Human Behavior

Internet Governance and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Part 6: Articles 18-19 – CircleID

Articles 18-19: Freedoms of Thought and Opinion. Co-authored by Klaus Stoll and Prof Sam Lanfranco.1

Internet Governance, like all governance, needs guiding principles from which policy making, and acceptable behavior, are derived. Identifying the fundamental principles to guide Internet ecosystem policy making around digital citizenship, and around the integrity of digital practices and behavior, can and should start with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, (UDHR). The UDHR was embraced after World War II to protect the rights of persons in literal space. We are now facing the same challenge regarding digital space.

Our discussion now explores UDHR Articles 18 and 19. The UDHR principles guiding human rights in literal time and space serve as a starting point for the necessary principles guiding digital rights in the Internet ecosystem.2 Here, in addition to dealing with the freedom of thought and opinion in cyberspace, we explore some aspects of the development of Internet Governance and the work of the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression.3

Article 18: Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.4

Article 18 in the UDHR, with its emphasis on religion and belief, was heavily influenced by the terrible events of the inter-war years in the first half of the Twentieth Century. Article 19 generalizes the concerns and principles found in Article 18, and ends with the prophetic words, for the Internet age: "...to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."

Article 19: Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Our discussions have explored the relationship between the UDHR and the social and political structures of countries, nations, and states. Articles 18 and 19 focus greater attention on the role, and rights, of the individual. Freedom of thought and opinion are essential to protect the autonomy of the individual from demands by the state, and for informing the state of the wishes of its citizens.

The actions of an individual can be put into three legal categories: prohibited, permitted, or required. Articles 18-19 put freedom of thought and opinion firmly into the permitted category and limit the ability of a state to prohibit or require them. However, issues formal or behavioral restraint arise when expressed opinion is contrary to other principles in the UDHR, for example supporting racism, patrimony, and other forms of discrimination, and growing issue of the circulation of false information on digital platforms.

Article 18 protects not only thought, conscience and religion but also its manifestations by an individual or a group. Any attempts to prohibit them or require conformity are either illegal, or permissible only then the rights of others are affected.4 Thoughts, beliefs, religion, and digital data, are intangibles. They become real through their manifestations as actions and through social behaviors and institutional structures and processes. We encounter once again the principle of separate but inseparable as discussed in part 1 of this series on the UDHR.

Bertrand Russell reflected on freedom of thought:

"What makes a freethinker is not his beliefs but the way in which he holds them. If he holds them because his elders told him they were true when he was young, or if he holds them because if he did not he would be unhappy, his thought is not free; but if he holds them because, after careful thought he finds a balance of evidence in their favor, then his thought is free, however odd his conclusions may seem."6

One's thinking will always be exposed to outside influences, but it should not mirror those influences. It should be like a light that goes through a prism, to be split into its components, for critical evaluation based on dialogue with others. Dialogue is necessary to determine how my thought affects the rights of others, and to reach a consensus over how my thought can manifest itself in behavior without doing harm.

Free thought cannot not exist when the information/data on which it is based is corrupted by misinformation. Historically misinformation, or lack of information, stemmed from censorship, repression, or lack of access. Today, with ease of access and speed of dissemination, this problem is compounded by the of rumors, false news, and false facts through the Internet ecosystem. This prevents, or even perverts, dialogue-based evaluation, and the building of a common consensus.

Thought needs the ability to discover the new, to cross boundaries and be shared without fear of reprisal. Freedom of thought is the basis of innovation and has been as a key driver of progress in the digital age. However, the digital venue opens the double-edged sword of so-called thought leadership driven by social media "influencer" thought leaders, influencing both opinions and behavior.7

We cannot subjugate our freedom of thought to the opinions of others, especially when in uncritical support for technical or social innovation. We cannot bow to a leadership that postulates the superiority of one thought over another, independent of evidence, logic, and morality, or thought that demands acceptance without accountability. Innovation with integrity is hampered by leadership when that leadership seeks to preserve and strengthen special interests, frequently at the expense of human rights and wellbeing.

A sign of true innovation and leadership with integrity is that it enables and nurtures the processes of free thought, evaluation, dialogue, and consensus. These four steps are integral to the process of sound Internet Governance policy making.

The UDHR envisaged competent tribunals as an important checks and balances.8 As history has shown, factions within states pursuing self-preservation and advancing their empowerment frequently restrict the abilities of national tribunals. Hence, in cases such as war crimes and crimes against humanity, such tribunals have been established above and beyond the state.9

To exercise free thought and its manifestations in cyberspace requires, as discussed in part 3 of this series, recognition without discrimination and the absence of arbitrary means of repression or presumption of guilt. This freedom can only be secured within Internet Governance when that governance is created and maintained by empowered engagement from all its digital citizen stakeholders.10

States have their own jurisdiction and sovereignty and will exercise control over domestic Internet Governance. Much like domestic human rights governance, based on the principles of the UDHR, those policies and behaviors should respect the principles behind global digital rights. There will never be a global cyberstate in the sense of an independent digital state with sovereignty over its digital territory. But the digital rights of empowered digital citizens require the principles a global universal declaration of digital rights, backed by an international judiciary, empowered by signature states, and operating with its own jurisdictional independence. This is where the separately but inseparable overlap. Stakeholder engagement in global dialogue, as well as dialogue within existing national and international bodies, is necessary to agree upon the principles and mechanisms for international agreements around the rights (and obligations) of digital citizenship, to establish appropriate judiciary institutions and processes, and to inform behavioral integrity.

The right to freedom of conscience protects an individual from being forced or coerced into participation in an activity that is against his/her values. When accessing a service, nobody should be arbitrarily refused, or forced to give unwilling consent, or be subjected to discrimination. This is a pressing issue when it comes to required consent to the terms of agreement for access to many of the services, apps, and activities confronting a digital citizen in the Internet ecosystem.

