A Layman Explores Islamic Scholarship

This is a clumsy attempt by a layman, armed only with an attempt to learn, transcribing a browser translation to this blog in an effort to learn more about the mysteries of Islamic scholarship.

Browser translation of a link to Berth 22

كان العالم الشيعي في القرن الـ17 منقسماً إلى ثلاث دوائر: دائرة أصولية صفوية في بلاد فارس، ومدرسة أصولية عربية مستقلة في جبل عامل، ودائرة أخبارية في العراق العثماني والبحرين والحجاز... ولكن وباءً ضرب مدن العتبات المقدسة في العراق غيّر المعادلة
https://t.co/NLdNDDzQSa

— رصيف22 (@Raseef22) March 23, 2020

Scholars "perished and changed" balances... of an epidemic that strengthened the power of Shiite fundamentalism in the 18th Century

In Shi'a jurisprudence, there are currently various references, among them not a few differences, on the concept of the "guardianship of the jurist" and many other things. But most of the references we hear by their names belong to one large school: the fundamentalist school.
This was not always the case. Until the eighteenth century, two major Shiite schools of jurisprudence, Fundamentalism and News, collided, until the first began to prevail to the point that the second school was almost completely absent today. Ironically, what contributed to this is an epidemic that resolved the cities of holy shrines in Iraq, in the late eighteenth century.

Ijtihad is an Islamic legal term referring 

to independent reasoning or the thorough 

exertion of a jurist's mental faculty in 

findinga solution to a legal question. 

It is contrasted with taqlid.

Clash of News and Fundamentalism

The News team has emerged almost since the emergence of Shiite jurisprudence, and some of the most prominent Shiite jurists have belonged to it throughout history, and systematic disputes have arisen between its followers and the Fundamentalists on many issues related to how to derive the legal rulings.

And if we want to summarize these differences, we can talk about a few prominent points such as the tradition of the infallible, as the general Shiites today are known by the tradition of a jurisprudential reference that presents itself as a person who is more knowledgeable about them in matters of religion (dual, diligent and imitator), while the newsmen reject the tradition of the infallible, i.e. everyone from Out of the circle of the 12 Shi'a imams and the Prophet. To understand this point, one can return to many writings, including what was written by Al-Kashani Flood (d. 1091 AH / 1680 CE) that the minds of the infallible are incomplete, which means that they cannot be relied upon to elicit legal rulings.

On the other hand, the News people consider that the narrated hadiths of the infallible Shi'a imams are the only source for devising legal rulings, and they reject ijtihad, unlike the Fundamentalists who work with it.

Historically, the dominance of the fundamentalist trend over the news stream began from the fifth century AH with the emergence of Sheikh Al-Mufid (d. 413 AH / 1022 CE), Mr. Murtada Al-Ansari (d. 436 AH / 1044 CE) and Abu Jaafar Muhammad bin Al-Hassan Al-Tousi known as “Sheikh of the sect” (d. 460 AH) (1068 AD), the spread of their ideas exceeded that of the mujtahid news.

But in the seventeenth century, a great shift occurred in the balances between the two currents, with the emergence of Mirza Muhammad Amin al-Istrabadi. And with it, “Al-Akhbariya” crystallized in separate movements that exaggerated the importance of the 'verbal' differences - methodology to the level of isolation from the religion, ”Faleh Abdul Jabbar reported in his book“ The Turban and Effendi / Sociology of Discourse and Religious Protest Movements ”from researchers Mojan Moman and Ahmad Kazemi Mousavi .

Abdul Jabbar, quoting the scholar Joan Cole, recounts that the hostility between the two parties reached a point where the newsmen no longer allowed themselves to touch any fundamentalist book without using a handkerchief to ward off impurity, and he adds: "The collision involved an acute struggle for influence coupled with a deep intellectual / social division that spanned beyond Jurisprudence cases. "

In the other predicament, the leader of the fundamentalist movement known as "Ayatollah Al-Wahid Al-Behbehani", whose name is Sheikh Muhammad Baqir bin Muhammad Akmal Al-Asfahani (d. 1205 AH / 1791 AD), who came from Iran and settled in Karbala, prohibited the prayer behind the leader of the newsmen, Sheikh Yusuf al-Bahrani, According to Muhammad Baqir Al-Khwansari in his book "Rawdat Al-Jannat", even though 

The Mirza Astrabadi movement

Faleh Abdul Jabbar writes in his book mentioned (we will drop mentioning his references for the sake of convenience of the reader) *:

From Hejaz, in the Arabian Peninsula, Al-Estrabadi began his attack on fundamentalism allied to the Safavids. And because he was residing in Mecca, he was able to act freely, supported by prominent Shiite figures in Jabal Amel, such as Al-Hur Al-Amili, and in Persia, such as the sheikh of Islam in Mashhad. The movement soon flourished in Bahrain and in Ottoman Iraq, and in pockets within Persia. In his book "Civil Benefits", Al-Estrabadi rejected the concept of "ijtihad", "reason" and "doubt" (potential knowledge), and stressed the importance of "news" (i.e. Sunnah and traditions) that were transmitted by the imams (infallible), and limiting the sources of belief and law to two They are the Qur’an and the Sunnah, and there is no place for “reason” or “consensus”.

According to him, reason and consensus are Sunni traditions and Sunni aberrations. As for the "hard-working", from the news standpoint, like their followers from the general public, they are "imitators" of the imams, and no human being has the right to imitate. The list of differences between the two schools expanded to reach twenty-nine points, and some sources even brought them to forty-three, but eighty-six.

