Not Eating Meat and Drinking Wine on the Nine Days in Judaism: The Value of Diminishing Happiness

I am sure you read that title and are wondering what the world is going on in my head. "Diminish happiness?! Why would you want to do that?!" Although multiple countries place value on the concept of happiness, it is especially pronounced in the United States. In the United States, the idea of "pursuit of happiness" is in the cultural DNA and the Declaration of Independence. The United States has been referred to as the "land of opportunity." The "American Dream" entails opportunity, success, material wealth, freedom, and happiness as ideals. Since positive psychology was founded in 1998, we have become even more obsessed societally speaking with a happy, carefree life focused on positivity and well-being (see here, here, and here). Placing such value on happiness plays a major role in why contemporary Jews have difficulty connecting to this time of year on the Jewish calendar.

We are currently in what is referred to as the Nine Days period, which takes place during the first nine days of the Jewish month of Av (אב). These Nine Days represent the communal and personal suffering that commemorates the calamities that have befallen the Jewish people. The list of tragedies include the destruction of the First and Second Temples in Jerusalem, the expulsion of the Jewish people on the ninth of Av in the Gregorian year of 1492, and the outbreak of World War One. These Nine Days are treated inauspiciously and are traditionally treated as a time of danger, even in the year 2020. One of the aspects I found of intrigue this year is a passage in the Talmud (Ta'anit 26b):

משנכנס אב ממעטין בשמחה.

From the beginning of Av [to the Ninth of Av], one decreases acts of rejoicing.

Although this Talmudic passage does not prescribe what that entails, it has become tradition that we abstain from consuming wine and meat (Shulchan Aruch 551:9) since they represent joy (Talmud, Pesachim 109a). Other prohibitions have also been included, such as listening to music, shaving [for men], bathing for pleasure, laundry, or buying and wearing new clothing. What took me most aback about this is that that one decreases rejoicing. What is implied is that one actively becomes less joyful. Why would anyone do that? We should do what we can to be as happy as possible. Trying to lower one's happiness is counterintuitive to such concepts as self-care and wellness. 

Part of the answer can be found in a practice found on another Jewish holiday: Sukkot. On this harvest festival, a common custom is to read the Book of Ecclesiastes during the Shabbat of Sukkot. For anyone who has read Ecclesiastes, it is hardly an uplifting text. Yet we read it on a holiday referred to as "a time of our joy" (זמן שמחתינו). According to such rabbinic commentators as Avudraham and R. Azaryah Figo, we are meant to diminish our joy so it does not turn into frivolity. This is to help us better focus on serving G-d. 

If curtailing joy during a joyous occasion can have utility, I wonder if diminishing happiness during the saddest time on the Jewish calendar has value. While negativity bias hardwires us to think more pessimistically, the pursuit of happiness dates back to antiquity, whether that is Aristotle, Epicurus, or Confucius. Especially in a culture that highly values the pursuit of happiness and positive psychology, becoming less joyful is countercultural, to say the least. That might be true, but I think there is merit in doing so.  

If we lived happily all the time, we would have nothing with which to compare happiness. It would get old really quick. Paradoxically, we need difficult moments in life so we can better appreciate the happier moments. 

Here is another salient point. We live in a society with such material wealth. We value comfort so much that we do everything possible to avoid pain and discomfort. That might sound nice in theory, but it ignores the fact that the world has been, is, and always will be full of problems. The first of the Four Noble Truths in Buddhism is that life is dukkha. This word is commonly translated as "suffering," but I prefer the translation of "unease." Even with the seemingly good times, there is still a layer of anxiety and uncertainty underneath, and that is because of attachment to impermanence. As Mark Manson brings up in his book "The Subtle Art of Not Giving a F*ck," "You may salivate at the thought of a problem-free life full of everlasting happiness and eternal compassions, but back here on earth, the problems never cease...they merely get exchanged and/or upgraded." 

The Book of Ecclesiastes reminds us there is a season for everything, including a time to weep and a time to mourn (Ecclesiastes 3:4). The Jews who lost the First and Second Temples lost their homeland, a sense of unity, and their spiritual epicenter. It is okay to not be okay because that is part of the human experience. So many of us are experiencing that feeling of loss and uncertainty right now during this pandemic. The reason why I think this has hit so many people so hard is because it has shattered the illusions of certainty and comfort. The pandemic has imposed upon us that life is more fleeting and ephemeral than we could imagine. We are mourning what we consider the "old normal." 

We are allowed to mourn our losses, but we are not meant to get stuck in the past. More importantly, we are not meant to despair and give into hopelessness. When we read the book of Lamentations (איכה), there is a litany of calamity, ranging from raping and pillaging, starvation, and the seeming abandonment of G-d. Yet despair is not how the biblical text ends. Towards the end, there is a plea to "bring us back to G-d, and we shall return, and renew our days as of old (Lamentations 5:21)." Plus, if we go back to the Talmudic text cited at the beginning, it says that we are to diminish our joy. We are never meant to eliminate it. No matter how bad things got for the Jewish people (and believe me, there has been plenty!), giving up on hope has never been a Jewish value. 

Tragedy hits. That much is inescapable. As I brought up shortly before Passover, bitterness is a part of life. We choose whether to add some sweetness in our lives or not. We also see that concept in the climax of the Nine Days mourning, Tisha B'Av. Even as soon as the afternoon service (Mincha) of Tisha B'Av, we begin to pick ourselves up and start to remove the mourning practices that we take on during Tisha B'Av. Maimonides taught that Tisha B'Av represents that through destruction and loss comes new beginnings. Passover teaches us a similar lesson because the seder starts with brokenness and ends with praise and redemption. Another quote from Mark Manson: "Happiness requires struggle. It grows from problems. Joy doesn't just sprout out of the ground like daisies and rainbows. Real, serious, lifelong fulfillment and meaning have to be earned through the choosing and managing of our struggles." 

Ultimately, I think the certain practices of abstention during the Nine Days teaches us that we cannot run away from problems. Not every year is a pandemic year, but life is not all sunshine and rainbows either. Tangentially, the Stoics realized this by practicing negative visualization. In Stoicism, one meditates on dreadful scenarios. This hardly seems like a way to be happier because it focuses on the negative. However, it allows us to prepare for the worst, as well as acknowledge the nature of life. Rather than be about pessimism, it is about being prepared and being grateful for what one has. Since the ritualistic abstentions during the Nine Days act a metaphor to readily accept pain, uncertainty, and loss as a part of life, I would argue that they engender similar outcomes as the Stoic practice of negative visualization. 

