Europe, Russia and China

These three areas present somewhat uniquely different problems. For example:

1. Europe presents the complexity of the EU and its overly bureaucratic governances as well as its dependence on a US supported NATO system. Ironically Poland has one of the strongest military institutions. Poland is adjacent to Belarus which is in a sense a captive state of Russia and a buffer zone that Russia feels comfortable with. NATO was formed to address the Soviet threat coming from a Stalinist regime.  It is an amalgam of European forces, often poorly trained and organized, and underpinned by massive US forces, technology and dollars. One should really examine the need for NATO, especially a US backed and facilitated one. NATO was formed before the EU was created. The EU now has a larger population than the US and perhaps they should consider their own defense, perhaps allied with the US, but not led by the US. The current EU is all too often a sinecure for military and politicians as a transit to post political life in some lucrative manner.

 2. Russia is a vast territory whose economy is dominated by arms and extraction. It provides oil and gas, minerals, and other related resources and is a major seller of arms to a wide collection of buyers. Russia has ocean ports only on the eastern side on the Pacific and on the west, it has precarious access via the Baltic and the Black Sea. Russia views its adversaries to the west. Perhaps its eastward adversaries are neglected due to its massive loss in the war with Japan a century ago. In contrast to China, Russia does not hold claim to the Pacific. The Pacific is a protection for Russia from the west. Russia has no substantial consumer goods. It is not akin to China, where massive manufacturing of consumer products prevails. Russia also has an ongoing mentality of being threatened by remote neighbors. Thus, Russia seeks to have buffers between its territories and its putative adversaries. In a sense Belarus serves the purpose. Ukraine is a threat, especially if it were joining NATO. Ukraine can become a major flashpoint, dragging the US into a conflict of which it truly has no interest. A neutral Ukraine is a stable point. A NATO Ukraine is a stick in the eye of the Bear.

 3. China is a global threat. It has taken a while for many US politicians to recognize this. They are a threat because they want global hegemony via economic power. The economic power starts with manufacturing but moves on to bio technology. Yes, China can manufacture cheaply, just go to Walmart. No Russia products but tons of Chinese. Yet that is but a start. The true mover is the massive progress and advances China has and is making in biotech. One need just read the scientific literature and it shouts dominance. Yet this dominance is a double-edged sword. China can produce advanced therapeutics but it lacks the basic quality controls we demand in the west. Shar practices is de regur for all Chinese producers. The US now imports well over seventy percent of its over the counter drugs from China. One has no ideas as to their quality of safety. If China wanted to assert itself it could do so via ibuprofen and acetaminophen.  The recent pandemic is a clear example of all of the above. Millions dead, economies smashed, and politics distorted. China does not fear neighbors. The neighbors fear them.

 Overall, these three issues should be re-examined. NATO should become an EU force, allied with but not supported by the US. Russia must be understood by its basic fear of intrusion and thus needing safe buffers. China must be seen as a threat not due to nuclear weapons but due to its ever-expanding biotech expertise and global reach. China, lacking the checks and balances insuring safe and quality biotech products, presents the most significant flash point in the decades to come.

 

Gain of Function

 It is worth looking at the 2015 Gain of Function report by the NAS. They note:

On October 17, 2014, spurred by incidents at U.S. government laboratories that raised serious biosafety concerns, the U.S. government launched a 1-year deliberative process to address the continuing controversy surrounding so-called “gain-of-function” (GoF) research on respiratory pathogens with pandemic potential (White House, 2014a).1 GoF research is the latest example of U.S. efforts to develop oversight mechanisms for dual use research in the life sciences that can “reliably identify, and where necessary, mitigate risks while protecting scientific autonomy, discovery and innovation, public health, national security, and other critical interests”  The GoF controversy began in late 2011 with the question of whether to publish the results of two experiments involving H5N1 avian influenza and continued to focus on certain research with highly pathogenic avian influenza over the next 3 years.3 The new U.S. policy expanded the scope to include experiments with the coronaviruses that cause Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) and Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS). The heart of the U.S. process is an evaluation of the potential risks and benefits of certain types of GoF experiments with influenza, SARS, and MERS viruses that would “inform the development and adoption of a new U.S. Government policy governing the funding and conduct of gain-of-function research” (White House, 2014a:3). As part of the process, the government also instituted a pause in both new and current
funding for some GoF research projects while the evaluation was carried out.

 New USG funding will not be released for gain-of-function research projects that may be reasonably anticipated to confer attributes to influenza, MERS, or SARS viruses such that the virus would have enhanced pathogenicity and/or transmissibility in mammals via the respiratory route. The research funding pause would not apply to characterization or testing of naturally occurring influenza, MERS, and SARS viruses, unless the tests are reasonably anticipated to increase transmissibility and/or pathogenicity. In parallel, we will encourage the currently-funded USG and non-USG funded research community to join in adopting a voluntary pause on research that meets the stated definition. (White House, 2014a:2)

 Initially, 18 research projects funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) were halted, although several involving the effort to develop an animal model for studying MERS were later exempted 

 

NJ 2021 06 12

 Another week with good news and bad news. First county prevalence. It is flat. Namely we have a small but continuing group of infected just swapping the infection.

