Pet “Owners” Beware!

Last Friday’s Flashback explained how everyone gets upset when corporations and interest groups employ lobbyists to influence legislation, yet everyone is usually silent or supportive of protests and movements with the similar intentions, especially when they focus on the rights of the underprivileged or oppressed -- even if they are not human. 

 

Politicians cater to these movements, as businesses try to garner favor by caving to their demands. Both worry less about the small percentage with the issue than with their champions who latch on to the cause to show everyone else how compassionate and virtuous they are. Hence, tiny minorities exert disproportionate political and economic pressure. 

 

This dynamic comes up everywhere: in sports, fast food restaurants and grocery stores. They can’t say some things, and the things they sell must have favorable labels. Few have the guts to stand up to the pressure. A friend related that her church lists inclusiveness in their mission statement, but that was not good enough. They must also have a welcoming statement as a supplement to it – apparently you can never be inclusive enough! 

 

Some consider themselves “woke” by giving these movements credibility, while others wrongly shrug them off. They gradually creep into society almost unnoticed while we nap! 

 

In light of this, an article from the Guardian addresses a potential trend that should distress many. The headline runs: “Should we stop keeping pets? Why more and more ethicists say yes.” 

The suggestion that keeping pets is somehow immoral is backed by a mixture of both rational and emotional arguments. First they state, “recent research into animals’ emotional lives has cast doubt on the ethics of petkeeping.” The author of a 2015 book, Run, Spot, Run, argues against pet ownership in that it “denies animals the right of self-determination. Ultimately, we bring them into our lives because we want them, then we dictate what they eat, where they live, how they behave, how they look, even whether they get to keep their sex organs.” When people tire of their pets or can’t afford them, they simply drop them at a shelter or abandon them. Experts in the new field of anthrozoology argue that this is all a form of cruelty. 

 

When people think of their pet as part of their family – and it’s getting increasingly common to hear neighbors and advertisers use terms like “furry children” or “pet parents” – it further raises moral and ethical questions. “The logical consequence is that the more we attribute them with these characteristics, the less right we have to control every single aspect of their lives,” say the experts.

 

Meanwhile, animal advocacy groups are working to change the term owner to guardian in places like Boulder City, CO, San Francisco and Marin County, CA, Rhode Island and other places around the world. This simple change may have both ethical and legal ramifications.

 

Institutions accused of exploiting animals, such as the circus, have come under fire. Animal rights activists claimed victory when Ringling Bros Circus closed. Now the pressure shifts to calls to end, or at least rethink, zoos.

 

A related trend is the switch to vegetarian and vegan diets, not only for health reasons, but for ethical reasons as well. “Veganism is up over 300% in the past 15 years” to almost 10 million in the US. What pressure will come from these groups? Will they be the first to go pet-free for ethical reasons and then begin a campaign to get the rest to follow?

 

Finally, claims that keeping pets is healthy are also under attack. A Finnish study of over 21,000 found cholesterol issues, other cardiovascular health problems and BMI problems associated with pet ownership. “Depression, panic attacks, migraine, and rheumatoid arthritis were more often associated with pet ownership among women. The associations of somatic diseases with pet ownership were more common among aging people, whereas psychiatric symptoms and diseases were more apparent among young people.”

 

Although two-thirds of American households have pets, mostly dogs, cats or fish, be alert for pleas about domination and cruelty, that they are sentient beings with more rights to freedom than the average household can provide. These new norms don’t just happen; they evolve, little by little, creeping into society. And it only takes a small minority with powerful PR to start the ball rolling. (Who would have thought 20 years ago that there would be controversy about listing only M or F on a driver’s license?)

Flashback – A Different Kind of Lobbying

This 2016 entry was prescient, especially in light of current events with so many organizations caving to the dictates of various activists and pressure groups. A small number of those actually aggrieved pick up support from followers motivated by a need to feel relevant and morally superior. With these dupes in tow, tiny minorities exert disproportionate political and economic pressure.

Here are the thoughts from four years ago:

[Political lobbyists are the target of a lot of disapproval, and deservedly so. Big corporations, unions and  interest groups pay them to persuade lawmakers to pass laws or propose regulations that favor them.  They contend that these activities keep lawmakers informed on the subtleties of certain industries to reduce the number of unintended consequences, because Congress cannot be experts on everything.