Not accepting these facts of life could be making us more unhappy because it sets us up for unrealistic expectations and chasing an impossibility. Think of that irony: focusing on being happy all the time can lead to greater unhappiness, whereas cutting back on happiness from time to time and properly focusing on the negative can lead to greater happiness. By accepting the inevitability of unpleasantries in life, we create resilience, take the steps towards a new beginning, and bring greater meaning and happiness to our lives because we came to terms with the suffering and loss that we are bound to experience.

The Smithsonian's Take on "White Culture" Begs the Question: When Does "Wokeness" Start to Resemble Racism?

My initial plan was to write on this week's ten-year anniversary of Dodd-Frank, which is the complex bill created in response to the Great Recession that enacted multiple regulations of the finance industry. But then I remembered that I wrote on Dodd-Frank a couple years ago, so if you are interested in my scrutinizing of Dodd-Frank, here you go! Today, I am going to write on a different topic.

Last week, the Smithsonian National Museum of African-American History and Culture (SNMAAHC) included an infographic on its online portal about racism in the United States. The infographic was especially controversial because it outlined what "whiteness" and "white culture" are. As you see below, it includes such features as individualism, work ethic, politeness, and "objective, linear thinking." 

SNMAAHC subsequently apologized for the infographic, but if you look at SNMAAHC's website on whiteness, it is unlikely that they reject the basic underlying premise of the infographic they later retracted. Let's get into some of the reasons what is wrong with this infographic. 

1. Overgeneralizing white people is factually inaccurate. Thinking that a heterogeneous group of people spread over hundreds of miles and that encompasses multiple ethnic and religious groups acts or thinks the same way is ridiculous. Your typical Swede is culturally, ethnically, and linguistically different than an Italian or a Greek. Spanish and French culture are different than British culture. Anyone who has had any exposure to anthropology or sociology would realize this basic truth. Even with some similarities across European-based nations and cultures, it still does not negate the fact that "white culture" is not a thing because there are multiple ethnicities that are predominantly Caucasian. 

2. Overgeneralizing white people is racist. If we are to take this infographic at face value, the people at the Smithsonian believe that being white means being competitive, eating bland food, emphasizing aggressiveness and extroversion (while somehow managing to be polite), obsessing about being timely, thinking that wealth is the key to social status or happiness, delaying gratification, and valuing self-reliance. The infographic from the Smithsonian paints some very broad strokes without a) allowing for any nuance, b) recognizing that not all white people are the same, or c) acknowledging that skin color does not define the entirety of a person. I have met plenty of white people who do not have drive to succeed, would rather rely on others for their well-being, or are habitually late. If anyone were to use this line of arguing against a minority group (e.g., "Those [fill in the blank with minority group] act like this or are incapable of doing that", "They are all the same"), it would be immediately construed as racist, and rightfully so. The question is whether it would be racist if the comment is targeted towards white people. Let us take a look at what Merriam-Webster has for a definition.

This past June, Merriam-Webster updated the definition of racism. Fact-checking site Snopes points out that Webster's did not change it so much as they contemporized the definition to make it relevant for modern times. The dictionary definition does recognize institutional and systemic racism (Definition #2), but it also acknowledges individual racism (Definitions #1 and #3). Per what is in Merriam-Webster, it is possible to be prejudiced against white people, least of all because there is not an exemption for a racial majority. Here are some real-life examples of pejorative terms used towards white people:

• Literally meaning "albino," the Indonesian word bule is a derogatory word for white person.
• The Chinese also have a phrase: guilao (鬼佬). This terms means "white ghost." It is used as a pejorative term for white people. In Singapore and Taiwan, they use the term ang mo (紅毛).
• There are some derogatory terms for white people used in the United States, including "cracker" and "honky", "whitey," and "peckerwood." 
• In Afrikaans, japie is a mildly offensive term for "white person" or "farm boy." 
• The Spanish language, particularly in Mexican Spanish, also has a term for white foreigners that assumes the white foreigner is monolinguistic and does not appreciate Latino culture: gringo or gringa.
• Farang (ฝรั่ง) is the Thai word for white people. Based off this word, the Thai phrase farang khi nok (ฝรั่งขี้นก) means "white trash."

This list is not meant to minimize or ignore ethnic or racial slurs used against minorities. Since minorities on average go through more hardship in life, what a typical minority undergoes in terms of discrimination and prejudice is of greater magnitude than what someone of the majority race or religion goes through. At the same time, it does not exclude the fact that people can also be prejudiced against white people. The ability to be prejudiced is not confined to one racial group or a certain political persuasion. Having biases and prejudices is part of the human condition.    

3. The values in question are not specific to white people. Individualism has been increasing globally (Santos et al., 2017). Working hard is not unique to the United States: the Protestant work ethic exists in much of Europe, not to mention that China and Japan are also known for high work ethic. Christianity is a religion practiced by millions of non-white people throughout the world, including Africans, Latinos, and Asian people. Nuclear families exist in many non-Western cultures, including the Middle East, Africa, Latin America, and East Asia. I can go on, but the point remains the same: so many of these values extend beyond the United States or Caucasians. 

4. Implications of taking issue with these values. If you look at the language used by the SNMAAHC on their website about whiteness, it does not take much to infer that they take issue with the "white-dominant culture." They point out how whiteness includes individuality, the nuclear family, "objective, rational linear thinking," the scientific method, jurisprudence based on British common law (which includes "innocent until proven guilty," a cornerstone of the U.S. legal system), and politeness. Does this mean that racial minorities that show up on time, use logic, or take personal responsibility for their lives are "acting white?" Were Frederick Douglass and Harriet Tubman internalizing whiteness when they emphasized freedom and "rugged individualism" in their lives? Was George Washington Carver acting "less black" when he used the scientific method to make his discoveries? Does the infographic imply that the people at the Smithsonian do not expect minorities to be on time or to work hard? I am sure that Muhammad Ali and Jesse Owens worked tirelessly when they made their way towards competing in the Olympics. Isn't it possible, indeed probable, that hard work, timeliness, logical thinking, and wanting to be the best one can be are values that are not simply for "the white folk," but indeed values that all people can and should strive for, regardless of race or ethnicity? 