The news doctrine was intended to undermine the foundations of religious authority of fundamentalists based on jurisprudential knowledge. The news also canceled the two-scholarly dualism of the right of the "diligent" to act on behalf of the imam ... Also, (the news) succeeded in attracting the mass of ordinary believers through "pious powers", which led to an attempt to achieve compatibility between the popular traditions affected by Sufism. With dry Islamic jurisprudence

Ottoman Iraq and in Bahrain and the Hejaz since the time of (Sheikh Ibrahim bin Suleiman) Al-Qatifi who opposed the (Jurist Ali) Karaki alliance with the Safavid Shah Ismail and Tahmasb, and established his criticism and opposition on the basis of Informative, i.e. refusing to perform the Friday prayer, collecting taxes or collecting abscesses, the representative of the jurist on behalf of the imam and other duties that Shi'a jurists may perform under the unjust ruler.

Shiite world between news and fundamentalism

In the seventeenth century, the Shiite scholar was divided into three circles:
• a Safavid fundamentalist circle in Persia,
• an independent Arab fundamentalist school in Jabal Amel,
• and a News department in Ottoman Iraq, Bahrain, and Hejaz.

The sudden fall of the first district at the hands of the invading Sunni Afghan tribes (in 1722) shattered the well-established base of the (Fundamentalist) school that was sponsored by the state in Persia. Endowments in support of the clergy class were confiscated, sponsorship networks were destroyed, and hundreds of families of jurists were displaced. This situation led to "the occurrence of relative impoverishment and decay in the influence of this group of scholars, so that large numbers of clergy and merchants fled from Iran towards the cities of holy shrines in Ottoman Iraq." Immigrant scholars arrived in these cities as extreme refugees, deprived of links and social networks, and turned to the News school.

The other group that remained in Persia was subjected to a social transformation. Their livelihoods are no longer available at the royal court, or they are no longer limited to the court. This segment began to seek to strengthen its relations with the "richer bazaar class", in pursuit of new patterns of economic security. In fact, some members of the "ulema"*  families were associated through intermarriage with the bazaar merchants and craftsmen with their social and independent social networks and craftsmen (varieties). They also began to perform new jobs unrelated to religion such as banking and money minting, land ownership and property management. However, some of them remained in their religious positions. Ironically, this shift led the "ulemas" to create an independent financial base that freed them from state care and strengthened their power and influence in later periods of time.

* In Islam, the ulama are the guardians, transmitters and interpreters of religious knowledge in Islam, including Islamic doctrine and law. By longstanding tradition, ulama are educated in religious institutions. The Quran and sunnah, are the scriptural sources of traditional Islamic law.

The return of "New Fundamentalism"

Later in the century, fundamentalist immigrant elements in the cities of Ataba in Najaf, Karbala, and Kadhimiya began returning to Persia, first during the Zindian period (1763 - 1779) and later during the Qajar era. The revival of their movement was associated with the name of Muhammad Baqir Akmal al-Behbehani (1704 - 1791). In Karbala, Behbehani launched his anti-news campaign with utmost care and confidentiality. This is because fundamentalism was not expelled from the denomination according to the fact, but rather, the news "scholars" possessed the means of physical coercion to deal with any defection, and these means were represented by the symbols of the Lutis.

The first secret cells that Behbehani organized were limited to his relatives, and his relations with merchants and craftsmen networks secured the resources he needed. The movement had gained supporters and encountered favorable conditions. The plague invaded the cities of holy shrines in Iraq (in the last quarter of the eighteenth century), which led to the death of a very large number of people, including Arab "scholars" (News) who could not flee to Iran as their fellow Persians did. The void that ensued soon filled with the rising fundamentalists. Political developments have strengthened the position of this group, as the rule of the Mamluks in Ottoman Iraq became more weak and could no longer control the emerging Shiite city-state in Najaf and Karbala, which were seeking to consolidate their independence. The backbone of this autonomy has formed from a strong social alliance that includes landowners, Arab merchants, craftsmen (most of whom are Iranians) and an armed group of Arabs and Persians. What strengthened this trend was the formation of the two Shiite states in Qajar Iran and the Emirate of Udah (in India). The (fundamentalist) school served as the legal force for these two newly prominent ruling dynasties.

(New Fundamentalism) grew in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries under unprecedented conditions. At that time, it was in a solid alliance within Iran with rich, productive classes - merchants of the bazaar, craftsmen and great landowners - with sources of income independent of state sponsorship and organized into wide social networks. The leadership centers of the clergy class and with them (its schools) were located in the cities of thresholds in Ottoman Iraq. However, the two new Shiite states, the Qajar and the (Indian) valleys, were either so weak or geographically that they had no direct influence on the centers of "ijtihad". Moreover, the "ulema" had for the first time a tool of coercion represented by the homosexuals, and they were groups of urban armed gangs in the cities of the thresholds who were exchanging their security services for money with the merchant class and the clergy together, by employing and organizing the means of violence.

During this period of time, tendencies towards concentratedness grew, which led to the emergence of the "absolute tradition of reference" as the supreme source of religious authority **. (New fundamentalism) reaffirmed the categories of knowledge (“knowledge”), the ability of “reason”, the necessity of “diligence”, and presumptive knowledge, in addition to the categories of reference authority, such as: the necessity of imitating a surviving world instead of a dead world, and paying zakat and one-fifth to “diligent As representatives of the Imam. In this way, this renewed approach would be a redefinition of the internal structure of the Shiite world and laying the cornerstone for the emergence and focus of the reference of tradition".