On the other hand, most of the population has the impression that these meetings and lunches are little more than legalized bribes for the rich to disproportionately influence government, an attempt to bring “government in as a partner, looking to see what the country can do for them.” The auto industry and banks get their bailouts. The military is given weapons they haven’t requested and don’t want. In short, to lobby is to try to get your way without regard to what others want or what is best for the country.

But there are other activities almost the same as lobbying that most people either ignore or consider healthy. This came to mind when I saw a news story from England, but the type of behavior is certainly not foreign to Americans. In fact it’s quite common.

The controversy arose over the new five-pound note. When vegans and vegetarians discovered that the new tougher and more waterproof bill was made from a plastic polymer containing small amounts of tallow, derived from animal waste products, they took to social media demanding a change. They called the use of even a small amount of animal products disgusting. Their rights were being trampled. Since they were not going to eat the pocket money and the contents were by-products of a food production process, stuff that would be thrown away, it’s hard to see how any harm was done. It’s not like more animals were being slaughtered. Yet some circulated a petition, gathering over 40,000 signatures, demanding that the contents be changed.

It’s so easy to click a box or sign an online petition. And you get to feel good about yourself for caring about an issue that’s important to a minority. You get to stick up for the underdogs, the victims, people whose beliefs were not considered when the government tried to make their paper money more durable.  But 40,000 signatures represent less than one-tenth of one percent of the UK population and only about 3% report being vegetarian. Does this make a difference?

This behavior is repeated nearly daily in America. People will protest slights against groups they aren’t members of. The protests are based on the theory that if they can get a large enough turnout and enough press coverage, they can influence national, state and local policy. The lure is the same – be a savior, do the noble thing, occupy the moral high ground; feel good about yourself for defending the rights of the victims and the marginalized, even if those rights never existed before and in some cases where the victims aren’t even human. That’s how they get huge, vocal crowds or thousands of signatures when the issues affect only a few. (What's worse, the claims are often based on bad science, a warped understanding of history or emotional appeals.)

We have seen this mindset recently protesting a pipeline in North Dakota, defending a mountain lion that was killing cattle in California, supporting workers who took on obligations without the necessary financial resources and solving a bathroom problem that few knew existed. This is all about pressure on lawmakers. Adults throw a group tantrum to get attention.

It’s also so easy to vote, as the people in Massachusetts did to require that chickens and pigs live in larger cages. Those in favor of happier chickens spent almost $5 million on small demonstrations and other means to publicize the animals' need for more comfortable accommodations. Those arguing that such changes would raise the prices of eggs and bacon, hitting the poor especially hard, could only raise $300,000 to try to make their point. The chickens won and the humans lost, because the emotional appeal of reducing what was portrayed as suffering for the animals drowned out the appeal of helping the poor afford food. So voters went home from the polls feeling smug about making a difference.

Some of these causes are worthy of attention; many are trivial. But it's exactly the same outcome as traditional lobbying. Based on the theories that past behavior predicts future behavior and that behavior rewarded is behavior repeated, I predict that the future will yield more of this free lobbying.  Lawmakers will feel pressure from all sides, as every special interest exerts as much pressure as they can, if not through monetary donations, then by demonstrating in the streets and on social media. Those groups always attract supporters with the promise of feeling fulfilled, compassionate and morally superior.

Is this different kind of lobbying any healthier for the country than the first? We will see.]

That was my feeling in 2016. It has (as I predicted) escalated as activities in Seattle, Minneapolis, Kenosha, Portland, Washington DC and elsewhere are portrayed as peaceful protests despite vandalism, looting and rioting. But beware that the latest protests may mimic a more sinister movement.

 

Consider this news from the UK: A British-Indian Muslim convert, skipped bail in 2014 to join ISIS in Syria. He wrote later online: “When we descend on the streets of London, Paris and Washington the taste will be far bitterer, because not only will we spill your blood, but we will also demolish your statues, erase your history and, most painfully, convert your children who will then go on to champion our name and curse their forefathers.”

