautionary Principle, Spanish Flu, The Risk Monger, Tyler Cowen, Wired
Perhaps life in a prosperous society has sapped our ability and willingness to face risks. This tendency undermines that very prosperity, however. If we ever needed an illustration, the hysteria surrounding COVID-19 surely provides it. Do we really know how to exist in a world with risk anymore? During this episode, the media, public officials, and much of the public have completely lost their bearings with respect to the evaluation of risk, acting as if they are entitled to a zero-risk existence. Of course, COVID-19 is highly transmissible and dangerous for certain segments of the population, but it is rather benign for most people.
Perspective On C19 Risks
Just for starters, the table at the top of this post (admittedly not particularly well organized) shows calculations of odds from the CDC. These odds might well overstate the risks of both C19 and the flu, as they probably don't account well for the huge number of asymptomatic cases of both viruses.
Another glimpse of reality is offered by a recent Swiss study showing the C19 infection mortality rate (IFR) by age, shown below. You can find a number of other charts on-line that show the same pattern: If you're less than 50 years old, your risk of death from C19 is quite slim. Even those 50-64 years of age don't face a substantial mortality risk, though it's obviously higher for individuals having co-morbidities. These IFRs are lower than all-cause mortality for younger cohorts, but higher for older cohorts.
And here are a few other facts to put the risks of C19 in perspective:
The current pandemic is relatively benign: thus far, the U.S. has suffered a total of about 145,000 deaths, or 440 per million of population;
the Asian Flu of 1957-58 took 116,000, according to the CDC, or 674 per million;
the Spanish Flu of 1917-18 took 675,000 U.S lives, or 6,553 per million.
It should be obvious that these risks, while new and elevated for some, are not of such outrageous magnitude that they can't be managed without bringing life to a grinding halt. That's especially true when so-called safety measures entail substantial health risks of their own, as I have emphasized elsewhere (and here).
Nothing illustrates our inability to assess risks better than the debate over reopening schools. This article in Wired is well-balanced on the safety issue. It emphasizes that there is little risk to teachers, students, or their families from opening schools if reasonable safety measures are taken.
Children of pre-school and elementary school age do not contract the virus readily, do not transmit the virus readily, and do not readily succumb to its effects. This German study on elementary schools demonstrates the safety of reopening. It is similar to the experience of other EU countries that have reopened schools. This article reinforces that point, but it emphasizes measures to limit any flare-ups that might arise. And while it singles out Israel as an example of poor execution, it fails to offer any evidence on the severity of infections.
Furthermore, we should not overlook the destructive effects of denying in-classroom learning to children. They simply don't learn as well on-line, especially students who struggle. There are also the devastating social-psychological effects of the isolation experienced by many elementary school children during extended school closures. This is of a piece with the significant risks of lockdowns to well being. Perhaps not well known is that schooling is positively correlated with life expectancy: this study found that a one-year reduction in years of schooling is associated with a reduction in life expectancy of 0.6 years!
It's true that children older than 10 might pose somewhat greater risks for C19 contagion, but those risks are manageable via hygiene, distancing, and other mitigations including hydroxychloraquine or other prophylaxes against infection for teachers who desire it. Capacity limitations might well require a temporary mix of online and in-school learning, but at least part-time attendance at brick-and-mortar schools should remain the centerpiece.
As Tyler Cowen points out, teenagers are less likely to remain isolated from others during school closures, so their behavior might be more difficult to manage. It's quite possible they could be more heavily exposed outside of school, hanging out with friends, than in the classroom. This illustrates how our readiness to demure from absolute risk often ignores the pertinent question of relative risk.
Judging by reactions on social media, people are so frightened out of their wits that they cannot put these manageable risks in perspective. But here is a statement from the American Academy of Pediatrics. And here is a statement from the American Association of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine. They speak for themselves.
Excessive Precautionary Putzery
Our reaction to C19 amounts to a misapplication of the precautionary principle (PP), which states, quite reasonably, that precautionary measures must be invoked when faced with a risk that is not well understood. Risk must be managed! But what are those precautions and on what basis should benefits we forego via mitigation be balanced against quantifiable risks. That was one theme of my post "Precaution Forbids Your Rewards" several years back. Ralph B. Alexander discusses the PP, noting that the construct is vulnerable to political manipulation. It is, unfortunately, a wonderful devise for opportunistic interest groups and interventionist politicians. See something you don't like? Identify a risk you can use to frighten the public. Use any anecdotal evidence you can scrape together. Start a movement and put a stop to it!