Conclusion

It might be alluring to think of the Smithsonian debacle as an isolated incident, but viewing the predominance of "white culture" through this lens has become more prominent in U.S. society, particularly of those who consider themselves "woke." Although it is most commonly associated with the Far Left, the idea of being "woke" started off to simply mean "awareness of racial and political justice." It is one thing to want to fight inequities in society or to make the world a better place than you found it. After all, it can help bring us closer to that ideal of "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" for all citizens of the United States. 

Comedian Ryan Long covers this in a sketch (see below), but I do have to wonder at what point does acting "woke" mimic or parallel the views or behaviors of racists. Do you reach that point when you call advocating for a color-blind world a microagression because it collides with your worldview? Is it when you think racial identity is one of the most important, if not the most important, things there is? Is it when you look at others primarily or solely through the lens of race? How about when you make sweeping generalizations about an individual because they belong to a certain racial or ethnic group? Or is it when you see someone appreciating other ethnicities or partaking in other cultural activities and end up calling it cultural appropriation, thereby de facto calling for a form of cultural segregation (see here, here, here, here)? 

Regardless of the color of one's skin, we should all be willing to have conversations about race, even if it makes us feel uncomfortable. We should be able to talk about policies that help minimize racial inequality. Earlier this year, I have discussed on my blog eliminating police unions and qualified immunity, both of which would mitigate racial disparities in policing. We need to address issues affecting African-American citizens because the American Dream should be accessible to every citizen. At the same time, treating all white people as if they were the same or to view whiteness as a secular version of "Original Sin" is no way to bring people closer together or build broad coalitions. As Abraham Lincoln once said, "A house divided against itself cannot stand." 

The Argument for School Closures This Fall Simply Does Not Add Up

We have undergone the worst pandemic since the 1918 Spanish Flu. With it has come the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. The United States has also experienced the worst social unrest since 1968. While we adapt to a "new norm," there has been considerable debate on the policy responses to COVID-19. In an unprecedented move, we severely limited movement by closing down large swathes of the economy with lockdowns. I have made it no secret that I have thought that the lockdowns were a terrible idea (see here, here, and here). There have been other non-pharmaceutical interventions [NPI] outside of lockdowns that have been used to flatten the curve. Aside from social distancing, face masks are an example of such an NPI. I have made an argument for a temporary, limited face mask mandate (see here and here). 

With the new academic year quickly approaching, another COVID-related NPI has gained attention: school closures. This past spring, there were a number of schools that closed down in attempts to limit the spread of COVID-19. Other schools allowed for children to play freely with one another, whereas other school remained open with considerable social distancing provisions. Much like with the lockdowns, the school closures have become one large social experiment. This brings us to the main question for this fall: Should schools be closed for the upcoming academic year? If not, which precautionary measures make most sense to implement while keeping schools open this year? 

Assessing Benefits of School Closures: Are schools hotspots for COVID-19?

The main purpose of keeping schools closed is to stop the spread of COVID-19. There is some intuition that children would be vectors of COVID-19. They are less likely to keep social distancing, basic levels of hygiene, or wearing their face masks all the time. Plus, children are in contact with parents, classmates, parents, and other school staff. The amount of people combined with apparent lack of adherence to NPI protocols would make children likely culprits of spreading COVID-19. Let's ask some key questions.

What is the COVID-19 fatality rate for children? 

"Think of the children." This sort of political rhetoric has been used to advance multiple policies, ranging from subsidizing school lunches and banning video games to the even-stupider idea of banning adoptions from same-sex parents. So let's focus on the children for a moment. Available public health data show that children account for 22 percent of the population, but two percent of the COVID deaths in the United States. Looking at international data, the countries of Spain, China, and Italy (collected by Oxford University) show that the case fatality rate for those under 20 is near-zero. 

Are children super-transmitters of COVID-19? 

The publication Pediatrics concluded that there have not been that many child-to-adult transmissions of COVID-19 (Lee and Raszka, 2020). Other studies show that children are one-third to one-half less likely to transmit COVID-19 (Bi et al., 2020; Li et al., 2020; Mizumoto et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2020).

How will this affect teachers and other school staff?

At the same time, schools do not solely consist of children. There are teachers and other school staff that work in schools, many of whom whose age alone puts them in a high-risk category. While there is not a lot of data on teachers and school staff, there is one French study with 46 teachers showing there has not been a single case of transmission (Fontanet et al., 2020). Also, the average age of teachers in the U.S. is 42.4 years (National Center of Education Statistics), 81 percent of whom are under 55 years old. We should take precautions for teachers (especially older and/or more immunocompromised teachers), but teachers are, on average, below the age of being considered high-risk for COVID-19. 

Have school re-openings resulted in spikes of COVID-19 cases?

One good way to ask about the overall risk is to see if school openings or re-openings meant major spikes in COVID-19. Israeli schools experienced a second round of school closures. There was an outbreak at a school in New Zealand. At the same time, such outbreaks are exceptions, not the norm. Preliminary data from 22 nations in the European Union indicate that much of the European Union did not experience a spike in COVID-19 cases. Let's take a look at some of the EU countries. After opening up their schools, the Dutch government found that there were no children infected and very few school employees. Folkhälsomyndigheten, which is the Swedish Health Ministry, compared its school policy with that of Finland. Sweden kept its schools open, whereas Finland closed them. The Minister concluded there was no discernible difference in terms of COVID transmission (Carlson, 2020). Although Denmark gave Sweden some grief, Denmark ended up reopening their schools. And guess what? It didn't worsen the COVID outbreak in Denmark (Reuters). Ditto with Ireland (Heavey et al., 2020), Austria, Finland, and Taiwan (Esposito and Principi, 2020), as well as certain reported regions in France (Danis et al., 2020) and Australia. 

Will keeping schools open result in an increase of COVID-related deaths?