Two Political Decisions -- Lessons in Living History

Addendum, Monday, March 16

Both links to the Post articles no longer work. That was faster than I thought might happen. The url may have changed or they may have both been scrubbed. In any case, my post received nearly a hundred hits and the links to Tabbi and the Atlantic remain active.
That Atlantic link, published two years ago, is highly recommended.
Shorter story -- the first Post article, two years ago, was published when an entire section of Health and Human Services was dismantled, the one dedicated to dealing with pandemic responses. That left this administration without badly needed infrastructure as the coronavirus pandemic has unfolded. 

~~~~~

I have been reluctant to mention politics lest I get criticized for "bringing up politics" at this time. But I have decided that this is precisely the best time to discuss politics.
This disease and resulting pandemic may not have been the result of politics -- at least not American politics -- but the dimensions of America's feeble response are definitely the result of dangerous politically-driven decisions on the part of the most pro-actively destructive president of our lifetime.
I have sitting on two links illustrating that problem but have not decided how best to post them, either at Facebook (where they will vanish into the archives) or my blog where I can always retrieve them later without a time-consuming search.

• This appeared last Friday (another Friday the Thirteenth, incidentally)...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/.../a70de09c-6491-11ea...
• ...and this was published TWO YEARS AGO.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/.../top-white-house.../...

Matt Taibbi's righteous indignation is at the boiling point. His Rolling Stone commentary is what pushed me over the edge. What better time to speak of politics?
We are living the results of deadly political decisions. This is how it ends.

Bernie’s Last Chance

But people should equally be furious that Democrats spent the last year whining about online insults, Russians, the honor of Hunter Biden, and a host of other non-issues, when they could have been confronting real problems. They engaged in smear-driven diversion campaigns instead of self-auditing, and are anxious now to escape discussions about the Green New Deal and Medicare for All, to get back to defining political virtue as “better than Donald Trump,” tantamount to no standard at all.

Bernie shouldn’t let them. If this “quarantine debate” is to be his last stand, he should make it count. As has now been proven over and over, politicians like Sanders gain nothing by playing nice with the Pelosis and Bidens of the world. It buys neither policy considerations nor even temporary immunity from dirty tricks and slander.
Sunday night, he should hammer the meandering Biden as a symbol of the party’s determination to avoid necessary change. He should make sure the debate audience understands that in this moment of extreme crisis, Democrats threw their institutional might behind a man whose handlers appear afraid to let him outside more than a few minutes at time. 

If this is the way the 2020 primary race ends, it’s pure black comedy, and for the sake of everything he’s tried to accomplish in the last four years, Sanders has to make sure audiences don’t see him as part of the punch line. There may not be time left to win. But he can at least stop apologizing for trying, and restore his movement’s dignity for the sake of the next person who tries to push it up the hill.

~~~~

Addendum...

Here is the Atlantic link in case Facebook either loses or deletes my post:

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/07/when-the-next-plague-hits/561734/?fbclid=IwAR0cImVpTKu2vzx5MH4ZC8kJFsTOIVCTE11-nJlMY7qTJjrRKFrCy9f7TUM

Coronavirus Status as of March 12, 2020

This is a long post addressing two underlying issues with the current response to the pandemic that leave me concerned. It’s the longest post I’ve ever written.For those of you not taking action, or believing the pandemic to be “over hyped”, you can make fun of me as much as you want now or when this is over. You can make me the subject of memes and post it everywhere. I will pose for the picture. I am not trying to convince you, but I do feel compelled to share information that I deem critical to all of us, which is why I am posting this at all.

WHY YOU SHOULD TAKE 5 MINUTES TO READ AND CONSIDER THE INFORMATION I AM SHARING:

For those of you who don’t know me well, I am analytical and metered. I don’t freak out nor do I respond emotionally. I also don’t post a bunch of bullshit or political or controversial stuff on Facebook. I founded and am CEO of a successful software company that provides SaaS based data, analytics, and dashboards to recruiting departments at companies we all know. As you would expect, I am data driven and fact based. Before founding my company I held executive roles leading very large recruiting teams at some of the world's fastest growing companies such as Starbucks and Google. At Google I was fortunate enough to report to Sheryl Sandberg before she took the Facebook COO role. I was a Chemical Engineering major in college and have a business degree from a top undergraduate business school. I am not one for hyperbole or histrionics. My bullshit factor is close to zero.

I share all this personal information only to help solidify that this post may be worth reading and sharing with others. I would encourage you to forward or share this post at your discretion. Many people do not understand what is happening with the pandemic to the degree required which is why I took the time to write this and share this on Facebook.

Now that I've gotten the introduction out of the way, here are two issues I want to bring to everyone’s attention.

ISSUE ONE: SOCIAL NORMS ARE POWERFUL MOTIVATORS AND GETTING IN THE WAY OF PEOPLE TAKING THE RIGHT STEPS IN RESPONSE TO THE PANDEMIC:

One of the current problems with addressing the pandemic is the social pressures of taking action today. It's awkward, and feels like an over-reaction. The reason it feels like an overreaction is that most people OVERWEIGHT the currently reported cases and inherently UNDERWEIGHT the mathematics of how the virus is spreading and what will happen in about 30 days time. This is because our brains tend to think linearly as opposed to logarithmically. It’s the same reason many people don’t save for retirement or understand compound interest.

To create a new social norm, human beings like to see behavior modeled. This serves as a signal that says, “oh, someone else is doing it so I should do it also.”

SO HERE IS A SOCIAL BENCHMARK FOR REFERENCE - THIS IS WHAT I’VE DONE FOR MY FAMILY TO DATE:

• I have already isolated my family. We have canceled EVERYTHING. 
• We have canceled previously scheduled doctor visits. Social get togethers. Normal routine meetings. 
• Everything has been canceled. It's difficult and socially awkward. Some of you think I’m crazy, but I’m doing it not because I am afraid, but because I am good at math (more on that in part 2). 
• I had to have my 16 year old daughter quit her job coaching junior gymnasts at the local gym, with one day’s notice and also tell my kids they can't attend youth group at church. Both of those were tough discussions. 
• I told a very close friend he shouldn’t stay at my house this weekend even though he was planning to and had booked his flight from the Bay Area. I canceled another dear friend’s visit for later this month to go snowboarding on Mt Bachelor.
• We are not eating out. 
• Our kids are already doing online school so we don’t have to make changes there. I would not send my kids to school even if they were in public or private school. 
• We have eliminated all non-essential contact with other people. We will only venture out to grocery shop when required. We will still go outside to parks, go mountain biking, hiking, and recreate to keep ourselves sane and do other things as a family, just not with other people. 
• We have stocked up on food and have a supply for ~2 months. We have stocked up on other goods that if depleted would create hardship, like medicines and feminine hygiene products. We have planned for shortages of essential items.