Manifesting, Really?

About 40 years ago a consultant descended on the company where I was working to meet with all employees (who later magically became associates) to introduce them to the power of what he called “visioning.” According to him, visioning was the key to achieving your goals in life and at work. He had convinced the executive team that harnessing such power would thrust the company forward.

 

Participants need only form a strong vision in their minds and things would turn out favorably. If it didn’t work you weren’t doing it right. As would be expected, employees dutifully attended training, and then returned to their desks to do their jobs in the usual way. Like most business fads, it quickly faded. The only benefit was that someone caught daydreaming could plead visioning as a defense.

 

Until recently, I assumed that fad had died – but no! It merely got rebranded and now is being sold to individuals as manifesting.

 

I found the details on this site from August 2019, “The Do’s and Don’ts of Manifesting.” 

 

“Manifesting is cultivating the experience of what it is that you want to feel — and then living and believing in that experience so that you can allow it to come into form.” It can be used to “attract whatever you want, whether that’s a successful business, good health, a relationship or even a material object.” There’s no limit to the power of manifesting as long as you align with the loving energy of the universe. (It sounds a lot like praying that Notre Dame will win the football game.) 

 

It is further defined as “the process of vibrating at a high frequency so that you become a vibrational match with the Universe and can co-create your world.”

 

According to the site’s own survey, a vast majority are confused about how to do it right. (Maybe they’re wondering why it’s taking so long for their dreams to come true when they are concentrating/vibrating so hard.) 

 

But then come the disclaimers. Practitioners err in thinking that exactly what they want should magically appear. It doesn’t work that way because the Universe is wiser and may have different plans. You may sometimes get what you want, but you don’t have total control.

 

Even though it may initially sound loony and airy-fairy, there are some positive messages. The video on the site emphasizes focusing more on what you have that’s working, being grateful, instead of stressing about what you don’t have or how long it is taking. This is a good message, which I call perspective and have written about here about 150 times.

 

That’s followed by more good advice about not trying to force or control everything. Don’t sweat the small stuff, be aware of your financial situation and be in control your feelings.

 

When I first read all this alignment with the vibrations of the Universe stuff, it seemed laughable. But deeper down it looks more like a religion for the non-religious: “We can trust that an energy beyond our own is working on our behalf and that everything is working out for us — even if we don’t know exactly when or how it will happen.” Readers were advised to be patient and practice manifesting not just on special occasions but every day, the same advice you would hear about prayer in any church, temple or mosque. 

 

The problem is that some people are selling this as a standalone, magic solution to all life’s problems, while the part about taking responsibility is easily overlooked. You can’t just sit down and wish things into existence. The Lord does help those who help themselves.

Flashback – Rights

Here are some ideas about our constitutional rights from an entry four years ago. The same problematic behaviors have been even more evident since then. 

[Thinking about how people behave toward the rights of others lately can become very confusing.

About six weeks ago leading up to the [2016] election, there was quite a bit of talk about exercising your right to vote. Public service ads appeared on TV about how important it was to vote and how your vote made a difference. As is usually the case around election time, some volunteers worked with car pools and vans to make sure all voters were able to get to the polls. Some continued to subscribe to the argument that requiring voters to present photo identification at the polls was a burden and discriminatory. In short, many people came together in an effort to make it as easy as possible for everyone interested to exercise their right to vote.

We also have a right to bear arms, yet I have seen no efforts to make it as easy as possible to buy a gun. In fact the opposite is true. Exercising this right is burdened by several requirements: background check, waiting period, etc. Where are the people who will drive me to the gun show or the firing range if I have trouble getting there on my own? – The idea of this seems silly. There aren’t television ads encouraging people to exercise this right, and most comments are to the contrary. Two rights receive opposite reactions.

We also have a right to trial by jury and to be considered innocent until proven guilty. This seems to be a right everyone is in favor of for themselves, but objects to for others. If law enforcement or courts do not do what citizens think they should have done, based on knowledge of the case picked up from the news or social media, the protesters begin demanding “justice.” Sometimes they even ignore the crime victim’s or their family’s pleas for calm and patience as the process plays out.  