There is a bit of conflicting information on the answer to that question. A systematic review in The Lancet estimated that school closures would lower deaths by 2 to 4 percent, which is still something, but less effective compared to other NPIs (Viner et al., 2020). There are some studies that suggest the opposite. A study from The Lancet states that "school closures could lead to a greater number of deaths than they prevent" (Bayham and Fenichel, 2020). Another study from Health Affairs made a similar suggestion that not only are school closures ineffective, but they could cause greater death (Courtemanche et al., 2020). 

Costs of School Closures

Given what we have seen in schools thus far (see previous sub-section), I am inclined to think that it will not have a significant effect on the overall COVID death count. Even Kevin Drum at Mother Jones, a Left-of-center magazine, said that the current evidence on school closures have "a) little effect, and b) are probably nowhere near worth the tremendous impact they have on both parents and kids." Speaking of which, what is the impact that school closures have? 

• Remote learning means lower student achievement. Measuring RIT scores, the Brookings Institution found a loss in learning projection (Soland et al., 2020). It is estimated that the school closures last spring translated  into only having 70 percent of the learning gains one would normally have. It is even worse for mathematics, with less than 50 percent. Another study goes as far as suggesting that the school closure in spring results in losing at least nine months of educational growth if the school closures continue (Christakis, 2020).
• Economic loss and future earnings. The Brookings Institution has conducted some work on the matter. Their preliminary estimate puts the loss of earnings of $1,337 per year per student (Psacharopoulos et al., 2020). An older study from the Brookings Institution estimated that a 12-week school closure would mean a loss of over $120 billion lost in GDP [in 2008 dollars] (Lempel et al., 2009). 
• The achievement gap and its effects on race and income. Survey data from Pew Research found that children in low-income households were less likely to be able to complete homework at home. According to a survey from The Education Trust, 76% of African-American parents and 82% of Hispanic parents are concerned they do not have the adequate resources to keep their children on track. This has direct impact on being able to achieve in school in the long-run. Consulting firm McKinsey released a report on the achievement gap in the COVID-19 pandemic (Dorn et al., 2020). In addition to the $110 billion in annual earnings lost that McKinsey estimates, there is also a greater achievement gap as a result. While white students are to expect a 1.6 percent reduction in future earnings, black students and Hispanic students are expected to have a 3.3 percent and 3.0 percent reduction, respectively. 
• GDP and costs of parent absenteeism. Children staying home means that parents are more likely to use time off to take care of their children. NYU epidemiology professor Jeffrey Epstein calculated that a month-long nationwide closure would mean $50 billion in lost productivity due to absenteeism.  
• Mental health concerns. Students in China were found to have increased anxiety and depression (Xi et al., 2020). A study from The Lancet concluded that students with preexisting mental health conditions had those conditions exacerbated (Lee, 2020). Survey data from Gallup finds three in ten parents saying that their child's mental health is suffering. This says nothing of what the parents are trying to juggle between work and having children at home. 
• Child abuse and neglect. As the Heritage Foundation points out, 3.5 million children came into contact with Child Protective Services in 2018. This is alarming considering that parents are the perpetrators in 92 percent of child maltreatment cases, according to an Administration of Children and Families study. The Brookings Institution details in its report how COVID-induced school closures contribute to the high likelihood of there being a considerable increase in child abuse and neglect. 

Postscript

We do not have the luxury of living in a world without risks. Whatever we choose entails at least some risk, which is why we need to weigh the potential benefits of school closures against their costs. However, when we do so using the available evidence, the choice becomes clearer and clearer. A chief scientist at the WHO, Soumya Swaminathin, said in May that children are "less capable" of spreading the virus and are at "very low risk" of the illness. The accumulating data are showing that children are not a main driver of COVID transmission (Ludvigsson, 2020). The Royal College of Pediatrics and Child Health made an emphatic statement by saying how this risk is unprecedented and how it could scar the life chances of a generation of young people. As a study from The Lancet concluded, the evidence base for school closures is weak, whereas the costs are high (Viner et al., 2020). To quote the American Academy of Pediatrics, "all policy considerations for the coming year should start with a goal of having students physically present in school." While particularly hard-hit districts will have to reassess in light of exigent circumstances, the default should be to open schools for the upcoming academic year.

The American Academy of Pediatrics provides detailed guidelines on how to do so, but hand-washing, screening, physical distancing, environmental cleaning, proper ventilation, cancelling pep rallies and other large gatherings, staggered scheduling, and offering the possibility of high-risk employees either remote teaching or the semester off would go a long way in minimizing COVID-19 spread because truth be told, we cannot afford another semester without in-person learning. 

9-13-2020 Addendum: In case you needed more costs to the school closures. One paper from the OECD found that the school closures will reduce a student's lifetime income by 3 percent (Hanushek and Woessmann, 2020). Another paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research shows how school closures stunt skills attainment (Fuchs-Schündeln et al., 2020).

Why I'm Not That Worried About Latest Increase in U.S. COVID Cases (At Least Not Yet)

As we have lifted the lockdowns, we move closer and closer to whatever the "new normal" may be. Those have been clamoring for extended lockdowns worry that the lockdowns have been lifted prematurely. The New York Times dismally lamented about a gloomy picture. The Los Angeles Times analogizes the spread of COVID-19 to a forest fire. One of the main metrics that lockdown proponents have used to try to justify either returning to lockdowns or prolonging reopening provisions is that of increased confirmed cases. As we see below (figures extracted from Johns Hopkins website on July 5), the number of confirmed cases has reached 52,391. The percent of positive cases has also increased to 7.6% from its 4.4% trough. Dr. Anthony Fauci called last week "a very disturbing week" in terms of this increase. While it might make some intuitive sense to use number of confirmed cases as basis for whether the pandemic is getting worse in the United States (especially relative to other countries), I have some reasons to doubt that assertion.