Many digital applications, some of them vital for the exercise of our empowered digital citizenship, are only available after agreeing to term and conditions that are contrary to the users' interests and rights. Digital technologies and the terms under which they can be used need to conform with basic human rights, expressed as basic digital rights. Coercing individuals to sacrifice or compromise their human and digital rights through denial of services, for example through unreasonable "legal" consent forms, and the failure to fully disclose the true uses of personal data, are unethical and comparable to giving a person the choice to opt in to slavery, or starve.11 Universal Internet access should be a fundamental right, and not be subject to questionable constraints on personal rights and freedoms, or digital date use practices of questionable integrity.

Does freedom of religion, as manifested and exercised in Cyberspace, present special problems? Does it require special rights and protections? Religion is an attempt to join the separate but inseparable nature of the human mind and body, the so-called mind-body problem.12 How does my physical body relate to my religion based (virtual) being? Building the links between the virtual and the physical is key to the security and self-preservation of one's personhood. One's virtual "residence" in the Internet ecosystem poses similar questions.

Religion, at is core, is virtual, with "residency" within a belief space. For believers that belief space is true. Non-believers express doubt or disbelief. Religion and philosophy provide rationales and rituals to satisfy multiple personal and societal needs. Believers and non-believers both understand that religion's impact on literal life is real. One's virtual residence within the Internet ecosystem has a same virtual-to-real personal and societal relationship.

Challenging a person's religious believe system equates to questioning a believer's being in mind and body. Since the origins of religious communities, threats and exhortations by religious leaders have driven followers to believe that extreme acts such as crusades, witch hunts and terrorism are necessary and justified. This "thought fascism" allows for multiple terrible means to be deployed to attack religious beliefs and persecute those who hold them, when those beliefs different from one's own, as was witnessed in the middle of the past Century.

The UDHR puts religion on a same level as thought and conscience, and reaffirms the right of a believer to hold and "to change his[her] religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance". The core principle here can be applied to the notion, and protection of thoughts and behavior within one's digital residency.

At the start of the 21st Century Capitalism is under the microscope. The recent era of neoliberal (pro-market) policy has produced major technological and economic advances. At the same time, it has produced extreme concentrations of income and wealth, and increased marginalization. These outcomes are prompting serious reflection on whether market capitalism can be reformed, or needs to be replaced, with no clear idea of how to reform, or replace with what.

Belief systems satisfy our need for physical and spiritual wholeness, acting as personal "global positioning systems", and provide comfort and security. They also help weave the fabric of society. The role of capitalism, as a technology driver within that fabric is evident. However, its impacts in the rapid development of the Internet ecosystem are driving calls for a critical review of its socio-economic impacts and the integrity of its digital business practices.

One area of particular concern is Surveillance Capitalism. Surveillance capitalism is the newly emergent digital business practice of collecting and monetizing identifiable personal digital data. This raises issues about the integrity of digital data use practices and how they relate to the digital and literal rights of persons. Processing digital data for marketing goods and services, and for feeding information (valid or false) risks the uses of digital technology in the service of thought fascism. Such risks are not new. They arose with the printing press, with radio and with film and television. The risks to human rights posed by such practices in cyberspace are greater today given the scope, scale and speed with which information can flow on the Internet. There may be reasons, and hope, to believe that humankind will be able to deal with this threat:

"...[a] careful final summary indicates commercialism as the great danger to future free thought; but it seems legitimate to hope that the great economic interests bound up with science, together with the spread of education, will prevent any return to the more noxious superstitions of the past."13

While one might passively hope for principled outcomes with integrity, it is better to work on identifying principles and formulating policy through engagement by an empowered digital citizenry.

To exercise freedom of thought in Cyberspace requires an understanding, almost a paradigm shift, and think about one's "residency" in the Internet ecosystem. One must think not only of digital rights but also of digital duties (obligations) as a citizen of the internet. As in the case of one's literal citizenship, duties evolve and become part of the social fabric. Most are not mandated or handed down in policies and regulations but develop as social conventions. Personally, lying or spreading false rumors are frowned on. Politically, voting is an act of good citizenship, but usually it is not required.

Expressed opinions, as a contribution to dialogue and consensus should not contain falsehoods or blatant lapses in logic. Frequently they do not face legal sanctions when they occur. This is a difficult area today regarding social media, where falsehoods are widely circulated, both innocently and with malicious intent. Any system of governance, including Internet Governance, relies on a dynamic blend of binding policies and generally mutually agreed upon individual and private behaviors. Opinions should be contributions to dialogue where common wisdom says: "One is entitled to one's own opinion but not one's own facts".

Multi-layered, multi-lateral and multi-stakeholder political processes include dialogue as part of processes to determine policy, hopefully based on what is right, just, and based on agreed true facts. There is a major challenge to society here today. Much of current traffic (cannot call it dialogue) in the Internet ecosystems social media is evidence-free, false news, and even unfounded conspiracy assertions. Such traffic is not much more than a tug of war in which the respective factions via to gain adherents and influence policy, frequently in ignorance of the costs in terms of damage and what is at stake.

Freedom of thought in the Twenty-First Century is about more than the freedom from the forms of persecution that lay behind Articles 18 and 19. It is about the integrity that goes into those thoughts as they manifest themselves as opinion and actions. The digital age has brought forth new risks to freedom of thought and opinion.

A century ago Bertrand Russell spoke of the "machinery of persecution", that "insured the triumph of its own views."14 A century later we face new forms of "machineries of persecution" as residents of the Internet ecosystem. Digital surveillance in the broadest sense, combined with AI algorithms, fashions digital profiles of us (digital personas) to shape the information, dialogues, and contexts we see in the digital venue. This is shaping our sense of self and of who we are in both a virtual and a literal sense.