We also have a right to free speech. Supposedly you can say what you want to without repercussions, particularly from the government. But students at various universities protest against the appearance of outside speakers because what they say may be offensive or not correspond with their worldview. Students are supposedly in college to learn. Sometimes their ideas are wrong, and sometimes it’s just educational to understand another’s point of view. Instead, they protest demanding a cancellation of the event, or they attend to heckle the speaker already having made up their minds that the person is evil or offensive. When confronted with the idea of freedom of speech, they smugly argue that the First Amendment only applies to government interference.

It has gotten to the point where a few universities have adopted the Chicago Principle, originated at the University of Chicago. It holds that if the speech or written statement is legal and not threatening, harassing, defamatory, or a substantial invasion of privacy, it must be considered, discussed and debated regardless of whether it may be thought by some to be offensive, unwise, immoral, or wrong-headed. This action tries to move the focus from some vague notion of offense or anticipated offense to one of learning.

And it’s not just students. Society bans the use of certain words by certain people, and they can only refer to them by their initials, even when discussing the word itself. Many people feel they must consider their word choice very carefully for fear of committing an inadvertent offense or micro-aggression. If you refer to America as a melting pot, you are demeaning someone’s heritage and traditions. If you refer to our Forefathers, you are subjugating half the population. And on it goes. Political rallies have become scenes of name-calling and accusations rather than of debate and the post-rally walk to the car features fighting in the streets. 

Critical thinking leads to the conclusion that we don’t treat rights the same. Some are encouraged, some defended, some ignored, some opposed and some applied selectively. Isn’t that worth considering?]

Some Short Examples and Comments About the Five Dimensions

Critical thinking: A few weeks ago a furniture company was advertising 20% off or 0% interest until Jan 2024, which was about 40 months away. If you take the delayed payment offer and pay full price, you sacrifice the 20%-off bargain. That is the equivalent of paying over 5% in annual interest – not exactly a no interest deal after all.

 

Responsibility: It seems fine to harass, shame or even arrest people who don’t wear a face covering, yet in the case of a person who has children without the means to support or feed them, there is unlimited sympathy and generous financial support from the government and others.

 

Economic Understanding: Recently Subway lost a court case in Ireland. They tried to avoid paying tax on their bread, but the court ruled that their bread contains too much sugar to qualify for the “staple food” exemption. The media reported mockingly on the unhealthiness of Subway bread. 

 

One newscaster closed with “now it will cost Subway more” – wrong! It is really a hidden tax on the Irish Subway customers as they pay more for their sandwiches. I doubt if it will cost Subway any business as they raise the price a bit. Newscasters and most of the people who listen to them don’t understand economics or business.

 

Note: A recipe on Food.com for homemade white bread uses at least as much sugar as the Subway recipe. 

 

Perspective: Does anyone else find it odd that football players celebrate every time they make a good play? These people are highly paid to play a game. They are expected to throw the ball or catch it or tackle an opponent or keep him from catching the ball. When they do what they are paid to do, they make first down signals, high-five each other, do dances and mug for the camera. Try doing that in your job and see where it gets you!

 

Discipline: Consider those on-line sports betting ads. It’s initially risk-free as they promise to match your losses up to a certain dollar amount. Aren’t they counting on enough people getting hooked, even if it’s only a bet or two a week? As the saying goes, over the long run the house always wins. 

 

Here is some evidence of that. This source “estimates that New Yorkers bet $837 million on sports in New Jersey. When subtracting the payouts for wins using a conservative hold percentage, it’s an estimated $57.1 million in revenue for the operators and $6.2 million in tax revenue lost by New York to New Jersey.” With it not yet legal in New York, total losses to the state in taxes on the profits could be over $203 million.

 

Discipline (alternate): Despite being told for years to build a six-month emergency fund, most Americans were dependent on government enhanced unemployment and stimulus checks immediately after the pandemic struck and complained when they were delayed.

 

Other miscellaneous ideas: 

Three useless words – “go ahead and.” Every time you hear them “go ahead and” replay the sentence in your head with out them. It’s shorter and means exactly the same thing!

 

The only way to be an optimist these days is to have extremely low expectations. 