That really doesn't help us deal with risk in a productive way. Do we understand that well being generally is enhanced by our willingness to incur and manage risks? As David Zaruk, aka, the Risk Monger, says, "our reliance of the precautionary principle has ruined our ability to manage risk.":
"Two decades of the precautionary principle as the key policy tool for managing uncertainties has neutered risk management capacities by offering, as the only approach, the systematic removal of any exposure to any hazard. As the risk-averse precautionary mindset cements itself, more and more of us have become passive docilians waiting to be nannied. We no longer trust and are no longer trusted with risk-benefit choices as we are channelled down over-engineered preventative paths. While it is important to reduce exposure to risks, our excessively-protective risk managers have, in their zeal, removed our capacity to manage risks ourselves. Precaution over information, safety over autonomy, dictation over accountability."
To quote Mollie Hemingway, in the case of the coronavirus, Americans are "reacting like a bunch of hysterics".
Statists Might Like To Vaccinate Against Many Things
Posted by Nuetzel in Vaccinations
Anti-Vaxxers, Community Protection Threshold, Contagion, Contra-Indications, Externality, Federaalism, Herd Immunity, Immunization, Jeffrey Singer, Lancet, Measles, Mercury, Michigan Vaccine Law, Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc, Precautionary Principle, Price Discrimination, Private Governance, Vaccine Hesitancy, Vaccine Preservatives, Vaccine Resistors, Whooping Cough
The vaccine debate illustrates a widespread misunderstanding about the meaning of an "advanced society". It does not mean that difficult social problems must be dealt with always and everywhere in a uniform way, as supporters of vaccine mandates seem to assume. Instead, it often means that society can respect differences in the preferences of individuals by allowing varied approaches to problem-solving across jurisdictions, as well as across public and private institutions. This latter notion of advancement respects individual freedom and facilitates experiential social learning. But is that varied approach wise in a world of communicable diseases?
One standard of "community" protection assumes that vaccines work with a high degree of certainty within groups of individuals, especially with a second booster. The share of the population vaccinated against most common childhood diseases is fairly high. In fact, these shares mostly exceed their respective "community protection thresholds" — the percentage required to prevent a particular disease from spreading. That means achieving so-called "herd immunity". Of course, that will not be true across many local subgroups. Nevertheless, if one accepts this standard, a runaway contagion in the U.S. is an extremely remote possibility, affording some flexibility for respecting preferences for and against vaccination.
My Friend, the Vaccine Resistor
One of my best friends is a passionate vaccine resistor (VR). I won't say he's "vaccine hesitant" because that doesn't come close to his position. I won't call him an "anti-vaxxer" because he doesn't mind if others avail themselves of vaccines (and besides, the term has taken on such derogatory connotation. He's a fine fellow, very smart, lots of fun to be with, and we have plenty of mutual interests. We've argued about vaccinations before, and a few other medical and nutritional issues, but we mostly stay out of each others' ways on these topics.
But I recently witnessed my pal get into a "debate" on social media with a mutual acquaintance and some of her connections. She happens to be a nurse. She'd posted a photo of an attractive young woman in a t-shirt imprinted, "Vaccines Cause Adults". My buddy spoke up and said "Not for everyone!', and he posted a link to an article that he felt supported his position. Of course, a number of barbed responses came his way. Okay, some of those were fair debate points, though barbed, but others were quite derisive, ad hominem attacks on him. He responded by posting links to more articles and research, which might not have been productive. It's usually a waste of time to argue with people on social media. But to his great credit he maintained his equanimity. The episode made me feel a bit sad. People can be such assholes on social media. I was put off by the nurse's refusal to moderate . That's a typical pattern: posters allow their other friends to hurl terrible insults at anyone who disagrees, even when it's an old friend. Mind you, I stayed on the sidelines in this case, except that I originally "liked" the nurse's meme.
Later, I had a private exchange with my friend. I'm on board with vaccinations. I believe that widespread immunization contributes to public health, but I told him there are certain points on which I can sympathize with VRs. Without knowing the details, he encouraged me to write a blog post on the subject. I'm not sure he'll like the results. However, as noted above, I'm willing to make a few concessions to my buddy's side of the argument, and I wish we could identify a path that would settle the debate.