THE REASON I HAVE CHOSEN THIS ROUTE FOR MY FAMILY IS MULTI FACETED:
1. Although my family is considered low risk (I’m 49 in good health, Angi is 46 and in good health, and our kids are 14 and 16), we must assume that the healthcare system cannot help us, because the hospitals will become overwhelmed very quickly. Most American hospitals will become overwhelmed in approximately 30 days unless something changes. More on this in part 2 below. So although we are in great health and unlikely to become gravely ill, the risk is greater if you do not have access to the medical care that you need. This is something for everyone to consider. As a society we are accustomed to having access to the best medical care available. Our medical system will be overwhelmed unless we practice social distancing at scale. That said, the medical teams in Italy are seeing an alarming number of cases from people in their 40s and 50s.

2. It’s not a matter of if social distancing will take place, it’s a matter of when. 

This is because social distancing is the only way to stop the virus today. As I will explain in part 2 below, starting now is FAR more effective than starting even 2 days from now or tomorrow. This has been proven by Italy and China (and soon to be France and other European countries who have been slow to respond.). Wuhan went on lockdown after roughly 400 cases were identified (and they had access to testing that America has systematically failed to do well to date). The US already has more than 4 times this number of known infected cases as Wuhan did when it was shut down, and our citizens are far more mobile and therefore spreading the virus more broadly when compared to Wuhan. Yet our response is tepid at best.
If hand washing and “being smart” were sufficient Italy would not be in crisis. So I pray the draconian measures are coming from our government, because they are required to stop the spread of the virus. It’s better to start sooner than later as the cost is actually far greater if we wait. I pray they close all schools and non-essential services the way that Italy and China have done.

3. Spreading the virus puts those in the high-risk category at much greater risk. This is the moral argument. It’s a strong argument because there are only two ways, as of today, that the virus can be stopped: let it run its course and infect 100s of millions of people, or social distancing. There is no other way today. If you don’t practice social distancing, people downstream from you that you transmit the virus to will die, and many will suffer.

4. The risk of infection is increasing exponentially, because the quantity of infected people, most who will not show symptoms, is doubling every three days. So the longer you wait to self-isolate, the greater the chance of you or someone you love becoming infected and then you infecting others because more of the population is becoming infected. There are twice as many infected people today as there was on Tuesday.

5. The virus is already in your town. It’s everywhere. Cases are typically only discovered when someone gets sick enough to seek medical attention. This is important as it typically takes ~5 days to START showing ANY symptoms. Here’s the math: For every known case there are approximately 50 unknown cases. This is because if I become sick, I infect several people today, and they infect a few people each tomorrow (as do I), and the total count of infected people doubles every 3 days until I get so sick I get hospitalized or get tested and become a “known case”. But in the time it takes me to figure out I am sick 50 others downline from me now have the virus. So every third day the infection rate doubles until I get so sick that I realize I have the virus an am hospitalized or otherwise tested. Harvard and Massachusetts General Hospital estimate that there are 50x more infections than known infections as reported (citation below). The implication of this is that the virus is already “everywhere” and spreading regardless if your city has zero, few or many reported cases. So instead of the 1573 reported known cases today there are likely 78,650 cases, at least, in the United States. Which will double to 157,300 by this Sunday. And this will double to 314,600 cases by this coming Wednesday. So in less than 1 week the number of total infected in the United States will quadruple. This is the nature of exponential math. It’s actually unfortunate that we are publishing the figures for known cases as it diverts attention away from more important numbers (like the range of estimated actual cases).