 

“Some free black people in this country bought and sold other black people, and did so at least since 1654, continuing to do so right through the Civil War.” (Source: Article by Henry Louis Gates, a black historian)

Flashback – Does Luck Have a Half-life?

This takes us back almost seven years to the minimum wage protests at fast food restaurants. The question is whether people learn to change behavior when they are bailed out from predictable consequences. I have long argued that the reason you can’t raise a family on the minimum wage is that no one should start a family if they can only get a minimum wage job. Bad luck is not forever.

 

People who caught a bad break certainly should be helped, but behavior rewarded is behavior repeated. Irresponsibility rewarded breeds more. Over the past seven years a lot of irresponsibility has been rewarded. Here are my 2013 comments:

[More protests are breaking out around the plight of fast food workers unable to survive on the minimum wage. They are demanding a wage increase to $15 an hour. The news has presented the arguments pro and con, but have usually given more time to the protesters, sometimes, as in this CBS piece, picking out one as a kind of “poster child” for the cause. The hidden problem is that minimum wage, unemployment extensions, food stamps and other proposed government solutions ignore behavioral factors.

A primary argument in favor of this issue tells us that all these people are less fortunate, that they need a helping hand to get back on their feet, that "there, but for the grace of God,” go we. They completely ignore well-known wisdom that behavior has consequences. We are presented with the argument that every one of these fast food workers is merely down on his luck or a victim of a bad economy, and that the situation has nothing to do with consequences of behavior. This unbelievable scenario is widely accepted by otherwise rational people. The media and many politicians never challenge it.

This leads to an interesting comparison: In other circumstances, how do caring people really act? If your teenage son sits on the sofa all day playing videogames, ignoring homework and refusing to do his chores, do good parents excuse the behavior and cover for him? Do they pass it off with, “That’s OK; he’s going through a tough time”? Even non-parents know the answer. Good parents will institute consequences for this poor behavior, knowing that if they don’t, life and reality will later institute much harsher consequences. Teenage sons can be very difficult, but good parents anticipate with a pattern of similar, consistent reactions to deal with natural childhood resistance and laxness. That’s how caring people act. They don’t always come to the rescue – behavior that makes the rescuer feel powerful, but often causes long-term harm to the one rescued. When the bad situation is a bad break, sympathy and a leg up are appropriate. If the son is mugged and loses money, parents may reimburse him for the loss. If he loses it gambling, that’s the consequence of bad behavior. Bailing him out is inappropriate, dulls the impact of the consequence and no learning occurs. (For an extreme example see the recent case of "affluenza" in Texas.)

Returning to the case of minimum wage employees, especially those presented by the media and never challenged, we must ask if it was bad luck or consequences that contributed to the situation. If it’s luck, then some temporary help is appropriate, because bad luck does have a kind of half-life or statute of limitations. A little help can turn things around, but caring people do not bail out from consequences. That only fosters more problematic behavior.

Even in these seemingly innocent human-interest stories the determination requires only a few simple questions. Where did those two or three children come from? Where is the father (or fathers)? What contribution is he making? If none, why not? Did the workers finish high school; were drugs ever involved; are they applying for better jobs, are they looking for ways to increase skills, etc., etc.? What is the long-term plan, if any? (CBS later reported that their "poster-child" example turned down promotions more than once because it didn’t fit her preferred personal schedule. Another news story told of a kind social worker repairing at minimum cost the car of a woman who hasn't been able to work in 5 years due to a neck injury. She can't work, but she can drive?!)  

Looking at the situation through the behavioral lens would probably determine that many of these people are not victims. Many are living with the consequences of earlier choices. Should caring people run to bail them out, labeling them all as “less fortunate,” as the compassionistas would have us believe? Not only do they not learn and grow, but the next generation, poised to make the same mistakes, sees no example to discourage them from following the same path. So, the current, non-behavioral approaches, which lump them all into the same category, lead not to solutions but to perpetual problems.]

Libraries As Socialism

I have from time to time heard defenders of socialism use the local library as an example of socialism in practice. The building, utilities, workers and books are paid for mostly by taxes (with some additional funds from books sales and donations). 