My Standpoint
This is one part my pal won't like. Are VRs anti-science? First, VR's come in several varieties. Some might resist only some vaccines and not others. But VRs do not disavow empiricism, as they claim their own set of empirical findings to support their position, however one might regard the research quality.
I believe many VRs are misled by a serious post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy: after this, therefore because of this. For example, for many observers, the purported link between autism and the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine was put to rest when the British medical journal Lancet retracted the original article supporting that claim as faulty. That doesn't wash with more radical VRs, many of whom seem to have someone on the autism spectrum in their own families. They are understandably sensitive, but please forgive me: that suggests a need to find some external explanation, a source of blame not related to genetics.
Radical VRs are selective proponents of the precautionary principle: any risk of harm from a vaccine delivered in any amount is too great a risk. They seem reluctant to acknowledge the reality of a dose-response relationship, which bears on the risks of exposure to certain compounds often present in vaccine formulations. VRs will not acknowledge that vaccines present a manageable risk. And then there are the misleading references to disease incidence counts, as opposed to disease incidence rates, that are all too common (though my friend is almost certainly innocent on this count).
Vaccine resistance is not a new phenomenon, as the cartoon above from 1802 illustrates. Certain people will always find the idea of injecting germs into their systems deeply unsettling. Of course, that's a very natural basis of resistance. A person's body is their own property, after all. My default position is that an individual's control over their own body is inviolable, and parents should always be the first authority over decisions about their children. The real issue, however, is the question of whether unvaccinated children inflict external costs on others.
Points of Contention
The major objections of VRs fall into several categories: 1) preservatives; 2) multiple viruses; 3) vulnerable infants; 4) contra-indications; 5) inefficacy; and 6) free choice. There may be others, but I'll go with those.
Preservatives: Some vaccines still use a form of mercury, but a much more innocuous variant than the one VRs found so objectionable a few decades ago. Still, they object. And they object to many other compounds used in minute quantities as preservatives, such as formaldehyde, which occurs naturally in our bodies. I think the following test is helpful: if it were proposed that VRs take new versions of the vaccines that had zero preservatives, many would still refuse, especially if they were asked to pay the additional cost of providing them in that form. Thus, preservatives are revealed to be something of a side show.
Multiple Viruses: VRs object to the administration of vaccines that inoculate against several viruses in one dose or within a short window of time. This objection has some plausibility, since an injection of several different "bugs' at once might place excessive stress on the body, even if the risk is still small. But again, would VRs volunteer to take single strain vaccines in a schedule over a lengthier period of time? Probably not.
Vulnerable Infants: VRs say it's too risky to vaccinate infants in their first few months of life. This too is a plausible objection, and it would seem like a relatively easy concession to make in the interests of compromise … except, it won't ever be good enough. Radical VRs will not agree to having their children vaccinated at any age.
Contra-Indications: There are undoubtedly genetic factors that pre-dispose certain individuals to an adverse reaction to certain vaccines. These might be rare, so an effort to compromise by requiring a thorough genetic profile before vaccination would be costly. I believe profiling is a reasonable demand for individuals to make, however, provided they pay the cost themselves.
Inefficacy: My friend posted an intriguing article about the drastic declines that occurred in the incidence of various diseases before the introduction of vaccines to prevent those diseases. This might not be the same link, but it makes the same argument. That doesn't mean vaccines don't work, of course. There is a vast literature that shows that they do. Bing it! And in cases such as smallpox, the use of "folk applications" of puss to a small scratch in the skin were in use long before the vaccine was available. Nevertheless, the VRs contend that the historical rates of disease incidence provide evidence against vaccinating. They also contend that diseases like measles are not serious enough to warrant precautions like vaccines. Measles can be deadly, though not as deadly as the flu.
Free Choice: This is the point on which I'm most sympathetic to VRs. Again, we own our own bodies and should have authority over our own minor children, yet communicable diseases seem to be a classic case of externality. Susceptible individuals may inflict a cost on others by refusing vaccination or segregation. Other people own their bodies too, and they have a right to avoid exposure. They too can isolate themselves or take precautions as they deem necessary. If both parties wish to participate in society, then both hold rights they allege to be threatened by the other. That complicates the task of reconciling these interests in private, voluntary ways, and yet they often are reconciled privately.
Solutions?