Statewide it does appear good.

Death rates are low but much of this is another artifact of the State's grossly incompetent measuring system.

County incidence is low but steady

State incidence is low

Vaccinations nationally are horrible, well below the minimal 1 million a day target. There is a lot of fake news out there.

However the incidence normalized keeps decreasing showing a dying out of the pandemic.

Tow incidence still shows the hot spots.

New per day in county is low but the town has its classic "strong man" characters.

This is shown by an increasing prevalence, the Soprano Complex.

Gambling with Armageddon

Sherwin has written an interesting review of the events surrounding the Cuban Missile Crisis. It is in a sense a minute-by-minute summary of what occurred over the period with commentary on previous recollections and written reports. In a sense the author is attempting to set the record straight based upon new information and first-hand reports.

 The book is exhaustive in its coverage of the period but does preface it with the work leading to Hiroshima and the Eisenhower period of dealing with Soviet nuclear expansion.

 Overall, the book is expansive and details the interaction of the key players who make both assumptions and policy, often devoid of reality.

 In a sense the book is pro-Kennedy, with the exception of the slight interruptions of his “assistants”, Fiddle and Faddle, who seem to play some unstated role. One sees Kennedy dealing with the conflicting advice from his multiple advisors as well as having to deal with the generally pro-war military.

 For the most part the story has been told many times but there are several issues which it raises. First is the generally gross incompetence of the Intelligence community, the CIA, who after the Bay of Pigs fiasco seem to have just dug a deeper whole for themselves. The CIA seems to have continued its fumbling over an extensive period of time. Second is the Military Officers in command whose blatant dislike of the civilian leadership. Neither seemed to have served the American people well.

 The book does raise some serious issues:

 1.  Did the Executive and the Military have the faintest idea what damage could be brought by MT nuclear devices? No where in the discussion is there anyone telling Kennedy what may happen. These estimates were well known and circulated in DoD and the Executive. Millions of deaths would result in just a few seconds. These weapons would be 1,000 or more greater that Hiroshima (15KT),

 2. Why was there no psychological profiles of Khrushchev and other Soviet leaders so that one could have some understanding on how to deal with them and moreover why they did what they did? Despite the alleged attempt by Kennedy to try to understand Khrushchev there did not seem to have been any detailed profiling of the individuals nor any attempt to understand why they were doing what they were. This was another defect at the CIA then and I suspect now.

 3. Why did no one in the US side even realize that if they tried to neutralize the nuclear sites there would always be one or more unseen which would then be launched? This I have called the “cancer surgeon metaphor”.  Namely the surgeon can remove what the surgeon sees, yet unseen malignant cells result in terminal metastasis. The author recalls the Rumsfeld comment of “Known knowns” etc. The author clearly indicates that Rumsfeld “folly” was his matrix of perception vs reality had four entries, and it was missing fourth the bit him.

 4. The “loose cannon” problem. This is the problem of having some low-level office in charge of deploying a nuclear weapon doing so on their own initiative. In Ellsberg recent book he details a multiplicity of these occasions. Namely launch authority could be accomplished well below the Executive.

 The author does and exceptionally good job in detailing the facts as are know and it is done in a highly logical and accessible manner. Very well worth the read.

Moreover, when one thinks of risks to humanity, nuclear weapons are number one. It is regrettable that politicians in general seem clueless as to the massive destruction of all life from just a few of these mega weapons.

NJ 2021 06 05

 We had to estimate data since the Trenton number folks messed up the count by thousands yesterday.First we show the total percent of the state that has been infected. It is leveling at 10%.

Now the county prevalence seems to be level at a small number. There seems to be a stickiness to the infection despite the increase in vaccines. Yet the demographic data at this point should be instructive if and only if we had a competent epidemiologist.

The state prevalence is dropping. The four peaks are now quite clear.

County incidence shows continued low level infections

as does the state

Death rates are again declining but we still have LTC deaths.

This is the national data on daily incidence normalized. The decline is now quite clear.

However the vaccination rates are low. A suggestion, instead of beers etc perhaps if one gets ill and requires medical attention then if one is not vaccinated one them pays the full tab, insurance does not cover it. Just a thought.

Town and county incidence. We have the wandering teenagers.

Town prevalence shows the increase. One would suspect that this would worry some but the town seems clueless.

Town doubling time drops as per previous.

Trenton Number Counters

 If one looks at the NJ Dashboard for COVID tracking one seems the results of in my opinion the most incompetent group ever. For example today the total number of new cases was 304 for the state. But if you were to enter each county and add them up the increase was over 4,000. That is well above 10 times that actual number. Is there anyone with a modicum of a brain in Trenton? This has happened repeatedly and the effect is the numbers are grossly unreliable! Each county is grossly over counted. 

Well we do have an election and this may mean we get some new family members on board. Don't expect much, just pay more taxes. Oh yes, the Gov was a Banker, wonder how that worked out, for the clients?