Who can say anything bad about the library? It’s available and it’s free. In fact my library’s computer reminds me at checkout how much I have saved by not having to buy the books. 

I am a supporter and big user of my library system. Sometimes I go to the library without anything particular in mind just to pick out an interesting book to read. Sometimes I go with a particular subject in mind and browse through the available books in that section of the stacks. I usually come away with something and never have to pay. (The same can be said of movies on DVD or music, but with everyone streaming, that part of their business has probably fallen off.)

Sometimes, however, I am looking for a particular title that I’ve seen on TV or seen a reference to in my reading. I check the website and the library doesn’t have it. Somebody in charge of ordering books either was not familiar with it or didn’t feel that it should make the cut for what they spend their limited funds on. I have very little control over this centralized decision.

Sometimes when checking the website I do find the book I want, but someone else has it checked out. The computer tells me how many copies they have in the system and where I am on the waiting list should I decide to put the book on hold. I have waited as long as 8 weeks, occasionally longer, for notification that the book is available. I am given 5 days to pick it up during the 60 hours of the week they are open (prior to the shortened COVID hours). Most of those hours are when people are working and kids are in school.

I put up with these inconveniences because getting a particular book to read is not urgent or important to me. The library is fine, but it has its limitations. I can bypass these limitations using available alternatives.

If I really need the book I go the capitalist route – Amazon, for example. I can find almost any book or movie I want on the Internet. I can buy it and download it directly to my phone and begin reading. If the system is working properly, the number of copies available is driven by demand from myself and others rather than by some individual’s taste or guesswork. I can do this 24 hours a day; I never have to wait for another reader to finish and return it. I can mark it up if I choose and can take as long as I want to read it. Because it’s mine, I have that freedom.

Where other services are concerned, such inconveniences are no longer trivial. No one would want to put up with them in important areas like groceries, utilities, transportation, healthcare and many others. 

Why do people in the UK or Canada sometimes have to wait longer for medical procedures? – Because their healthcare is run on the library model. Why do we hear stories of food shortages in places like Venezuela and the former Soviet Union? – Because the food supply is run on the library model. Some central decision maker, not individual consumers voting with their dollars, controls the system. Why does public education in America lag behind so many other countries? – Because as parents become more and more disengaged, it moves closer to the library model where central decision makers dictate methods and judge outcomes.

Most areas run by the government or where the government gets involved are the the epitome of inefficiency: student loans, home mortgages, the court system, the DMV, the post office, Amtrak, and public education (where teachers keep asking to be paid more to teach fewer students with questionable results).

Healthcare in America is already too much like the library model. There is no real competition, and the consumer is separated from the provider by an insurance middleman. So everyone rightly complains about it.

I love libraries, but I wouldn’t want to depend on them or anything like them for the necessities of life. 

Flashback – Critical Thinking

The idea behind the flashbacks on Fridays is to review and update some thoughts and examples from the past. These examples remain valid because behavior has changed very little over the years. We are not learning from our mistakes.

 

The main difference in 2020 is that almost every subject quickly becomes political with people taking sides. The Real Solutions are not political. They come from people changing their personal consequences by improved choices using the Five Dimensions. As these individual improvements accumulate, America moves in the right direction. The solutions come from us and not from the government, but try telling someone that in an election year! 

 

Here from almost nine years ago are some thoughts on critical thinking.

[Around the time of the Civil War, John Stuart Mill wrote essays in opposition to slavery and in favor of women’s rights. In both cases he recognized the difficulty of persuading people to change their minds when their conviction was based on feelings rather than logic – thinking with their hearts instead of their brains. Near the beginning of “The Subjection of Women” he writes: “So long as opinion is strongly rooted in the feelings, it gains rather than loses instability by having a preponderating weight of argument against it. For if it were accepted as a result of argument, the refutation of the argument might shake the solidity of the conviction; but when it rests solely on feeling, … the more persuaded adherents are that their feeling must have some deeper ground, … always throwing up fresh entrenchments of argument to repair any breach made in the old.” In other words, it’s tough to get people to change their mind when their opinion is not based on logic. The more you talk, the deeper they dig in to protect long-held beliefs.  