• Confirmed cases are not indicative of total amount of infected individuals. One of the best features in favor of confirmed cases as a metric is that it is one of the earlier indicators within the infection timeline. Hospitalizations lag infections, and deaths lag hospitalizations. As nice as it might seem, it does not tell us as much as we would like. As a matter of fact, well-renown statistician Nate Silver wrote a piece in April about how coronavirus tests are actually meaningless. Especially at the beginning of the pandemic, the testing was prioritized for those showing symptoms. While the testing is still skewed in that direction, increased testing capabilities has allowed for more mildly symptomatic or asymptomatic individuals to get tested. Since the testing is not randomized, it suffers from a selection bias that makes COVID-19 look deadlier than it is. Over time, we see that the crude fatality rate (CFR) end up higher than the infection fatality rate (IFR), the latter of which being the apparent death rate. 
• On June 25, the CDC said that for every confirmed case, there are about ten people who had antibodies. At that moment, there were about 2.3 million confirmed cases, which means there were at least an estimated 23 million actual cases. 
• In case you did not have enough evidence that there are a lot more infected than we think, the Pennsylvania State University released an eye-opening paper late last month. This Penn State study examined influenza-like illnesses (ILI) surveillance data. After looking through the ILI data, they concluded that the initial infection rate was much higher. Rather than the initially estimated 100,000 new cases in the last three weeks of March, they estimated that there were actually 8.7 million cases, which implies an initial infection rate over 80 times higher than initially estimated. They also found that the number of cases also double twice as quickly as initially estimated (Silverman et al., 2020). 
• As Reason Magazine points out, even if we want to use CFR as a metric (although it is a poor one), the CFR has fallen from more than 6 percent on May 16 to less than 5 percent as of June 28 (see Worldometers data here).
• Demographic shift in who is getting infected. At the beginning of the pandemic, what we observed in the United States that it was those 60 and older disproportionately contracting COVID-19. Using Florida as an example, the median age dropped from 65 in March to 35 in June. On the whole, 43 percent of COVID-19 deaths in the U.S. took place in long-term care facilities. As the Heritage Foundation reminds us, the age demographics matter a lot when it comes to a serious illness. Younger adults are not immune from contracting a serious case of COVID-19, but the probability of a severe case or death for this demographic is much less likely. What has happened in recent weeks is that younger adults are accounting for a greater share of those infected. With more young adults contracting COVID-19, it is likely that the incident of severe cases and deaths vis-à-vis the IFR will be lower. While there is concern for younger adults infecting the elderly (which means we can have stricter protocols for long-term care facilities instead of another round of lockdowns), this shift is accompanied by other positive trends. 
• Decline in new hospitalizations. According to The Covid Tracking Project, which provides nationwide and state-level COVID data, there has been an increase in overall hospitalizations. At the same time, we have to be mindful of the number of new hospitalizations. Even when accounting for a two-week lag between infection and symptom onset, the CDC still shows an overall decline in new hospitalizations since mid-April. Looking at the CDC's interpretation of hospitalization forecasting, most of the models show a nationwide plateau of new hospitalizations in the upcoming weeks, although certain states (e.g., Arizona, California) are expected to see an increase. 

• Decrease in COVID-19 Deaths. It is more difficult to draw conclusions from the death data since it can take several weeks between infection and death. At the same time, what CDC data show us is that there has been a decline in all age demographics from the April 18 peak. 

• Our ability to treat COVID-19 has improved. Aside from adequate hospital capacity in most jurisdictions, we preliminarily have two treatments that show at least some promise: remdesivir and dexamethasone. We also have greater knowledge on how to treat COVID-19 in terms of treatment protocol (e.g., how to better use ventilators and their limits, prone positioning). I expect preparedness, palliative care, and treatment to only improve as time passes.

Postscript: Am I here to predict the future? No. I am aware the situation could change in either direction at any given moment. Am I here to say that the COVID-19 situation is under control in all 50 states? Again, no. It should go without saying that the situations are going to be different in each state. The impact of COVID-19 has been uneven geographically speaking. Early on, it was New York that got hammered. Now it is Texas, amongst other states, where hospitalizations are increasing. At the same time, Texas is not over capacity and is nowhere near where New York was at its peak (see press releases from Texas Hospital Association or Memorial Hermann, the largest hospital system in southeast Texas). Florida, California and Arizona are in similar situations, and they should improve protocols to make sure the situation does not get out of hand. 

What I do know is this. Although confirmed cases and hospitalization are increasing in certain states, there is enough reason to conclude that we are not at a stage where panic needs to be the response. There are way many more people infected than the confirmed case count suggests, thereby implying COVID-19 is not as deadly. The current caseload is younger than it was at the onset of the pandemic. We still have not seen the uptick in deaths or new hospitalizations over the past couple of months that lockdown proponents have feared. The fear-mongering never seems to end when it comes to COVID-19, but we should not let it get the better of us. We should use the data we have available to make evidence-based choices. While the number of confirmed cases are increasing, we do not see a negative shift in the indicators that would signal severity or lethality. Given the damage that the lockdowns have already caused, the last thing we should do is allow the media to scare us into another round of lockdowns. 

How the Social Justice Movement Behaves Like a Form of Religious Fundamentalism

On top of the pandemic, recession, and lockdowns, there has been a lot of news coverage around racial issues since the unfortunate death of George Floyd. It has brought considerable attention to Black Lives Matter and how there are racial disparities in the United States.

The topics of policing reform, criminal justice policy, or racial issues have all been examined on my blog here. In the past month alone, I have discussed repealing qualified immunity and disbanding police unions as example of policing reform. Other policing reforms have been discussed, including ending the War on Drugs, ending mass incarceration, and de-militarizing the police. In terms of criminal policy and race relations, I have also analyzed how policing reform could men the rift between African-Americans and police officers, as well as how stop-and-frisk had disproportionate effects on African-Americans (see 2014 analysis). 

I believe that we need to partake in policing reform to reduce racial disparities within policing practice. Then there is the phrase "Black Lives Matter." As a Jew, I believe that everyone is created in G-d's Image. As a libertarian, I adhere to the idea of the dignity of the individual, irrespective of race. "Black Lives Matter" should be a simple statement of "because black people are human beings, they should be afforded the same respect and dignity as everyone else."

It's when the phrase goes beyond its simple and literal meaning that I take issue because it is next to impossible to divorce it from its political context. What makes it more difficult to decipher is the decentralized nature of "Black Lives Matter" (BLM) as a political movement. Is BLM solely about policing reform? And if so, which reforms? Defunding the police? Does "defunding the police" mean eliminating the police force or simply reducing its funding? The Movement for Black Lives (M4BL) goes beyond policing reform and argues for such policies as reparations on its platform and claims to be anti-capitalist. Then there's the Black Lives Matter Global Foundation, a multinational organization that I would contend uses language that is common amongst adherents of Social Justice (SJ), commonly referred to as social justice warriors (SJWs). The ambiguity of goals combined with the lack of precise language make it difficult to discern what Black Lives is supposed to mean. 