6. Some people cannot, or will not, practice social distancing for a variety of reasons and will continue to spread the virus to many people. So everyone else must start today.
The reasons above are why I have begun to practice social distancing. It’s not easy. But you should do it too.
The hospitals will be at capacity and there are not enough ventilators. You will hear a lot about this issue in the coming few weeks... the shortage of ventilators.

~~~~~

ISSUE TWO: MANY PEOPLE ARE FOCUSED ON THE WRONG NUMBERS:

Yes, the virus only kills a small percentage of those afflicted. Yes, the flu kills 10s of thousands of people annually. Yes, 80% of people will experience lightweight symptoms with COVID19. Yes the mortality rate of COVID19 is relatively low (1-2%). All of this true, but is immaterial. They are the wrong numbers to focus on...

The nature of exponential math is that the infection rates start slowly, and then goes off like a bomb and overwhelms the hospitals. You will understand this math clearly in the next section if you do the short math exercise. Evergreen hospital in Seattle is already in triage. I have heard credible reports from people on the ground that they are already becoming overwhelmed. And the bomb won't really go off for a few more days. Probably by Wednesday, March 18th (next week). In just a few days from now we will hear grave reports from Seattle hospitals.

You should assume the virus is everywhere at this point, even if you have no confirmed cases in your area.

YOU SHOULD DO THIS SIMPLE 2 MINUTE MATH EXERCISE (NO REALLY TAKE TWO MINUTES AND DO IT):

To further understand exponential growth, take the number of confirmed cases in your area and multiply by 10 (or 50 if you believe Harvard and Massachusetts General estimations) to account for the cases that are not yet confirmed. 

If you have no confirmed cases choose a small number. I’d suggest 10 cases in your city, if no cases are yet reported. But you can use whatever number you like. This number of infected people doubles every ~3 days as the infection spreads. So literally take your number, and multiply by 2. Then do it again. Then do it again. Then do it again. Do this multiplication exercise 10 times in total.

2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x (the number of estimated infections in your city today (not just the reported cases)).

This result is the estimate for the actual cases in your area 30 days from now. The math will take 30 seconds to complete with a calculator and it’s worth doing the math to see how it grows. This end number is the number of cases in your city 30 days from today if a large percentage of the population do not practice social distancing.

2 to the 10th power is 1024. When something doubles 10 times, it's the same as multiplying by 1024. The infection rate of the virus doubles every 3 days. In thirty days there will be 1,024 times the number of infected people in your area as there is today if your community does not immediately put social distancing into practice. One thousand and twenty four times as many infected people as there is today, in just 30 days.

Next, divide the final number (the scary big one) you just calculated by the current population of your city and you will be able to get the percentage of people THAT YOU KNOW PERSONALLY who will be infected 30 days from now.

Next take 15% (multiply by 0.15) of that final 30 day number of total infected people. This will provide an estimate of the serious cases which will require acute medical care, and compare it to the number of beds and ventilators available at your local hospital. Google the "number of beds" and the name of your local hospital now. It takes 2 seconds and the number of beds is easy to find. 65% of beds are already occupied by patients unrelated to the coronavirus. St Charles in Bend, Oregon where I live, has 226 beds and the town is roughly 100,000 people. Most hospitals have on average, 40 or fewer ventilators.

These numbers you just calculated are the problem: Too many patients, not enough beds, and a serious shortage of ventilators (the biggest problem) if we don't immediately begint social distancing. More on this biggest problem related to the insufficient quantity of ventilators is below.

COUNTRIES THAT GET OVERWHELMED WILL HAVE A MUCH GREATER MORTALITY RATE BECAUSE THEY WON’T BE ABLE TO ADEQUATELY CARE FOR THE SICK.

And by sick I mean not just coronavirus patients. 

• Your son or daughter that needs acute care surgery this May for his badly broken leg will be attended to by an orthopedic doctor that has been working at maximum capacity and working 18 hour shifts for 7 days every week for 6 weeks because it was required to care for all the coronavirus patients at her hospital. Or the orthopedic surgeon will be sick with the virus and your son or daughter will be operated on by a non-expert or a member of the National Guard. 
• Your elderly Mom that has diabetes and goes into acute distress next month may not receive ANY care because the doctors are consumed and have to prioritize patients based on triage handbooks filled with success rate probabilities. 
• Your sibling’s family that are all injured in a terrible car crash in June will have diminished care. If one of them needs a ventilator there will be none available because all of them will be in use by critical coronavirus patients. 
• Your young friend with cancer and a compromised immune system from treatment will succumb even though the cancer was curable and the treatment was working, because their body was too fragile to combat the coronavirus due to the chemotherapy and they couldn't receive the customized, acute care required due to the hospital being overwhelmed.
  
  All of the above is currently happening in Italy, who had the same number of infections we have today just 2 weeks ago. You must start today.

The count of actual virus infections doubles every ~3 days. 

The news and government agencies are lagging in their response. So we hear that the US only has 1573 cases today (3/12/20), (see https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/) and it doesn't seem like a lot. It would be better to report the estimated actual cases, since reported cases don’t tell us much. However, we know from China that the actual number of cases are at least an order of magnitude greater than the reported cases, because people get infected and do not display symptoms. In math, an "order of magnitude" means ten times difference, or put another way, a factor of 10. 100 is 10 times greater than 10, so it's an order of magnitude greater.

Harvard Medical School / Massachusetts General Hospital just released their estimate (recording is here: https://externalmediasite.partners.org/…/53a4003de5ab4b4da5…) that the actual cases are 50x greater than the reported cases. So we likely have 75,000 cases in the United States already. The number of reported cases is not that important.

But let’s assume the current number of cases is only 10,000 ACTUAL cases in the United States just to be conservative and model out what will happen:
If we don’t stop the virus from spreading, in 30 days we will have 2 to the 10th power more cases of infected people because the infection count doubles every 3 days (the virus doubles every 3 days and there are 10, 3 day periods in 30 days).
The math: 2 to the 10th power means 1,024 times as many cases as we have today (2 times 2 repeated 10 times).
This number is a catastrophically big problem for all of us: We will have 10 million+ actual cases (10,000 actual cases today x 1,024) in the United States in just 30 days’ time if we continue without extreme social distancing. 10 million people with the virus. And it will keep doubling every 3 days unless we practice social distancing.