The debate today often revolves around mandatory vaccination, which would be an extreme measure relying on the coercive power of the state. The rationale is that even a vaccinated majority would be subject to an unnecessarily high risk of infection when in frequent contact with an unvaccinated minority. It's difficult to endorse such broad intrusiveness when we're dealing with a negative externality of such minute probability. And such a policy is not at all defensible without exceptions for individuals for whom a vaccine is contra-indicated.
Tolerating differences in vaccination rules across cities, school districts, or even states, may be a reasonable approach to settling the debate in the long run. These variations allow empirical evidence to accumulate on the efficacy of different vaccine regimes. It also allows individuals and families to "vote with their feet", migrating to jurisdictions that best suit their preferences. These are the basic foundations of federalism, a principle of great usefulness in preserving freedoms while addressing regional differences of opinion on contentious issues.
Michigan has a policy allowing unvaccinated children to attend schools, but a waiver must be obtained requiring the child's parents to attend a vaccine education program. The policy is credited with increasing vaccination rates. The problem is that VRs tend to view this requirement as an infringement on their rights. Advocates of the policy might argue that the situation should be viewed as an arms-length, voluntary exchange between two parties, in this case a family and a public entity. The vaccine education program is just the price one must pay in lieu of vaccination. The exchange is not arms length, however, as it would be if the school were a private entity. The VR parents who refuse the waiver are not rebated for taxes paid for local schools. In fact, like all taxes, the payment is coerced.
It's not always necessary to appeal to some form of government action, even at local levels. For example, private schools may require vaccination among enrollees, and private businesses, especially health care providers, may require staff to be vaccinated. Life and health insurers may wish to price risk differently for the unvaccinated. VRs might object that they are subject to discrimination by institutions requiring immunization, or who price discriminate in favor of the immunized, but VRs are free to form competitive institutions, even on small scales or as mutual companies. To the extent that such private rules are unjustified, the institutions who discriminate are likely to learn or lose eventually. That's the beauty of market solutions. In these ways, non-coercive private governance is far preferable to action by the state.
Dr. Jeffrey Singer is an advocate of immunization who opposes mandatory vaccine laws, as he explained a few years ago in "Vaccination and Free Will". He suggested elsewhere, in "Seeking Balance In Vaccination Laws", that schools, instead of requiring immunization, could mitigate the risk of a contagion by insisting that unvaccinated children be held out of school when a particular threat arises and remain out until it passed. That's a reasonable idea, but I suspect many pro-vax parents would fear that it doesn't go far enough in protecting against the introduction of a disease by an unvaccinated child.
Recent increases in the incidence of diseases such as measles, mumps and whooping cough are extremely troubling. Whether these outbreaks bear any relationship to patterns of vaccination in the population is certainly a valid question. To the extent that more families and individuals wish to be immunized, and that private institutions wish to take action to increase vaccination rates within their sphere of influence, I'm all for it. Vaccination laws are a different matter.
Political action at the local level might mean that school districts and other public entities will require vaccinations or vaccine education programs. Alternatives exist for those refusing to vaccinate, but broad mandatory vaccination is too coercive. Such measures carry significant costs, not least of which is a loss of liberty and normalization of losses of liberty. It's not clear that a vaccination mandate at the national level, or even a state vaccination mandate, can offer benefits sufficient to justify those costs. Nudges are irritating and may be costly, but forcible intrusions are way out-of-bounds. Unfortunately, there are parties that simply can't resist the temptations of behavioral control, and that's worthy of resistance. Let's continue to muddle through with an essentially federalist approach to vaccination policy. I regard that as a hallmark of an advanced society.
The Bad News Industrial Complex
Posted by Nuetzel in Big Government, Corruption, Risk Management
Beepocalypse, Cronyism, Matt Ridley, NASA, News Media, Oxfam, Precautionary Principle, rent-seeking behavior, Risk Aversion, Risk Mitigation, The Lancet
Matt Ridley had an interesting piece on his blog last month entitled "Bad News Is Sudden, Good News Is Gradual". It's about the timing of news, as stated, and it's about our bias toward bad news more generally. There is no question that bad news tends to be more dramatic than good news. But with steadily increasingly lifespans, growing prosperity, and world poverty at an all-time low, surely good news must come as much or more frequently than bad. But good news can be inconvenient to certain narratives. It is therefore often ignored, and some other purported disaster is found as a substitute:
"Poverty and hunger are the business Oxfam is in, but has it shouted the global poverty statistics from the rooftops? Hardly. It has switched its focus to inequality. When The Lancet published a study in 2010 showing global maternal mortality falling, advocates for women's health tried to pressure it into delaying publication 'fearing that good news would detract from the urgency of their cause', The New York Times reported. The announcement by Nasa in 2016 that plant life is covering more and more of the planet as a result of carbon dioxide emissions was handled like radioactivity by most environmental reporters."