I had difficulty discerning another phenomenon related to BLM as the George Floyd protests carried on. What I started to notice is that those who have been most vociferously anti-racist as of late are on the Left, especially on the Far Left. For this crowd, it is not enough to be non-racist or against racism; one has to actively be for "tearing down the institutions that systemically bring about racism." I could not quite put my finger on what was bothering me until I came across an article from the libertarian Reason Magazine. The article is entitled "Kneeling in the Church of Social Justice," and it details how the moral opposition to racism mirrors the rituals and phraseology of Abrahamic faiths. I grew up Catholic, and up until recently, I was an Orthodox Jew. I know what religious fundamentalism looks like. Reflecting on how Black Lives Matter is acting as a type of social justice movement led me to the realization that the SJ movement parallels religious fundamentalists. So how are SJWs similar to religious puritans? 

Before beginning, I want to clarify three things. One is that I am not here to argue that SJ is a religion per se. I know Jewish, Christian, and Buddhist individuals who adhere to SJ without giving up their religion (although I know other SJWs who substitute SJ with religion). Plus, the SJ framework does not attempt to answer such questions as "Does G-d exist" or "Is there an afterlife?" What I am arguing is that SJ functions like a religion in many ways, and that the similarities exceed the differences. Second, I recognize that "social justice" could mean different things to different people, but am here to illustrate some of the commonalities amongst SJWs. Third, I am not here to use SJW interchangeably with "liberal" or "progressive." While SJWs are on the Far Left, I recognize that being Left-of-center does not make one an SJW. Rather, as we will see presently, the SJW is a more specific subset of Left-leaning individual that adheres to a Left-wing orthodoxy that manifests itself in a certain way.

   