15% of cases require significant medical attention, which means that 1.5 million people will require significant medical attention if 10 million people get infected (15% of 10 Million total infections = 1.5 million people requiring hospitalization).

1.5 million hospitalizations is about 50% more than we have beds for at hospitals in the United States. And 65% of all beds are already occupied in our hospitals. But patients with the virus need ICU beds, not just any old hospital bed. Only about 10% of hospital beds are considered intensive care. So we will have a huge bed shortage, but that is not the biggest problem, as we can erect temporary ICU shelters and bring in more temporary beds, as Italy has already done, and California and Washington hospitals have already done. Evergreen Hospital in Seattle has already erected temporary triage tents in the parking lot as of 3/13/20. All regular beds are full at Evergreen Hospital as of yesterday.

Once the government of China, Norway, and Italy came to understand this math, they reacted accordingly and shut EVERYTHING down. Extreme social distancing is the only response available to stop the virus today. The United States is not responding well nor are other countries like France or the UK. Countries that do not respond well will pay a much larger, catastrophic price.

But hospital beds are not the big problem. The lack of ventilators is the big problem. Most estimates peg the ventilators in the United States at roughly 100,000 to 150,000 units. See https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21149215 (admittedly dated) and https://theweek.com/…/doesnt-have-enough-icu-beds-ventilato…

The primary and most serious comorbid (comorbid is a medical term that means co-existing or happening at the same time) condition brought on by the Coronavirus is something called bilateral interstitial pneumonia which requires ventilators for treatment of seriously ill patients. So if 1.5M people of the 10 million infected 30 days from now require acute care (15% of the 10M estimated total infections), 1.3M may not get the care that they need because we don’t have enough ventilators in the United States. And remember, this is only if ALL OF US EFFECTIVELY start social distancing by April 11th (30 days from today).

BUT IF WE START EXTREME SOCIAL DISTANCING BY MARCH 23 (12 days from this writing), WE AVOID OVER 1.4 MILLION PEOPLE GETTING CRITICALLY ILL AND OVERWHELMING THE HOSPITALS:

If everyone takes extreme measures to social distance, and the United States can dramatically reduce the spread of the virus 12 days from now, the math is very different, as the exponential growth will only be 2 to the 4th power (12 days divided by the doubling rate of every 3 days equals the exponent of 4):

2 x 2 x 2 x 2 = 16

So instead of 10 Million cases in the United States if we wait 30 days, if we act 18 days sooner, we will have only 160,000 cases (16 times the estimated 10,000 actual cases as of today), of which 15% are likely to require critical care. This is 24,000 critical patients (a huge difference compared to 1.5 million acute patients). The difference between taking extreme measures now, versus waiting even a few days, is very large due to how exponents work in math.

THE OUTCOME IS EVEN BETTER IF WE TAKE ACTION IN THE NEXT 6 DAYS: If the vast majority of the population self isolates and implements social distancing in only 6 days from now the exponential math is 2 to the 2nd power (6 days divided by the 3 days it takes the virus to double means the exponent is only 2). In math this is "two squared".

2 x 2 = 4

Multiplied by the estimated 10,000 ACTUAL cases as of today (3/12/20) that means only 40,000 total cases will develop, 15% of which may be critical which is 6,000 critical patients.

This is why you should share this post broadly. If people begin social distancing in the next 6 days it will greatly reduce the impact on all of us. It's why they say a "post goes viral".

SOCIAL DISTANCING WILL REDUCE THE FINANCIAL IMPACT TO YOU AND YOUR FAMILY:

Finally, the longer everyone waits to practice significant social distancing the greater the economic hardship will be on all of us. Lost jobs. Mortgage defaults. Closed businesses. Bankruptcies. All will be minimized if you start social distancing today.

Some of the reasons the economic impacts will be reduced are worth mentioning: If we stop the virus now the overall duration of the outbreak will be far shorter. The stock market will normalize more quickly and recover more quickly. Businesses and people will be able to survive a shorter duration outbreak vs a longer duration outbreak. More companies will avoid bankruptcy if we begin to practice social distancing now.

This is a big financial reason to begin social distancing if you are employed by any company: if companies see that the virus is being slowed, they will be less likely to conduct layoffs. You will be more likely to be laid off or experience a job-related event if we don’t practice social distancing immediately. As an HR executive, I’ve been involved in many, many layoffs. It’s the last thing companies want to do. But if they see that the pandemic will be shorter lived vs long and drawn out, they are less likely to make the permanent decision of laying off staff.

The overall economic impact that hits your bank account will be greater if you wait or you don’t practice social distancing. This is why Norway acted now, because it’s less economic impact to take drastic measures early than to do them later, and it saves a lot of lives and suffering by doing so. And Norway has only one confirmed death as of this writing.

START TODAY. I CAN’T STRESS THIS ENOUGH. YOU MUST START TODAY.

Finally, the article that I posted yesterday written by Tomas Pueyo has been read 7M times in the last 24 hours and has been updated with new information. It’s worth reading again.

Here’s that link.
https://medium.com/…/coronavirus-act-today-or-people-will-d…

Other up to date data I frequently consult regarding the pandemic is here:
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

I hope this is helpful and useful. My brain focuses on the math and I try and be fact based in my analysis and interpretation of how I should respond.

There is more information in the comments below worth reading and I will be updating this post, and the comments, with more information, as opposed to creating new posts.

MY FINAL PARTING THOUGHT: Please share or forward this post at your discretion. If everyone shares this post and two of your friends share this post and so on, we use the power of exponential math to work in our favor, which seems appropriate given the virus is using that same exponential math against us.

For people not on Facebook you can email or text the link. If you know people in government this fact-based post may help inform them to make the best decisions.

It's time for us humans to go on the offensive against the virus. We must fight back.

There is only one way to do so: Social Distancing.

Do it today.

This Administration Is Kneecapping the CDC

This unsettling thread is a sad commentary on how badly wounded the CDC appears to be under this administration. Look closely at tweets #4 and #5. 

CDC website stats on Coronavirus, but they're simply not as comprehensive. They were apparently removed, [by whose authority & why?] and then they returned with less granularity.

The CDC has been the crown jewel of global research, development and reporting for decades. I didn't fully appreciate Atlanta's CDC until I learned how famous it is when I was a draftee in Korea in 1966, over fifty years ago. Reports like this both break my heart and piss me off. 