Tales of bad outcomes can be alluring, especially if they haven't happened yet. In fact, bad things might even happen gradually, but dark visions of a world beyond the horizon impart a spooky sense of immediacy, and indeed, urgency. Ridley notes the tendency of people to regard pessimists as "wise", while optimists are viewed as Pollyannas. And he recognizes that risk aversion plays an important role in this psychology. That brings me to the point I found most interesting in Ridley's piece: the many vested interests in disasters, and disasters foretold.
Risk management is big business in an affluent society. There is a lot to lose, and a squeamish populace is easily cowed by good scare stories. The risk management and disaster-prevention narrative can be wrapped around any number of unlikely or exaggerated threats, serving the interests of the administrative state and private rent-seekers. One particular tool that has been most useful to this alliance is the precautionary principle. It is invoked to discourage or regulate activities presumed to pose risks to the public or to the environment. But there are three dimensions to the application of the precautionary principle: it provides a rationale for public funding of research into the risk-du-jour, for funding projects designed to mitigate its consequences, and for subsidizing development of alternative technologies that might help avoid or reduce the severity of the risk, often at great expense. The exaggeration of risk serves to legitimize these high costs. Of course, the entire enterprise would be impossible without the machinery of the state, in all its venality. Where money flows, graft is sure to follow.
Well-publicized disaster scenarios are helpful to statists in other ways. Risk, its causes, and its consequences are not distributed evenly across regions and populations. A risk thought to be anthropomorphic in nature implies that wealthier and more productive communities and nations must shoulder the bulk of the global costs of mitigation. Thus, the risk-management ethic requires redistribution. Furthermore, wealthier regions are better situated to insulate themselves locally against many risks. Impoverished areas, on the other hand, must be assisted. Finally, an incredible irony of our preoccupation with disaster scenarios is the simultaneous effort to subsidize those deemed most vulnerable even while executing other policies that harm them.
Media organizations and their newspeople obviously benefit greatly from the subtle sensationalism of creeping disaster. As Ridley noted, the gradualism of progress is no match for a scare story on the nightly news. There is real money at stake here, but the media is driven not only by economic incentives. In fact, the dominant leftist ideology in media organizations means that they are more than happy to spread alarm as part of a crusade for state solutions to presumed risks. There are even well-meaning users of social media who jump at the chance to signal their virtue by reposting memes and reports that are couched not merely in terms of risks, but as dire future realities.
Mitigating social risks is a legitimate function of government. Unfortunately, identifying and exaggerating risks, and suppressing contradictory evidence, is in the personal interest of politicians, bureaucrats, crony capitalists, and many members of the media. Everything seems to demand government intervention. Carbon concentration, global warming and sea level changes are glaring examples of exaggerated risks. As Ridley says,
"The supreme case of unfalsifiable pessimism is climate change. It has the advantage of decades of doom until the jury returns. People who think the science suggests it will not be as bad as all that, or that humanity is likely to mitigate or adapt to it in time, get less airtime and a lot more criticism than people who go beyond the science to exaggerate the potential risks. That lukewarmers have been proved right so far cuts no ice."
Other examples include the "beepocalypse", genetic modification, drug use, school shootings, and certain risks to national security. Ridley offers the consequences of Brexit as well. There, I've listed enough sacred cows to irritate just about everyone.
In many cases, the real crises have more to do with government activism than the original issue with which they were meant to reckon. Which brings me to a discomfiting vision of my own: having allowed the administrative state to metastasize across almost every social organ and every aspect of our lives, a huge risk to our future well-being is continuing erosion of personal and economic liberties and our ability to prosper as a society. Here's Ridley's close:
"Activists sometimes justify the focus on the worst-case scenario as a means of raising consciousness. But while the public may be susceptible to bad news they are not stupid, and boys who cry 'wolf!' are eventually ignored. As the journalist John Horgan recently argued in Scientific American: 'These days, despair is a bigger problem than optimism.'"