This is a serious assault on our freedom of thought and opinion and made worse when driven by a toxic mix of digital business practices (greed driven?) and deception (fallibility driven?) by false or mistaken information, as we form socio-economic and political thoughts and opinions and engage in social and political actions.15

Where free thought is free from persecution, and where dialogue determines and respects the boundaries of rights, there is greater probability of the formation and manifestation of consensus. This can help overcome the obstacles consensus posted by silo-like views of self-interest, and begin to create new Internet ecosystem behaviors and supporting Internet Governance that is based on, and supports, the free will of empowered digital citizens

Competent Internet Governance will be born out of this kind of new dialogue. Its responsibility is it to enable and educate dialogue based on free thought and the respect of the rights of others. The responsibility of competent Internet Governance will be to support education and knowledge as inputs into thoughts and opinions, but not to control thought or opinion, or delegate it to algorithms16.

Article 19 is one of the key articles of the UDHR and worth repeating here:

Article 19: Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Article 19 could be called the "UDHR Internet article". Its "through any media and regardless of frontiers" foreshadows the Internet and expresses the core values to be applied to digital communication technologies. It expresses a key concept that connects with and ties together all its articles. Its importance is underlined by the UN Commission on Human Rights which in 1993 established the mandate for the office of the Special Rapporteur.17 In 2008 it replaced the Commission on Human Rights and its mandate continues to be renewed. Most recently (August 2020) Irene Khan was appointed as UN Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Opinion and Expression and is the first woman to hold this mandate.18 The previous officeholder David Kaye summed up the Rapporteur mandate and activities as:

"gather all relevant information, wherever it may occur, of discrimination against, threats or use of violence and harassment, including persecution and intimidation, directed at persons seeking to exercise ... against professionals in the field of information ... or to promote the exercise of the right to freedom of opinion and expression..."19

Rapporteur reports submitted since 2010 contain a wealth of information on relevant topics concerning the right to freedom of opinion and expression in the digital age such as: online hate speech, surveillance, AI, content regulation, role of digital access providers protection of sources and whistleblowers, encryption and anonymity, right of the child to freedom of expression, in an electoral context, protection of journalists and media freedom, health system issues, criminal justice system and new technologies, national security, the rights of women20.

In statements to the 2017/18 General Assembly 2017/18 then Rapporteur David Kaye addressed the member states concerning the state of art of Article 19. His comments, reproduced at length here, sum up what Article 19 means in the context of Cyberspace:

"In the year since my last report, the crisis for freedom of expression has deepened worldwide. Journalists have been murdered, their killers rarely if ever brought to justice. Individuals have been arrested merely for posting online criticism of government policy or officials. Our online security, essential to our ability to take advantage of the digital revolution, has been undermined by governments and government-sponsored and private trolls. The public's trust in information has been, and continues to be, attacked by political demagogues and their surrogates. Threats to civil society activists continue unabated, subject to digital attack, surveillance, baseless investigations and accusations, xenophobia and much else. And corporate actors in digital space are both attacked by authorities and themselves growing in power that, to many States and observers, seems unaccountable and opaque".

Rapporteur Kaye in 2017 made specific recommendations that lay out the way forward for the member states regarding Internet Governance:

"It is my hope that the political bodies of the United Nations, especially the General Assembly and Human Rights Council, and other intergovernmental organizations will: (a) Promote the adoption of access to information policies through resolutions and other governance mechanisms; (b) Ensure the development of monitoring and oversight functions; (c) Provide comprehensive information concerning organizational governance mechanisms, including election and selection or appointment processes, and broader and simpler accreditation of organizations to participate in and monitor organizational activities; (d) Promote knowledge of access to information policies, including through the provision of clear information on websites and active dissemination and promotion of those policies to staff and stakeholders.21

All the reports and statements include clear recommendations and calls for action to the member states and stakeholders.

Growing frustration by the special Rapporteur is apparent. His recommendations are ignored and even contradicted by actions taken by the members states.22 He goes on to say:

"I apologize for having to begin on a grim note, but while I will spend a few moment describing my formal report, I could not begin by ignoring the vast suffering that mainly governments are causing individuals around the world today. The repression of expression is repression of democracy and rule of law. It is repression of innovation, self-exploration, and connection. I cannot urge you strongly enough to take steps to reverse and resist this trend. I urge your leaders to speak the language of respect for reporting as the crucial public watchdog. I urge you to implement indeed the important normative measures the Human Rights Council adopted earlier this month in its resolution on the safety of journalists. The UN cannot continue on with high-level commitments and limited implementation. That is a recipe for cynicism about the work that you do here, and I dearly hope you can change it."23

David Kaye went on to provide an extensive and highly recommended discussion in his 2018 report on the practical aspects of regulation of user-generated online content.24 But he also knows the game the member states play. They want to look good and as guardians of the UDHR but without accountability. For this reason they install positions like special rapporteurs and allow them to publish critical reports, but at the same time they ensure that the rapporteurs and their reports are absolutely powerless and have no binding consequences that would force action on the recommendations.

Kaye's reports are an important voice of the UDHR from within the UN, the question is how to make it heard. The rapporteur is reporting ultimately to member states and their citizens. His reports matter to all IG organizations. One way to ensure that they have a real impact would be to put them on the agenda for discussion at the main sessions of the annual meetings of the internet governance fora such as IGF, WSIS and ICANN.25 Reports should not just be discussed. Organizations should report back to the rapporteur on how their institutions plan to address the Rapporteur's concerns. Organizations should not be able to hide from accountability when issues within their remit have their roots in the UDHR.26

Websites, including social media apps, quickly became crucial and essential means to exercise the right of freedom of opinion and expression.27 Domain names make it easier (than IP addresses) to access websites. Domain names can also convey meaning and values, and point to relevant content. The Domain Name System (DNS) with 1530 Top Level Domains, (gTLDs), for example .org, .com, .net, and numerous second-level domains, for example xyz.org, bridge the connection between the technical infrastructure and content elements of cyberspace.