We see this behavior almost daily. We are warned to avoid subjects of religion and politics in social conversations. They lead to no resolution, instead causing others to protect their turf.

This is why many of my critical thinking arguments will fall on deaf ears. Considering, though, the waste, misdirection and sometimes danger that result from individual and societal forays down these blind alleys of feeling-based decisions, I continue.

There are two categories of critical thinking. The first involves paying closer attention, for example, recognizing the popular advertising pitch of “save up to 50% or more” as virtually meaningless. Literally it means: maybe saving some undefined amount that can be less or more than 50%. Likewise, how can all car insurance companies save you (up to) $300 when you switch? They all say so. One even claims that  80% of those who switched saved money - but doesn't mention the 20% dumb enough to switch anyway. These examples, and many others, just take some basic questioning.

The second category hits on subjects treated almost as religious beliefs. When I warn of the dangers of dietary supplements, the ineffectiveness of performance bracelets, or that all-natural does not necessarily mean healthier, I know there are a certain number of readers who will dig in, ignoring examples, evidence and explanations, knowing in their hearts that they are doing the right thing, resisting rather than even considering an alternative point of view. For some the ideas of green and sustainable are nearly sacred. They will not bat an eye when told that a particular wind turbine, for example, saves enough coal-powered energy to pay for itself in 150 years, but has a life expectancy of only 50 years! “But, but, but it’s green! It must be good. It’s the direction we need to be moving!”  Logic is lost in feelings and further argument leads only to increased resistance.

Nevertheless, I will continue to cite examples and drive the message of critical thinking. Making good decisions most of the time is essential for our success, both as individuals and as a society.]

Why Do They Bother?

I often wonder about news agencies. They publish flashy headlines, but the details later in the stories turn out to be much less interesting or conclusive. Here is a recent example from CNN health: “People with blood type O may have lower risk of Covid-19 infection and severe illness, two new studies suggest.” (At least citing two studies is better than their frequent practice of citing one unnamed source in their political news, but let's get into it.) 

 

The studies concluded, “People with blood type O may be less vulnerable to Covid-19 and have a reduced likelihood of getting severely ill.” To compound the weakness of this conclusion that they “may be less vulnerable” they add a disclaimer that “Experts say more research is needed.”

 

What we know so far, provided we read the headline carefully, is that something “may be” going on, and even if true, the connection is not clear.

 

A study from Denmark found that of a sample of 7,422 people who tested positive, 38.4% were blood type O, whereas 41.7% of a separate non-tested group of the 2.2 million Danish people has that blood type. The article doesn’t explain where that 2.2 million came from. The population of Denmark is about 5.8 million. Were those 2.2 million representative of the entire population?

 

It is likely the results were statistically significant or they would not have been published. Still, statistical significance is overrated, and the difference between 41.7% and 38.4% does not seem to be of any practical significance to a CNN audience. 

 

The difference for Danes with type A blood goes in the opposite direction, 44.4% ill compared to 42.4% of the population. But the Type O and Type A does not account for everyone, only 84.1%. The remaining type B and AB people must comprise 15.9% of the population and account for 17.2% of the cases, which is actually proportionally higher than the type A cases. Why they reported what they did, the way they did, is puzzling.

 

The second, a Canadian study, looked at a much smaller sample, only 95 critically ill patients. Of them, 84% of those with blood type A or AB required ventilators compared to 61% of type O or B. They didn’t make the same comparisons under the same conditions as the Danish study. The only common finding was the better performance of blood type O.

 

The final conclusion of the CNN article is that no one should worry and no one should become complacent. Blood type does not supersede other risk factors. The information is useful only to researchers in this narrow field of trying to discover a link between blood type and COVID susceptibility or seriousness. They “don't yet know what mechanism could explain the link” or if a link exists.

 

The fact that they were published in a journal called Blood Advances reinforces how narrow the focus for the studies was. It wasn’t really intended for the general public. Which brings me back to my original question. Why do they bother? 

 

Not to pick on CNN. The same useless information appeared in Forbes, NBC, UPI Health News, Science Focus and others. The pressure to fill airtime and Internet space must be overwhelming. We get such news with its exciting headlines whether it adds any value to our daily lives or not.