Precaution Forbids Your Rewards
Posted by Nuetzel in Regulation
Carbon forcing, Climate models, Climate Warming, Coyote Blog, GMOs, Precautionary Principle, psuedoscience, regulation, Risk Management, Warren Meyer
The precautionary principle (PP) is often used to justify actions that radically infringe on liberty, but it is an unreliable guide to managing risk, both for society and for individuals. Warren Meyer makes this point forcefully in a recent post entitled "A Unified Theory of Poor Risk Management". The whole post is worth reading, but PP is the focus of second section. Meyer offers the following definition of the PP from Wikipedia:
"The precautionary principle or precautionary approach to risk management states that if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of scientific consensus that the action or policy is not harmful, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking an action."
He goes on to explain several problems with PP, the most important of which is its one-sided emphasis on the risks of an activity while dismissing prospective benefits of any kind. Enough said! That shortcoming immediately disqualifies PP as a guide to action. Rather, it justifies compulsion to not act, which is usually the desired outcome when PP is invoked. We are told to stop burning fossil fuels because CO2 emissions might lead to catastrophic global warming. Yet burning fossil fuels brings enormous benefits to humanity, including real environmental benefits. We are told to stop the cultivation of GMOs because of perceived risks, yet the potential benefits of GMOs are routinely ignored, such as higher yields, improved nutrition, drought resistance and reduced environmental damage. Meyer asks whether there is an irony in ignoring these potential gains, as it entails an acceptance of certain risks. Forced energy shortages would bring widespread economic decline. Less-developed countries face risks of continuing poverty and malnutrition that could otherwise be mitigated.
The terrifying risks cited by PP adherents are generally not well-founded. For example, climate models based on CO2 forcings have extremely poor track records. And whether such hypothetical warming would be costly or beneficial, on balance, is open to debate. The supposed risks of GMOs are largely based on pseudoscience and ignore a vast body of evidence of their safety. As Meyer says:
"… the principle is inherently anti-progress. The proposition requires that folks who want to introduce new innovations must prove a negative, and it is very hard to prove a negative — how do I prove there are no invisible aliens in my closet who may come out and eat me someday, and how can I possibly get a scientific consensus to this fact? As a result, by merely expressing that one 'suspects' a risk (note there is no need listed for proof or justification of this suspicion), any advance may be stopped cold. Had we followed such a principle consistently, we would still all be subsistence farmers, vassals to our feudal lord."
The PP has obvious appeal to statists and fits comfortably into the philosophy of the regulatory state. But it's a reasonable conjecture that widespread application of the PP exposes the world to greater natural and economic risks than without the PP. Under laissez-faire capitalism, human action is guided by the rational balancing of benefits against costs and risks, which has brought prosperity everywhere it's been practiced.
The Bee Population Is Stable
Bee Die-Off, Bee Population, Chensheng Lu, Colony Collapse Disorder, Joe Entine, neonicotinoids, Precautionary Principle, Science 2.0
The extinction of the bees has been greatly exaggerated. I have questioned this from my own local perspective: despite a stream of ominous reports regarding colony collapse disorder (CCD), their numbers always seem robust in my neighborhood. While local is not global, fear not for the bees and the fulfillment of their important role in agriculture. The bee population in various parts of the world has been steady. There have been occasional bouts of decline (and later recovery) precipitated by various causes, and winter die-offs can magnify losses. And CCD is a real phenomenon, but it is not the end of the bees. Here is a link to Part I of a two-part series on the "bee death mystery." Part II is here. Recently, the great bee bruhaha has been inflamed by: "…two controversial studies, both authored by the same researcher, that have become the linchpin for those who argue that bees and potentially the planet are facing a Beemageddon. It addresses:
Who is Chensheng Lu, the nutritionist who has become the face of the movement claiming that Big Ag is threatening bees, humans and our food supply?
What are neonicotinoids, the supposed time bomb at the center of the controversy?What role have journalists played in mis-reporting the bee death story.
Do prominent entomologists and beekeepers endorse Lu's belief that the world faces a "bee crisis" as Lu's research, held up by activists as seminal and groundbreaking, contends?
Will—or should—'neonics' be banned as a precautionary measure?"