Domain names, and search engines, are the means that bring Internet access and the dynamics of the Internet ecosystem to life. Without DNS, in the words of Internet pioneer Jon Postel, there is not enough "there there" to make the Internet ecosystem easily accessible.28

The significance of domain names has changed over the past years. Search engines make the knowledge of a site's specific domain name less necessary. Owning a domain name and maintaining a website are not necessary for digital user to disseminate specific digital content. Users have a choice of social media and other platforms to host their operations. Strong internet-based brands and dialogues can exist without their own domain name, using such hosts as YouTube, Facebook, Amazon, Linkedin and Shopify, or a wide array of social media.

The importance of domains for the freedom of expression is still significant. To express a particular opinion in Cyberspace an individual or organization only has full control over content based on domain name ownership and control of a particular website. The words that replace the numeric IP address of a website can have a meaning. This is part of the rationale behind the exponential explosion of gTLDs such as cat, caf, farm, fish, xxx, etc. A domain name ending in .org gives a bit of a different message than one ending in .com. Search engines and artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms might decrease the importance of domain names but a message contained on a site with its own domain may carry more cache than a message on a hosting platform with thousands of similar or contradicting messages, Platforms serve the ends of their creators. Using them as the basis for exercising freedom of information and opinion can be subject to restrictions, manipulation, and loss of control.

Domain name ownership is not without its risks. For civil society groups the terms of access to ownership data (names, locations) can subject activists to risk from repressive authorities or opponents. This is part of the complex and ongoing debates over privacy and "Whois" access to domain name registration data.

The language and the principles of Articles 18 and 19 of the UDHR are heavily shaped by the traumas (WWI, the Depression, the Holocaust and WWII) and the violations of human rights across the first half of the 20th Century. The challenge here is to understand what the principles mean for one's existence as a resident of the Internet ecosystem, for one's rights and duties as a digital citizen in the Internet ecosystem, and how those principles, rights, duties are to be enshrined in Internet Governance, and inform the integrity of behavior within the Internet ecosystem.

These issues have been discussed in this reflection on Articles 18 and 19, but it is premature to draw out the lessons learned. That task is reserved for the final piece in this exploration of the relevance of the UDHR for digital residency and digital citizenship in the Internet ecosystem, and for Internet Governance.

In the next installment of the series we will discuss Articles 20-21 that address such topics as Freedom of Assembly and The Will of the People.

These articles are a contribution to the upcoming 75th UN UDHR anniversary and to promote an Internet ecosystem wide discussion around digital rights and policy development. Comments are welcomed. (Send comments with "UDHR" in the subject line to klausstoll@thebrocasgroup.com ). When finished a retrospective rewrite of the content will culminate in a book version of this material.

https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=22533

The richness and the value of these reports and statements can not be underestimated.

are examples how special interests pay lip service to human rights but engage in evasions of human rights in spirit and deed.

Read the original post:
Internet Governance and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Part 6: Articles 18-19 - CircleID

Human Behavior

Tab Cola, Advent, and Conspiracy Theories – JSTOR Daily

Goodbye, Tab (The Conversation)by Jeffrey MillerThe iconic diet soda Tab is on its way out. What can its fifty-seven-year history tell us about health, branding, gender, and corporate decision making?

The many meanings of Advent (Vox)by Alissa WilkinsonAdvent is a holy season of fasting. Or a time for special holiday TV and daily infusions of chocolate leading up to Santas visit. It all depends on who you are.

When QAnon comes for your family (Slate)by Charles DuhiggWhat can you do when someone you love starts believing conspiracy theories? One step toward understanding whats happening is to think about how your mind works when you wonder whether you left the stove on before leaving the house.

What is personal space? (Aeon)by Frdrique de Vignemont and Colin KleinIt might seem like you have an innate sense of how close is too close. But our personal bubbles are dynamic, social things that can change depending on whether were holding a tool, how we judge the person next to us, or whether new CDC guidance has come out.

The tragic death of a happiness researcher (The New York Times)by Jennifer SeniorSocial psychologist Philip Brickman came up with ideas that probably influence the way you think about happiness and fulfillment. After his suicide, his colleagues and family members had to rethink what they thought they knew about him, and about human behavior.

Got a hot tip about a well-researched story that belongs on this list? Email us here.

More:
Tab Cola, Advent, and Conspiracy Theories - JSTOR Daily

Human Behavior

Kentucky expected to be part of predicted national surge in COVID hospitalizations after holiday – User-generated content

Kentucky Health News

Kentucky is expected to be part of a predicted national surge in COVID-19 hospitalizations after the Thanksgiving holidays. Twelve groups that do such forecasts submitted their predictions to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which published them Nov. 25. Most of the forecasts are for an upward trend, and that was also the case in Kentucky.

Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told The Washington Post a few days earlier that if Americans do the things that are increasing the risk the travel, the congregate settings, not wearing masks the chances are you will see a surge superimposed upon a surge.

The forecasts published by the CDC are based on differing assumptions, based in large part on past and expected human behavior, but theres a big variable: how many contacts and exposures there are during the holidays.

While it appears that many Americans . . . scaled back on their plans for Thanksgiving, heeding the CDCs recommendation that celebrations should be limited to only household members (people whove lived under the same roof for at least the last 14 days), too many have not, writes Frank Diamond of Infection Control Today.