• Ideologically motivated moral community. This is a point that author James Lindsay brings up in his astute essay Postmodern Religion and the Faith of Social Justice (I recommend reading it for further details on how SJ functions as a postmodern religion). It is inadequate to use a moral community as a criterion for a religion because the definition would otherwise be too broad. What helps to distinguish a moral community from an ideologically motivated moral community (or moral tribe) is a shared world view or ideology and incorporating sacrosanct ideas within the framework. 
• Sectarian tendencies. Because SJ adheres to sacred beliefs, they cannot be questioned or doubted. You see this occur when one decides to question a religious fundamentalist's worldview: there simply is an incapability to handle criticism or scrutiny. Why? Sacred beliefs cannot be subjected to such "corrosive elements" as doubt or skepticism. Case in point: In 2019, Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez lamented that too many people care about being factually correct over being morally right. This illustrates an important facet of moral tribes: the overarching moral imperative is what matters, damn any facts or logic. 
• Doctrinal Belief System. A religion would not be complete without a set of beliefs commonly held. What are some of these beliefs? 
• How the world works. Part of the SJ mindset dates back to 18th-century French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Rousseau believed that it was social institutions that corrupted human beings from their natural goodness. Sound familiar? It should. We are hearing the term "systemic racism" thrown around a lot lately. SJWs believe that every wrong in the world is rooted in systemic discrimination. Their mindset is "remove the system, remove the problem." This Rousseauian concept is combined with a Marxist one. Karl Marx viewed history as a class struggle between the bourgeois and the proletariat. The simplistic, neo-Marxist language we see used by SJWs today is more general in terms of the oppressor versus the oppressed. Rather than see individuals, the SJW crowd puts people into groups: black versus white, gay versus straight, men versus women. Not only is the inevitable result that of divisiveness, but it also creates a victimhood mentality that is all too pervasive in my generation of Millennials and younger. 
• The doctrine of Original Sin. You might think that the idea of Original Sin is confined to Christian theology. However, it found its way in the SJW world, as well. The SJW Original Sin is being born privileged, whether that privilege is in the form being heterosexual, Christian, white, and/or able-bodied. SJWs might purport that "privilege" means "having a lasting sociological advantage." What they're really saying is that they take issue with privilege as a "facet of having grown up in a way that people ought to grow up." Rather than view it as positive that one grows up with adequate education, familial love, stability, or a lack of stigma, the term "privilege" becomes a negative attribute in the SJW mind. SJWs use "privilege" to shame and force one into contrition. What makes the SJW Original Sin worse is that penitence is no guarantee of forgiveness. At least in Christian theology, penitence leads to Jesus' grace. The Marxist concept of false consciousness goes as far to say that "privilege" disqualifies someone from ever speaking truth. It is no wonder why "white guilt" has become en vogue for many white SJWs. 
• Collective guilt. The concept of collective guilt, or blaming an entire category of people when only a [small] part of that group is guilty, stems from the Original Sin of privilege. This so-called "logic" plays out in the argument for reparations. It does not matter if a Caucasian-American's ancestors were in the United States prior to or during the Civil War. It also does not matter that none of us here in the year 2020 are directly responsible for the slave trade, Plessy v Ferguson, or the initial implementation of Jim Crow laws. What matters is the color of one's skin, and that should determine whether one should pay in this redistributionist scheme. For the SJWs, it is a crusade for justice, even if that means acting unjustly towards millions who are not responsible or harbor any ill will towards African-Americans. Regardless of the topic at hand, SJ is more about punishing or favoring certain groups while de-emphasizing, diminishing, or downright negating individual choices or actions when it comes to justice. For the SJW, they believe in that the logical fallacy of division, i.e., if someone belongs to an identity group that is deemed guilty, that individual is guilty, regardless of an individual's actions. 
• Identity Politics. Identity politics is the result of viewing individuals as part of a group or collective rather than being their own individuals. The idea of identity politics grew out of discourse of leftist intellectuals in the 1960s. To deal with the ennui and disappointment about Marxism, they created what is called social constructivism. The idea of social constructivism is that knowledge cannot be objectively obtained through discourse and reasoning because the knowledge that society has been created was done so by heterosexual, white males. What evolved from these postmodernists is the paradigm that objectivity is impossible, but the identity and oppression based on this lack of objectivity are objectively real (or at the very least, there needs to be a platform for these voices to be heard since they historically have not been heard). For equality to exist in their minds, the knowledge of women, racial minorities, sexual minorities, and other marginalized people needs to be foregrounded. Aside from the highly subjective nature of this approach, identity politics are problematic because sole focus on identity is divisive, it produces heavily biased readings of situations that are not based on truth but the identity of the individual speaking (an example of the genetic fallacy), and it is incapable of consistently upholding the principle of non-discrimination. The concept of identity politics is a considerable departure from the universal application of human rights in classical liberalism. You can read more about the history and formation of identity politics here.
• Greater government power as an end-goal. Individuals of a certain religion exist on a spectrum of belief or observance. The same goes for those advocating for SJ, and that is partially due to the ubiquitous and poorly-defined nature of the term. For those who believe in "SJ-lite," (who I would argue would be a number of people who are Left-of-center, but would not be considered actual SJWs), it could mean a bit more of wealth redistribution [to alleviate racial disparities] than already exists. For others, it means upending the current institutions to deal with the centuries of perceived or actual systemic injustice. I don't understand why SJWs think this would work because nature abhors a vacuum. Rather than fighting power structures and oppression, SJWs will end up creating its own variants of power structures and oppression if they gain more political and cultural power. The best example of a social justice-based society fighting class differences and disparities in power is Communism. Communists thought they had the answers to fighting the war on the oppressor, and that only brought misery and millions of deaths. I'm not here to equate SJWs with Communists, but to have the analogy serve as a reminder of what fundamentalists, religious or secular, are capable of when they have unfettered access to power and control. As we will illustrate throughout this piece, what SJWs have been doing are mild in comparison to theocracies or Communist regimes because they hold a relatively minimal amount of power. Getting back to my original point, regardless of where an SJW falls on the spectrum of the SJ movement, being an SJW involves a belief in the aggrandizement of government power to help mitigate the unfairness within the systems. 
• The SJW Caste System. Hinduism evolved into a rigid, hierarchical system based on karma and dharma. Even in Judaism, the Kohanim (Preists) and Levi'im (Levites) are afforded certain privileges. In the SJW world, the caste system that exists is referred to as intersectionality. Intersectionality started off with noble intentions. It was meant to be a framework in which minorities or the disenfranchised can explain their unique experiences, particularly if there is more than one aspect of marginalization in play. A Caucasian male will typically experience the world differently than an African-American male. A heterosexual, African-American male will experience the world differently than an African-American lesbian. I do not dispute that various aspects of identity intersect in ways of how one perceives the world or how one is perceived. It does not diminish the fact that some aspects of identity make it more difficult to navigate the world. On average, a straight person is going to have an easier time than a gay person. Racial or religious minorities will have a tougher time on average than someone who is white and/or Christian. What I take issue with is that intersectionality has devolved into the Oppression Olympics. There is no official scoring system to speak of, but there is a hierarchy of oppression that exists in the SJW world. Straight, white, Christian males are at the bottom. Gay people rank higher than straight people. Gay people of color rank higher than gay, white people. Any non-SJW who has interacted with those in the SJW world will have picked up on this implicit hierarchical system with little to no effort.  
• Social Control and Moral Codes. In religious fundamentalist communities, using moral codes to achieve social control comes in many forms, whether that it is of controlling speech, food, sexual behavior, marriage, what to do with your weekend (Shabbat), or what to wear. For SJW's, there are multiple attempts at social control (e.g., cancel culture, social media mobbing), but the most obvious example of social control is that of political correctness. A SJW would argue that political correctness is merely a modern-day application of politeness. As I argued three years ago when discussing political correctness, political correctness is speech and thought control in the guise of tolerance, politeness, and unity. The belief held by SJWs is that controlling use of potentially hateful and/or triggering language can make the world a safer place for oppressed individuals (see more in "Microagressions and Humorlessness" sub-section). For a specific example, you can take a look at my analysis on the word "Latinx." It does not matter if political correctness actually does make a difference in terms of changing one's mind. What matters here is even the appearance or illusion of having said control. 
• Anti-blasphemy laws. Christian- and Muslim-majority countries alike have historically enacted blasphemy laws when someone shows a lack of respect or reverence for a given deity. In such a society, the official ideology is the only acceptable form of theory, beliefs, and values. Any alternative has to be quashed under the law in order to maintain social order. This has been true whether it has been a theocracy or a Communist regime. There was a time when those on the Far Left were some of the greatest advocates of free speech. After all, Berkeley has been dubbed the birthplace of free speech in the 1960s. How things have changed in the past few decades! Noam Chomsky once said that those who truly favor free speech have to favor it not just for likable views, but views that one despises. Rather than advocate for a freedom the Far Left once cherished, SJWs have generally supported anti-hate-speech laws, a nebulous subjective concept that is nothing more than a secularized version of anti-blasphemy laws. If you think this has not happened yet, go to a college campus. Examples of trigger warnings (which, by the way, are shown to be useless or actually harmful), safe spaces, anti-hate provisions in campus speech codes, and the suppression of conservative and libertarian speakers are numerous and easily searchable on Google. 
• How one views non-believers. In certain religions, the "in-group versus out-group" dynamic is expressed in terms of "believers versus non-believers." Under the religious fundamentalist framework, believers enter Heaven, whereas non-believers go to Hell. It might not have an eschatological bent, but SJWs have a similar mentality. If you believe in the "Original Sin" of white guilt and if you think that everything in the world is due to a systemic injustice that needs to be toppled, then you are part of the in-group. If you disagree with the SJW view of how the world works or how to fix it in any way, shape, or form (even if you yourself belong to a marginalized group), not only are you wrong. You are considered evil, racist, homophobic, xenophobic, transphobic, and/or a hater of poor people. That level of intolerance towards the non-believer is indicative of fundamentalist thinking.
• Punishment of non-believers. An element of theocratic societies or religious fundamentalist communities is to punish those who stray off the "narrow and righteous path." Fortunately, we are not dealing with the executions that occurred during the Salem witch trials or the Spanish Inquisition. That might have something to do with the lack of political or military power that SJWs possess to implement oppression on such a scale. What we do see is cancel culture, or what Left-leaning, transgender activist Natalie Wynn (also known as ContraPoints, and who herself was a victim of cancel culture) refers to as a milder digital version of mob justice reminiscent of the French Revolution. As I brought up earlier this year in my analysis on cancel culture, author J.K. Rowling, an individual who is otherwise very much Left-of-center, has been accosted by the cancel culture mob because she said that biological sex exists. Another example of trying to reinforce its moral code and deal with those who stray off what they deem righteous, there is diversity training to make sure everyone is in line. And forget for a moment that diversity training is shown to have little to no positive effect on people's perspectives or implicit biases. Similar to other forms of religious fundamentalism, there is no tolerance for dissent in the SJW world.  
• Contradictions and creating inadequacy. One of the reasons I left Orthodox Judaism is because no matter what I did, it was never good enough. In religious fundamentalism, the system is set up in a way that you fail before you began because it expects something that is quite frankly super-human. Here are two examples of quandaries in the SJW world. 1) If you do not speak out or fight against the unfairness and ill-treatment against gay people, you are a homophobe. But if you speak out against Muslims who are exhibiting homophobia or criticizing a Muslim-majority country for punishing homosexuals, you are considered Islamophobic. 2) If you do not believe in gender as a societal construct, you are "heteronormative." But if you do not believe transgenderism as a biological reality, you are "transphobic." So which is it: is gender really a thing or not? It doesn't matter what you say, believe, or do: you can't win! If cancel culture teaches us anything, you can be punished for something down the road that was considered normal or acceptable five or ten years ago. Much like with religious fundamentalism, the SJW framework is designed in a way where you can toil away but will always be deemed inadequate. 
• Being "born again." It is common for Protestants who have developed a deep relationship with Jesus Christ to refer to themselves as "born again." The phrase "born again" is associated with the idea of baptism, in which one experiences a spiritual rebirth. Amongst the SJW crowd, this idea is referred to as "being woke." Being woke leads to another tendency of SJWs: a holier-than-thou attitude.
• Holier-than-thou. Holier-than-thou mentality is marked "by an air of superiority or morality" in which you think very highly of yourself. This concept originates in the Bible (particularly the Christian Bible), although it was not commonly used in the vernacular until the 19th century. In a Christian context, examples of this could be thinking you are "a better Christian" because you go to church every week, attend Bible study, or volunteer often. It is not an issue whether your actions have positive outcomes, but how you relate to those actions, as well as others in light of those choices. In a SJW context, such examples are thinking you are better than everyone else because you eat organic, buy fair-trade, don't use plastic straws, or drive a hybrid car. Speaking of hybrid cars, South Park criticized such sanctimonious behavior over a decade ago. In the episode "Smug Alert!", the people of South Park bought hybrid cars. The people of South Park thought they were such saviors of the environment and so full of themselves that they smelled their own farts to get off on their own piety. 
• Microagressions and humorlessness. One thing I have noticed about religious piety is that there is no room for a healthy dose of humor amongst religious fundamentalists. SJWs share similar sentiments when it comes to humor because they take life too seriously. For one, being woke means being on the constant lookout for that which is unjust and fight it. This leads into my second and more compelling reason why I don't think SJWs have a sense of humor: microagressions. A microagression is a brief and commonplace verbal or behavioral expression, typically without malicious intent, that are taken as insults by individuals from marginalized groups. Remember, the SJ crowd has individuals that will say such things as marijuana is racist towards Mexicans, that chairs are sexist, expecting people to be on time is culturally insensitive, threading eyebrows and yoga are forms of cultural appropriation, using the wrong pronoun is transphobic, and according to a list of microagressions from the University of California, asking someone where they are from is nativist and disparaging towards foreigners. There is a difference between being considerate towards others and going over the top, and SJWs crossed that line a long time ago. Humor is often crude, raunchy, over-the-top, salacious, and yes, politically incorrect. In a world of being offended by the most of micro of so-called "aggressions," anything can be triggering for SJWs. If SJWs get huffy over microagressions, how can you expect SJWs to enjoy humor? Along with that humorlessness is the incapability to laugh at oneself. Show a SJW one of the videos below and I guarantee that instead of finding it funny, they will give you an earful about injustice, something systemic, or how they feel oppressed. 