Such a bummer to see the CDC as this sad shell of its former self. So many good people. Could be a shining example of public health best practices right now. But nope. https://t.co/NwSTMUmyMU

— Chris Hogg (@cwhogg) March 8, 2020

Frank Baitman @frankbaitman

1/ Does anything about the CDC guidance on #CoronavirusUSA strike you as odd? "Seek Medical Advice if you have been in close contact with a person known to have COVID-19"
8:20 PM · Mar 7, 2020·TweetDeck

2/ How would you know if someone has been positively diagnosed with COVID-19? It's actually quite simple, there's only one way: be positively tested.

3/ Once again, this is simple: the CDC is responsible for public health surveillance. Their website is the Gold Standard: reporting state-by-state cases. Here's the
@CDCgov website stats on Tuberculosis, https://cdc.gov/tb/statistics/default.htm…

4/ I'd like to point you to the CDC website stats on Coronavirus, but they're simply not as comprehensive. They were apparently removed, and then they returned with less granularity.

5/ A CDC spokesperson explained, "Now that states are testing and reporting their own results, CDC's numbers may not represent all of the testing being done nationwide"


Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)
Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a virus (more specifically, a coronavirus) identified as the cause of an outbreak of respiratory illness first detected in Wuhan, China.
cdc.gov

6/ It's curious: the CDC is in the business of collaborating with the 50 states' health departments. But when it comes to #coronavirus they're no longer able to obtain this data. Why does this matter?

7/ According to the @CDCgov website today, there are 164 cases in the United States. That doesn't appear too bad. (Although the CDC reports 11 deaths on 164 cases, we're at a mortality rate of 7%, 3x higher than the 2+% reported in China)

8/ Of course, there are actually 19 deaths in the US as of today. How was that figure derived? The news media called in to the 50 state health departments. Something the CDC doesn't seem to want to do.

9/ How does this relate back to the CDC's guidance on seeking medical advice? The CDC says that you should seek out care "if you have been in close contact with a person known to have COVID-19"

10/ Who is known to have novel coronavirus? Well, you'd know if you've been tested. According to the CDC the dark green states are actively testing:

11/ But we're not told how many Americans have been tested. In fact, the CDC doesn't provide that data (any longer).
@TheAtlantic did what the CDC once did: collected the data from primary sources, the 50 State health departments.
12/ The data isn't perfect, and is indeed likely flawed, but it's as good as we've got. Nationally, 1,895 Americans have been tested according to @TheAtlantic



13/ Do you know one of these 1,895 people? Likely not, we're a nation of 330 million. Does that mean you haven't been in close contact with a person known to have COVID-19? For a select few American's it's an easy answer. But for most of us, it's impossible to know.

14/ So, what's the point of the CDC guidance? If it's intended for just the few thousand people who "know" someone who has tested positive, that won't mitigate the spread of coronavirus. But perhaps, that's not the objective of @CDCDirector's guidance?

15/ Seems to me that this guidance is intended to limit public fear –– but it's achieved quite the opposite. Perhaps the shortage of tests also drove the guidance? But the hype over #coronavirus came about because this guidance is so vague (& specific - knowing 1 of 164 people)

16/ The CDC is a remarkable institution, and the people there have navigated us skillfully through Ebola, SARS, H1N1 and many more. Why they haven't performed at the same level thus far should concern all Americans & Congress.

17/ It concerns me that there's political interference in the execution of crisis-tested protocols. Especially when I see stories like this:

The Associated Press @AP

BREAKING: The White House overruled health officials who wanted to recommend that elderly and physically fragile Americans avoid flying on commercial airlines because of the new coronavirus, a federal official tells The Associated Press. http://apne.ws/Zm9QjND

18/ The first step in repairing trust with the American people should be new CDC guidance. We have to move quickly to mitigate the spread of #coronavirus. We know how to impede a pandemic: will we trust the professionals to lead?

First Ladies Have an Informal Role in Government

Today, the day after Super Tuesday, 2020, we don't know which Democrat will become the nominee challenging President Trump in this year's election. Joe Biden is on the upswing with Bernie Sanders still a factor as Elizabeth Warren appears to be fading. In any case it's not too soon to speculate about who might be part of his home team. Had he been elected Mayor Pete would have brought the first "First Gentleman" to the White House, but come to think of it the first woman president will do the same. 
It remains to be seen how Melania will be remembered but I have a hard time imagining her doing anything like what Jill Biden did last night. 

Dr. Jill Biden moved swiftly to put a stop to an activist
rushing the stage while Joe Biden was speaking.

Last night a victory speech by Joe Biden was interrupted momentarily by a demonstrator who rushed the stage and was promptly hustled away. During that moment Joe's wife, Dr. Jill Biden, swiftly moved to get the intruder off the stage and within a second or two everybody resumed celebrating. 

Looking at the picture it struck me that as a potential First Lady, Dr. Biden would likely be a force of nature in her own right. At 68 years of age she is young enough to run for president herself at a later date.

Recalling the roles other first ladies had played in past presidential terms, I found a great site summarizing that part of our presidential history. Here are excerpts from The Role of First Lady: Martha Washington to Laura Bush - First ladies with strong impact on their husbands' presidencies, an online cache of information dedicated to the history of US Presidents. Go to the link for a more complete description of each. 

John Adams' presidency, marked increasingly by factionalism, gave his wife the chance to vent her own opinions, if only in letters to relatives and friends and in private conversations. Other people guessed at what she thought—they called her "Mrs. President." Visitors to the President's House reported that she took sides, naming some legislators as "our people" and others as foes. The nearly two thousand of her letters that survive record her views: Albert Gallatin was "sly, artful"; in Alexander Hamilton's eyes she saw "the very devil . . . itself." John Adams' letters underline her role in his administration. After he had made an unpopular appointment while she was in Massachusetts, he wrote to tell her that many people lamented her absence, and called her "a good counsellor." Even though her own illnesses and that of relatives required her to be separated from her husband during much of his presidency, she is generally credited as an important adviser.

After Woodrow Wilson suffered a devastating stroke in the fall of 1919, Edith Wilson's role changed from romantic companion to diligent nurse. She screened his mail and monitored his visitors and workload, and except for his doctor and trusted secretary, few callers got past her. Rumors circulated that she was taking charge; she was described by a White House employee as an "assistant president," and by a prominent senator as presiding over a "petticoat government."