Even before the forecasts, Gov. Andy Beshear and other officials were warning that hospitals could start running short of staff and filling up. The record for hospitalizations has been broken every day since Nov. 10, Diamond notes.

Sarah Kliff of The New York Times said on PBSs Washington Week Friday that there fears of surges across the country like the one that plagued New York City early in the pandemic, not just that hospitals will be overwhelmed but wont have enough staff: Theres only so many people in the U.S. who know how to operate a ventilator, how to treat this disease.

Some of the forecasting groups make assumptions about how levels of social distancing will change, but most assume that existing social distancing measures in each jurisdiction will continue through the projected four-week time period.

Most of the forecasters assume that a certain fraction of infected people will be hospitalized; they are Columbia University, the Covid-19 Simulator Consortium, Google and Harvard Universitys School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins Universitys Applied Physics Lab; JHUs Infectious Disease Dynamics Lab; the Los Alamos National Laboratory; UCLA; UC-Santa Barbara; and the University of Southern California.

The University of Washingtons Institute of Health Metrics and Evaluation estimates numbers of new hospitalizations based on numbers of forecasted deaths; Georgia Techs College of Computing uses hospitalization data reported by some jurisdictions to forecast future hospitalizations; and the Karlen Working Group uses the rate of reported infections to estimate the number of new hospitalizations in a given jurisdiction, unless the rates of reported infections and hospitalizations differ. In that case, the rate of reported hospitalizations is used to forecast new hospitalizations.

The rest is here:
Kentucky expected to be part of predicted national surge in COVID hospitalizations after holiday - User-generated content

Human Behavior

Here’s What Happens When One Person In A Room Has COVID-19 – 2oceansvibe News

[imagesource:here]

During the pandemic, weve been encouraged to adhere to physical distancing in restaurants and office spaces to limit the spread of the virus.

The rule of thumb is at least two metres between each person, desk, or chair.

Weve also been told that the risk increases in indoor spaces.

As the months have rolled on, scientists have been able to collect more data, leading to more accurate risk assessments.

Per Fast Company, John Bush, a professor of applied mathematics at MIT, says that the rules that weve been sticking too arent as effective as we thought they were.

Bush, alongside his MIT colleague Martin Z. Bazant, has created acomplex mathematical model, which simulates the fluid dynamics of virus-loaded respiratory droplets in any space, from a small kitchen to a massive concert hall.

To make things simpler for those of us who die a little inside when confronted with mathematics in general, let alone the complicated kind, they converted their findings into an online tool that anyone can use to judge COVID-19 risk scenarios.

If you visit the website, youll fill out some basic information about your space.

The tool assumes one person in a room with you has COVID-19. Variables that youll fill in include:

Whats the square footage? Whats the height of the ceiling? How about the HVAC systemis it a standard domestic furnace or does it have a fancy HEPA filter? Whats the humidity? Is a window open?

The variables also include all sorts of details about human behavior: How many other people are there with you? Are they wearing masks? Cotton or surgical? Do they wear masks properly or pull them down their face a bit? Are they whispering or singing?

I took a random listing for a 467m commercial property from a real estate website, with a 70m open-plan office space which seats 35 people.

Well be using the open-plan office space with a standard air conditioning system to work things out. The room would be filled to capacity with employees who take their masks off and talk while working.

In other words, a standard office situation.

Room Specifications

Total floor area: 70m

Ceiling height: 12 metres

Ventilation: Mechanical ventilation (air conditioning)

Filtration system: residential/commercial/industrial

Recirculation rate: moderate

Relative humidity: 60% (average)

Human behaviour

Exertion level: resting (at a desk)

Respiratory level: talking (normal)

Mask type: none (while in office) / surgical cotton.

Mask fit: none

Result:

Based on this model, it should be safe for this room to have:

The two-metre distancing guideline would indicate that up to one person would be safe in this room for an indefinite period.

To summarise, if this room has 35 people, its occupants would be safe for four minutes.

Those results are pretty terrifying.

You can then tweak the system to see if the results change, by, for example, changing no masks to cotton masks at all times, or increasing the distance between employees.

Opening the windows to increase airflow also makes a difference:

Room Specifications

Total floor area: 70m

Ceiling height: 12 metres

Ventilation: Open windows

Filtration system: Open windows with fans

Recirculation rate: moderate

Relative humidity: 60% (average)

Human behaviour

Exertion level: resting (at a desk)

Respiratory level: talking (normal)

Mask type: surgical cotton worn at all times

Mask fit: 95%

Result:

Based on this model, it should be safe* for this room to have:

The two-metre distancing guideline would indicate that up to one person would be safe in this room for an indefinite period.

If this room has 35 people, its occupants should be safe for 15 minutes.

The risk decreases with additional safety measures.

Obviously, this is just a model, but it is useful for determining the safest possible environment for the people entering a space.

It also doesnt take into account sanitising measures and regular screening.

Its a highly contagious virus, and its difficult to beat, but PPE and some regular handwashing, alongside quarantining if you feel that youve come into contact with an infected person, can go a long way towards keeping yourself and others safe.

You can tinker with that MIT tool here.

[source:fastcompany]

Read more:
Here's What Happens When One Person In A Room Has COVID-19 - 2oceansvibe News

Human Behavior

If one person with you has COVID-19, how long are you safe? – Fast Company

But as the climate has turned cold and some of us have moved indoors, John Bush, a professor of applied mathematics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, calls such a rule of thumb dangerous and overly simplistic. Because when youre inside, microscopic droplets are trapped right alongside you in a confined space, and standing six feet away from someone doesnt stop the SARS-CoV-2 virus from floating in the air of your living room where you can potentially inhale it.