Postscript

If you read this and thought the characterization or description of the SJW world seemed over-the-top, that is only because the SJW mindset is that extreme and absurdist. With its ideologically motivated moral community, strict adherence to its belief system, desire for societal conformity, attempts to control others in multiple areas of life, antagonism towards those who disagree, and overall narrow-mindedness, it is indisputable that SJWs operate in a similar fashion that religious fundamentalists do. On the one hand, I am glad that the SJWs do not have considerable political power, although G-d only knows they are working on influencing the Democratic Party. I can find at least some solace in a study showing that 80 percent of U.S. citizens think that political correctness has gone too far (Hawkins et al., 2018). On the other hand, their influence, which used to be confined to academic settings, has grown. In recent years, their influence has gone beyond the ivory tower and into the media, the corporate world, and increasingly politics. 

As we approach the Fourth of July, I think of the beginning of establishment of freedom in the United States on July 4, 1776. I reflect on how the Founding Fathers solidified the ideal that life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness for all by signing the Declaration of Independence. While I am by no means giving President Trump a pass on eroding liberties (see here, here, here), I have serious concerns about how Social Justice has gained considerable influence in U.S. culture. I have observed what havoc they have wreaked with the minimal amount of power they have. I shudder to think of how destructive it could be if they truly got their way. 

Anyone who attempts to fully control and politicize various aspects of life, whether religious or secular, on the Left or Right, fits the textbook definition of totalitarianism. Nazism, militarism, theocracy, Communism, it does not matter what you call it. Societies with authoritarian tendencies diminish civil liberties and economic prosperity. Although SJWs have not gained the power they would like to have (yet!), it does not change the fact that the SJ movement is a type of authoritarianism akin to religious fundamentalism. It is not only a threat to the "American way of life," but it threatens anyone who disagrees with SJWs and wants to live their lives peacefully. There was a time that the Left valued social liberty, equality, and freedom of expression. If I were to have one hope on this Fourth of July (aside from an end to this pandemic), it is that my non-SJW friends on the Left can weed out such nonsense from its ranks and relegate it to the same status of "nut job" that we give extremist cultists.