The findings of the nutritionist-cum-bee expert Lu are hyperbolic in light of the bee population numbers, and they receive little support from entomologists. Part II demonstrates that the evidence against the supposed culprit for CCD, neonicotinoids, is rather weak:
"… Lu's data suggests the opposite of his stated conclusion—bees appear to do fine when exposed to field realistic doses and even increasingly higher amounts of neonics, but ultimately succumb to astronomical levels."
The so-called "bee crisis" thus appears to be a fraud, and the campaign against a whole class of pesticides is without merit and a tremendous waste of resources. This is another misapplications of the precautionary principle by well-meaning advocates of naturalism (who happen to be enemies of agricultural productivity). Just wash your produce, especially if it's composted organic!
Taleb's Crock Pot: Whip Statistical Theory and Rhetoric To a Fine Agitprop
Biofortified, Black Swans, David Tribe, DebunkingDenialism, Emil Karlsson, Fat Tails, GMO Pundit, GMOs, Luddites, Nassim Taleb, NeuroLogica, Precautionary Principle, The Motley Fool
Nassim Taleb, a well-known statistical theorist, and two coauthors (a physicist and a philosopher) have written a working paper in which they purport to show that GMO's should be banned worldwide lest we flirt with complete ruination, quite possibly the end of humanity. The paper may come to represent sacred writ to anti-GMO activists, as it seems to imply that their position is supported by statistical theory. Ultimately, the paper merely uses statistical theory in the service of rhetoric. It relies on a series of ill-defined dichotomies that the authors use to classify genetic plant engineering into the most "ruinous" category of processes. Among other things, GE is categorized by the authors as a "top-down" technology, it creates global risks and systemic risks, it involves interconnected factors, it is irreversible, its outcomes can be characterized by a probability distribution with "fat tails," its true risks are "unknowable," and (worst of all?) it is "human-made," as opposed to a natural process devoid of human intervention. Perhaps the last condition is meant only to classify processes into the so-called "precautionary approach" to policy assessment, rather than "standard risk management," but it may reveal something significant about the predisposition of the authors toward human technological endeavors.
The statistical theory presented by the authors is fine, as far as it goes. I have admired some of Taleb's earlier work, such as Fooled By Randomness, which sought to demonstrate the irrationality of assigning likelihood or even meaning to chance events. Taleb achieved real stardom following the publication of The Black Swan, which warned of severe "outlier" events so rare that they cannot be predicted or even assigned probabilities by humans. The true risks are "unknowable." Applied work involving "fat-tailed" distributions of possible outcomes, which characterize a wide range of phenomena, is typically supported by prior experience or data, but that is not possible with "ruinous" black swans. Perhaps "extremely long- and fat-tailed" is more descriptive of distributions giving rise to black swans, but of course the extreme outcomes might not be observable ex post.
Taleb, et al, contend that development and cultivation of GMOs carry risks of a black swan ecocide. "Significant" risks? Wait, that involves statistical precision… and data! "Excessive" risks? That implies measurability of one sort or another, not to mention a coherent tradeoff of some kind. "Any" risk of a certain qualitative nature (as defined by the "precautionary approach," with possible ruin on any time scale)? Of course, the authors are not biologists, agronomists, or geneticists (neither am I), but they claim to have sufficient knowledge to make this judgment:
"Ecologically, in addition to intentional cultivation, GMOs have the propensity to spread uncontrollably, and thus their risks cannot be localized. The cross-breeding of wild-type plants with genetically modified ones prevents their disentangling, leading to irreversible system-wide effects with unknown downsides." [emphasis added]
The article contains a comparison of GMOs to nuclear energy risks, which seems intended to defuse criticism that the authors are simply Luddites. They express guarded optimism that nuclear power-generating risks are "local" in nature, and that problems associated with long-term storage of nuclear wastes are manageable. Clearly, however, those risks are just as "unknowable" as those associated with GMOs. We might add to the list of dangerous human endeavors all research and development of artificial intelligence. After all, a complete ban on AI research would prevent the coming singularity, when we'll otherwise be lorded over by ruthless, self-serving machines! On a less sarcastic note, I do not discount the possibility of a singularity, but we have the luxury of some time to develop AI in a cautious way, just as we have time to minimize risks in the continuing development and application of GE.
Here is a subset of the many assertions made by Taleb, et al in support of their view:
GMOs have the propensity to spread uncontrollably.
Healthwise, the modification of crops "impacts" everyone.
GMO risks are associated with "fragility" (essentially increasing costs).