So are any of us safe indoors during the COVID-19 era? Can we go to a grocery store? Can we meet with a loved one? Bush, alongside his MIT colleague Martin Z. Bazant, have answered that question with a complex mathematical model, which simulates the fluid dynamics of virus-loaded respiratory droplets in any space, from a cozy kitchen to a gigantic concert hall.

And because the equation is far too complicated for most people to understand, they turned their findings into a free online tool. Go to this website, and you can create your own custom scenario to judge COVID-19 risks for yourself.

[Image: COVID-19 Indoor Safety Guideline]The tool assumes one person in a room with you has COVID-19. Then, it hands you an incredible amount of control to tweak the variables at play. These variables include details about the building: Whats the square footage? Whats the height of the ceiling? How about the HVAC systemis it a standard domestic furnace or does it have a fancy HEPA filter? Whats the humidity? Is a window open? The variables also include all sorts of details about human behavior: How many other people are there with you? Are they wearing masks? Cotton or surgical? Do they wear masks properly or pull them down their face a bit? Are they whispering or singing?

At first glance, all of these controls might seem overwhelming. (And they are!) But the payoff is worth it. Because the tool gives you a very clear answer of how long how many people can safely be in a space together.

Lets try an example. You just enjoyed Thanksgiving dinner in a typical 20-foot-by-20-foot dining room with a group of 10 people. People talked normally. Nobody was wearing masks since they were eating. The air was of average humidity.

Based on this model, it should be safe for this room to have: 10 people for 18 minutes. If you had simply followed a six-foot distance guideline and worn a mask, as the CDC suggests, these guests would be safe hanging out indefinitely. Which is clearly nonsensical.

But what if they were wearing masks? you ask. Good question. Lets assume no one ate and instead talked through coarse cotton masks. Cotton masks bought them two more minutes of safety. Opening the windows to increase ventilation helps more. It buys another six minutes.

However, upgrading from coarse cotton masks to surgical masks increased the number to a whopping two hours. But with a catch: If those surgical masks are worn improperly by half of the peoplesay, the masks fit loosely or the wearers noses are sticking outthe safe time plummets back down to 32 minutes. Human factors matter a lot.

Its a demonstration that wearing masks properly does help. After working on the source math behind this tool, Bush concludes that we absolutely should because its the most dramatic effect he noticed; it moves the needle in any circumstance, buying you precious minutes to stay safe. However, masks are not hazmat suits. They cannot overcome the reality of being in a small space with other people.

To prove the point, lets make that dining room bigger. In fact, lets stretch it into a 180,000-square-foot Walmart. And lets fill it with 1,000 people who are good about wearing their coarse cotton masks. The only other variable Im changing is that the air is probably a bit drier than in your home.

In these conditions, the tool says people should be safe for 68 minutesif only one person has COVID-19.

As you can see, more space helps people stay safe. Just keep this in mind: Where I live, around Chicago, as many as 1 in 15 people currently have COVID-19, so as many as 66 people in that Walmart could have COVID-19 out of 1,000. Here, we run into a shortcoming of the tool. It models a single sick person in a space, not what happens when real infection rates hit what they are now. And theres no way to tweak it accordingly.

Obviously this is just a model. Its a simulationresearchers best guess of how our world works. It isnt perfect and cannot guarantee your safety in any situation. But after using this MIT tool for more than an hour, I went from feeling comforted to feeling like things are even less safe than I thought. The model seems to suggest that, when were stuck indoors during the peak of a pandemic, the only way to stay safe out there is to try to not go out thereor let anyone inat all.

View original post here:
If one person with you has COVID-19, how long are you safe? - Fast Company

Human Behavior

Taking out the trash: One man’s mission to tidy up the space environment – SpaceNews

SpaceNews correspondent Leonard David talks with space environmentalist Moriba Jah

Earth is encircled by derelict spacecraft, the remains of exploded rocket stages, and myriad bits of orbiting debris from tiny chips of paint to the lingering leftovers of past but purposeful anti-satellite tests. Collectively, such high-speed clutter and other litter-causing activities heighten the risk of damaging or short-circuiting the performance of functional spacecraft.

The debris threat is a recognized reality. Outer space has already been termed a tragedy of the commons in the making. What avenues need to be taken to curb creation of orbiting rubble, help pinpoint the prospect of space collisions, and above all become better stewards of sustaining a quality space environment?

SpaceNews contributor Leonard David discussed these issues with Moriba Jah, associate professor at The University of Texas at Austin, a specialist on space situational awareness, space traffic monitoring, and the hazard of orbital debris.

Evidence is best when it can be independently corroborated. To me, the LeoLabs issue could have happened with any other entity when opinion is just based on that entitys own data. This is the importance of crowdsourcing. Theres need for a consensus of opinions. Thats the direction we need to go in. Its bad news if we desensitize people as it could become a Chicken Little kind of thing. Soon enough people dont pay attention and say, Oh, yeah. Its another nothing burger. So my sense of urgency is lets try to independently corroborate an event and then figure out how to move forward from that. I think just getting some answer and then blurting it out will ultimately hurt the community.

There are a number of things that actually influence the motion of objects in space. Then theres a group of things that influence our perception of the motion of things in space. Things like gravity, solar flux, particulates like micrometeoroids, charged particles. Those are external things to anthropogenic space objects. Then you have control of objects, like thrusting, etc. These are the things that actually influence the motion of space objects. But by and large we dont know all those things perfectly. Our assumptions on the physics are not perfect. The observations we have are inferring behavior. The actual data is corrupted by noise and biases. This is all very nuanced. You need to apply different methods to the same data to see what the statistical consistency is. That way you gain confidence and confidence comes from independent trials. The Defense Department (DoD) does not have all the methods I have described. They have assumptions on the physics. The fact that they model everything like a sphere already says that it cant be the right answer. The objects in their catalog are modeled like a cannonball and very few of those objects actually look like that. So thats a bias. Its a systematic error in the opinion.