Eleanor Roosevelt's political resources were considerable. She had a large network of competent people who could advise her and accept appointments to high-level jobs. Her husband's physical limitations provided her almost unlimited license to travel in his place, and she frequently said she served as "his eyes and ears." The emotional separation between her and the president, often attributed to his romantic attachment to another woman during World War I, apparently freed her to concentrate on her own projects and goals.
Eleanor Roosevelt provided access to government for people who had previously felt deprived. Molley Dewson, chair of the Women's Division of the Democratic National Committee, credited the First Lady with making it possible for her to discuss important matters with the president. Her papers at the Franklin D. Roosevelt Library at Hyde Park, New York, contain many letters from people appealing to her for help—evidence that they thought she could deliver.

Besides her glamorous image, Jacqueline Kennedy's strongest legacy was the White House restoration. In 1961 she arranged for a curator to come on loan from the Smithsonian Institution to begin the lengthy process of cataloging the contents of the White House, and she appealed to Congress to pass legislation making the contents of the executive mansion public property so that occupants could not sell or dispose of furnishings "of historic or artistic interest." To restore the mansion to its early-nineteenth-century elegance, she helped form the White House Historical Association, a "not-for-profit historical and educational organization" to "enhance understanding, appreciation and enjoyment of the White House." The sale of guidebooks to finance restoration began on 4 July 1962, and although some critics charged that sales on the premises cheapened the White House, the initial printing of 250,000 copies sold out in a few weeks. When the First Lady showed off the results of the White House refurbishing in a televised tour on 14 February 1962, more than 46 million Americans watched, and interest in the president's residence grew.

In 1964, Lady Bird Johnson campaigned for her husband on her own—the first candidate's wife to do so in such a visible way. Vowing not to write off support in the southern states, where enthusiasm for Lyndon Johnson was weak, she traveled from Washington to Louisiana on a train, dubbed the "Lady Bird Special." Accompanied by staff, advisers, and, for part of the trip, her daughters, she gave speeches along the way urging people to vote for her husband.

After 1965, Lady Bird Johnson staked out a leading role for herself in the Great Society initiatives, taking an important part in Head Start, a program designed to assist preschool children. Her closest identification, however, was with "beautification." Although the latter suffered from its unfortunate name (which even Mrs. Johnson deemed unsuitable but acknowledged that "we couldn't come up with anything better") and was often denigrated as simply "prettification," it touched on much broader environmental concerns: the upkeep of Washington's monuments and streets, the involvement of Washington residents in neighborhood improvement, a campaign to attract national attention to the value of natural resources, and the struggle to regulate billboards along highways.

In her effort to open up the White House "to the little guys," Pat Nixon made special arrangements: persons in wheelchairs and on crutches received extra assistance; blind people were permitted to touch objects; busloads of senior citizens ate Thanksgiving dinner in the State Dining Room. But Pat also traveled to meet people, even those who lived in remote places and were not yet old enough to vote. Her daughter Julie later estimated that Pat had traveled more than any First Lady up to that time, visiting eighty-three nations and criss-crossing North America many times. She persevered whatever the weather, explaining, "I do or I die. I never cancel out."

From the beginning of her tenure as First Lady, Betty Ford announced that she would work for substantive changes, including ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution. She had a separate telephone installed in the White House so that she could lobby state legislators scheduled to vote on the measure. Opponents of the amendment criticized the involvement of a president's wife in such a controversial issue, especially one then before the states, but Betty Ford insisted she would stick with the fight. And she did, although she had to admit defeat when the necessary number of states did not ratify during her term.
Both Gerald and Betty Ford spoke of her influence in his administration. She admitted using "pillow talk" to relay her views on important topics, including the nomination of women to important jobs, and he acknowledged that she had urged him to grant a pardon to Richard Nixon.

In a precedent-breaking trip, Rosalynn Carter journeyed to seven countries in the Caribbean and South America in spring 1977 to confer with leaders on what the White House billed "substantive matters." After preparing by meeting with members of the State Department and the National Security Council, she talked with leaders about trade and defense. When she returned to Washington she reported to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on what she had seen and heard. Critics questioned the authority under which she traveled since she was neither appointed nor elected, and some Latino leaders expressed uncertainty about how to treat her remarks. Whether she was responding to the criticism or not, Rosalynn Carter made no more trips of this kind, explaining that her husband had time to "go himself." But she continued with goodwill missions that were more in line with what other First Ladies had done.

Because Ronald Reagan underwent several periods of major illness and lengthy convalescence, Nancy Reagan was watched closely to see what power she held. In July 1985, while he recuperated in hospital following cancer surgery, she returned to the White House to greet visiting dignitaries. Reporters speculated that a triumvirate was in charge: the president, his chief of staff, and the First Lady. Ronald Reagan endorsed this view when he thanked her for "taking part in the business of the nation." She was widely believed to favor an arms limitation agreement with the Soviet Union, and her enthusiasm was sometimes cited as significant in the president's quest for an accord. Before she left the White House, The New York Times credited her with expanding the role of First Lady.

In the decade before moving into the White House, Barbara Bush had undertaken a leadership role in the campaign to improve literacy in the United States, and she continued this work as First Lady. Struggling with the dyslexia of one of her sons many years earlier had convinced her, she said, of the importance of the ability to read. Although George Bush billed himself as the "Education President," it was his wife, frequently photographed visiting schools and reading to children, who became most closely identified with the cause. In 1991 she published a humorous book of photographs of the family dog, Millie's Book , as Dictated to Barbara Bush, and when it quickly became a best-seller, she donated nearly $800,000 in royalties to the Barbara Bush Foundation for Family Literacy. Had she not given the money away, she would have banked far more than the president's annual salary.