GMOs imply monocultures.
GMOs are qualitatively dissimilar to selectively-bred crop varieties.
Selective breeding does not remove crops from their evolutionary context.
GMOs remove crops from their evolutionary context.
The ecological implications of releasing modified organisms into the wild are not tested empirically before release.
The health effects of GMOs have not been tested sufficiently.
Incremental varieties of GMOs cause the risk of ecocide to increase.
All of these points are debatable to one extent or another. For example, the common assertion that GMOs promote monocultures reflects a common confusion over GMOs versus adequate crop rotation in mechanized farming. The authors exploit this confusion by linking monocultures and GMOs to reduced genetic diversity (apparently within single crops) and assert that this makes crops more vulnerable to blight, though it is hard to see why this is a foregone conclusion regarding the effects of introducing desirable traits.
More fundamentally, Taleb, et al give short shrift to the idea that there is a risk-reward tradeoff in the use of GMOs, that there are potential benefits and risks of GMO alternatives, and the fact that GMOs do not, in fact, suspend evolutionary processes. If a mutation embodied in a GMO also confers an evolutionary advantage, chances are the mutation will be propagated. If not, the mutation will tend to vanish. This is a safety mechanism provided by nature. Of course, anti-GMO activists seek to conjure images of mad geneticists whipping up monster "Audrey" GMOs with evolutionary advantages, but that is not the character of biotechnology.
Taleb, et al, also wish to equate GMOs with Monsanto. The fact that they are so eager to invoke the company's name in a negative context within an ostensibly academic paper is a giveaway that the paper is agenda-driven. Monsanto and GMOs are not synonymous, and it is highly misleading to conflate the technology with a single company.
The authors attempt to upstage critics with the choice of the adjective "non-naive" to describe their use of the precautionary principle to guide their policy prescription:
"… it is essential to distinguish the PP so that it is neither used naively to justify any act of caution, nor dismissed by those who wish to court risks for themselves or others. The PP is intended to make decisions that ensure survival when statistical evidence is limited—because it has not had time to show up —by focusing on the adverse effects of 'absence of evidence.'"
So, they excuse themselves from bringing anything empirical to bear on the issue of GMO risks because, they contend, "unknowability" is the very nature of the risk/ruin problem, despite the fact that evidence supporting GMO safety does exist, in scads!
Here are a few other sources who have commented on the article:
This post on the NeuroLogica blog questions Taleb's understanding of biology and genetic engineering. The author, Steven Novella, also notes that Taleb, et al, do not assess the risk of alternatives:
"Growing enough food for 7 billion people has consequences, in terms of land use, fertilizer, pesticides, and displacing natural ecosystems. GMO as a technology can potentially add to our efficiency. Banning GMO means relying more heavily on other technologies that may have even more risks."
In addition, Novella says:
"… Taleb's arguments to still come down to hyping the risk of unforeseen consequences due to the inherent limits of scientific knowledge. I don't agree, however, that GMOs have the potential for global ruin. This is still largely based on a naive belief that transgenes are inherently risky, when there is no scientific reason to believe that they are. … He failed to make a compelling argument that his principle of zero risk should apply to GMO."
The Motley Fool, generally an admirer of Taleb's previous work, also believes that he is off-base in the case of GMOs.
David Tribe at the GMO Pundit refutes a couple of assertions made by Taleb, et al. about natural variation and the "track record" of nature as an evaluator of risk.
And at DebunkingDenialism, Emil Karlsson is particularly galled, as he should be, by the comparison the paper makes of the risks of Russian Roulette to GMOs. He writes that Taleb and his coauthors fail to understand basic biology:
"In the end, the authors have clearly demonstrated that they do not care about biology, medicine or rational risk analysis. They have negligible knowledge of molecular biology, plant breeding and genetic engineering. It does not matter how much knowledge they have of statistics. If your model is based on flawed premises, then the application and conclusion of that model is going to be flawed. Garage in, garbage out."
Taleb, et al have adorned their paper with statistical theory, and they are certainly correct that "unknowable" risks may be ruinous. But their case against GMOs ignores the substantial body of known evidence on GMO safety. They bring absolutely no evidence to bear to the contrary. Their arguments mislead by relying on false premises and arbitrary classifications. Unfortunately, that won't stop reverent anti-GE crusaders from heralding Taleb's "proof" that GMOs are ruinous and must be banned.