I started off my career at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. Its the best matrix organization that I ever worked for. What Ive told parts of the government is that its OK if Commerce is the project manager for civil SSA and space traffic management, but this needs to be like a matrix organization. It needs to have line manager elements that clearly Commerce has no clue about because its just not their thing. There needs to be an interagency line, because clearly the DoD has been doing this for a really long time and Commerce hasnt. There needs to be some sort of commercial entity. There needs to be academic researchers.

These should be the line elements and then Commerce should be resourced and given the responsibility. What Commerce needs is authority, responsibility, and the ability to affect change to broker deals with each of the line elements so it can operate this matrix capability for the United States. Thats the way I think this needs to work.

Of course not.

There are different people that have a stake in whats going on in space all of humanity. There cant be a single entity that shoulders the burden of the whole thing. Theres not a single government on the planet that can actually provide the continuing supervision in the absence of help from the people that they are authorizing. Government by itself cant actually meet the needs of the community in space to achieve safety, security and sustainability without the cooperation of the very same entities they are authorizing to operate in space.

I have been developing AstriaGraph, a crowdsourcing, participatory sensing network. It prevents any single source of information from being able to uniquely bias or prejudice your opinion about what happens in space. Thats what we want to get to. We use a variety of data sources. Theres strength in numbers.

I like making an analogy to the ocean. A lot of the items in the oceans can be cleaned up, but things like microplastics are going to be there forever. I think people need to accept that we need to learn how to live within our own filth. A pristine space environment through cleaning will never happen. We need to accept that as reality.

Let me put it in current pandemic terms. How do we flatten the curve on the growth and spread of space debris? The biggest issue is lack of compliance, the equivalent of people not wearing masks and not social distancing. How do we incentivize people to actually comply with guidelines? There are a few things that we can remove out of the way because they are ticking time bombs, super-spreader events such as rocket bodies [that can potentially explode].

Before anything else, we need to come up with a global definition of what carrying capacity in orbit means. Just like theres carrying capacity for ecosystems, for highways, what is the equivalent carrying capacity for any given orbit regime? We should also come up with a definition for something like a space traffic footprint which is loosely the burden that anything has on sustainability, the safety of other things in space. No single country can just use up the carrying capacity of the orbit because it doesnt belong to any country. Its a shared resource. We have to come up with an orbital resource management program, to manage and allocate capacity. Those are the sorts of conversations that can underwrite sensible legislation. But without the sustainability metric, we just dont get there.

If every country is just free to do whatever it wants in space, and we dont have modes of behavior to help manage the common resource, then yes, eventually, were going to have a tragedy of the commons. Thats just going to happen.

Because Im coming to this in part as a space environmentalist, lets minimize or eliminate single-use satellites. We should have some sort of capability to reuse and recycle objects in space. On-orbit servicing, reuse, recycling services to me is critical in the way that humanity needs to evolve in its use of outer space. But theres a caveat. We need to also minimize misinterpretation. If somebody comes within close proximity of somebody else, they may feel its a threat and claim self-defense. So these are real human behaviors that weve displayed on Earth that we need to apply to space, so that we can forecast this a bit and try to prevent these things from happening.

I am a self-titled space environmentalist. I am not saying that tomorrow something cataclysmic is going to happen. But on our current path, space will become unusable if we do nothing different. Our behavior has not been so good for oceans, the atmosphere and climate. Space is suffering that. We are still at a point where we can do something about it. Environmental protection needs to be extended to near-Earth space for sure. That needs to be underscored. I just dont want to be an alarmist. I just want to be a realist.

This article originally appeared in the Nov. 16, 2020 issue of SpaceNews magazine.

See the original post here:
Taking out the trash: One man's mission to tidy up the space environment - SpaceNews

Human Behavior

When will sports stadiums be full again? Dr. Anthony Fauci gives a timeline – Yahoo Sports

Dr. Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and the countrys foremost authority on the COVID-19 pandemic, told Yahoo Sports on Monday that its unlikely NBA teams can host full-capacity crowds during the 2020-21 season.

Fauci, in a phone interview, said unrestricted capacities at sports stadiums will be among the last thing[s] that you're gonna see as the United States pushes toward the end of the pandemic in 2021.

When asked about the possibility of full, 20,000-seat NBA arenas in July, when the postseason is scheduled to conclude, Fauci said: Ah, I think that'll be cutting it close.

The return of tightly-packed crowds will depend on a variety of factors, public health experts say, from human behavior to uptake of soon-to-be-approved COVID-19 vaccines.

We're gonna be vaccinating the highest-priority people [from] the end of December through January, February, March, Fauci said. By the time you get to the general public, the people who'll be going to the basketball games, who don't have any underlying conditions, that's gonna be starting the end of April, May, June. So it probably will be well into the end of the summer before you can really feel comfortable [with full sports stadiums] if a lot of people get vaccinated. I don't think we're going to be that normal in July. I think it probably would be by the end of the summer.

When asked about full NFL stadiums in September, Fauci said: Oh, that's possible. I think that's possible.

Public health officials, however, qualify all future projections with several caveats. The timeline of a return to normalcy, which will double as a return to sports normalcy, will depend on whether the preliminary results of vaccine trials hold up in final data; and whether vaccine distribution goes as planned; and whether the American public is willing to get vaccinated. Surveys have suggested that roughly half of U.S. adults might not be though more recent research indicates skepticism could be waning.

Story continues

Having an efficacious vaccine in and of itself doesn't get us out of this difficult situation we're in, Fauci said. But an efficacious vaccine that's widely utilized could get us to a point where we're really approaching normality.

We could get there by the end of the summer, and as we get into the fall of next year, Fauci continued. But if 50% of the people say, You know, I don't want to get vaccinated, then it's gonna take considerably longer than that.

There is no agreed-upon target, no golden number, no specific percentage of the U.S. population that must be vaccinated for normalcy to return. Fauci pegged it at somewhere between 75 and 85 percent. Other experts expect it to be much lower. And Fauci clarified that a failure to clear that threshold would not mean that normalcy will never return it just would take longer to get there, he said, that's all.

The only thing public health experts concur on is that the virus wont just disappear. And that the end, therefore, will be slow. It's not like we're gonna turn off the light, and the virus is gone, and the world can go back, Dr. Tom Farley, Philadelphias health commissioner, told Yahoo Sports. It's going to have a very long tail to it.

The reopening of sporting events and other large gatherings will therefore be gradual. It will be a continued dial-back, hopefully, on things like capacities, Dr. Allison Arwady, Chicagos public health commissioner, told Yahoo Sports. She and other experts envisioned a cautious, step-by-step easing of restrictions sometime in 2021. Sports teams would, for example, ramp up to 25% capacity; then spend a few weeks monitoring data trends; and only then, if case counts, transmission rates and other indicators hold relatively steady, would they ramp up again.

The general approach is, you release a set of restrictions, and then see if that works, Farley said. Because there's so much guesswork. So if you go four weeks, and there's no increase in virus activity, well then you can go and do the next set.

COVID-adjusted stadium capacities, in most cases, will depend on city, county and state governments, which have the authority to limit gathering sizes. Leagues and teams may institute their own rules, but also must adhere to local guidelines. In some cases, like Floridas, full sports stadiums are already permissible but the states three NFL teams the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, Miami Dolphins and Jacksonville Jaguars have all independently limited capacity significantly. In many other cases, including New York and California, no fans are permitted whatsoever.

Professional leagues have taken different approaches to operating within those local guidelines. The NFL has largely left the devising of protocols to individual teams. With Texas allowing stadiums to operate at 50% capacity, the Dallas Cowboys welcomed 30,048 fans to AT&T Stadium on Thanksgiving. The San Francisco 49ers, meanwhile, arent even allowed to play at Levis Stadium.

NBA teams are also restricted to varying degrees. Some, like the Los Angeles Lakers, have announced that home games will be held without fans until further notice. Others, like the Utah Jazz, will open their arena to 1,500 [fans] in the lower bowl only and limited seating on the suite level when the season begins on Dec. 22.

The NBA, though, has also distributed a memo to teams outlining a set of uniform league-wide standards for fan attendance. They include requirements for pre-arrival or upon-arrival symptom and exposure surveys; for mask-wearing at all times except when actively eating or drinking; for physical distancing, both between ticket parties and between fans and the court; and even for testing.

Fans seated within 30 feet of the court, the document reads, would be required to undergo and return a negative coronavirus test that is either (1) a PCR or equivalent test sampled no more than two days prior to the game tip off; or (2) an NBA-approved rapid test sampled the day of the game.

The memo, which was obtained by Yahoo Sports, does not cap attendance by percentage or number. It does, however, detail protocols for concessions and concourse areas. And, crucially, it states: Because of the rapidly evolving coronavirus situation, we expect that these rules may be modified during the season in order to ensure continued alignment with the current public health situation, scientific knowledge about the virus, and technologies that could enable more fans to safely attend NBA games.

As the pandemic abates sometime in 2021, every aspect of the sports fan experience will evolve with it. The progression to full stadiums will be a major piece of that evolution, but not the only one. Some teams have invested in technology whether for testing, or streamlined entry plans, or contactless concessions that could stick around.

And even when local governments do allow stadiums to fill, especially indoor ones even when life has returned to normal I think we should be wearing masks as long as there is any of this [virus] around, Fauci said. Because it's an easy thing to do.

More from Yahoo Sports:

See the original post:
When will sports stadiums be full again? Dr. Anthony Fauci gives a timeline - Yahoo Sports

Human Behavior

Hospital data, capacity will play major role in ‘Winter Plan’ for COVID-19 in NY: Here’s what else will happen – FingerLakes1.com

On Monday, Governor Andrew Cuomo announced the components and metrics that will be used to determine the states response to the Coronavirus Pandemic during its Winter Phase.

Cases have been surging in recent days, and with the holiday season here state leaders are concerned that there will be a spike on top of a spike, which is sentiment echoed by CDC leaders.

The states positive rate in focus areas (which includes Monroe and Onondaga counties) was 6.2%, with a statewide positivity rate of 4.02% without them. Altogether it brought the positivity rate to 4.57%. There were 54 deaths reported in the last 24 hours, and 160 new hospitalizations, as well as 14 new admissions to ICU beds.

Hospitals were a big component of the Winter Phase response plan. Heres a look at how this shapes up.

Governor Cuomo says the state will shift focus to number of hospitalizations and hospital capacity in yellow, orange, red zones. Hospitalization rate, death rate, case rate, available hospital beds, available ICU beds, and available staff all will be added to the metrics considered for when different communities reach various zones of limited commercial activity.

During the briefing Cuomo said he expects it to take 7-10 days for the specifics to be released on this front Partly because of the lag in infections post-Thanksgiving gatherings. He said state leaders will also meet with hospital administrators in the coming days to get an understanding of the data and forecast.

For hospitals, here is what Governor Coumo says they will be expected to do:

A hospital capacity emergency tracking system will be launched in the coming days.

All arms of government in the state will be working to increase gross testing, and simultaneously balance distribution. This includes healthcare workers, nursing homes, schools, essential workers, business professionals, personal services testing, and general population of students returning or traveling.

Theres not enough tests to go around I get it, Cuomo said. But we have to be fair about distribution.

All of the experts say schools are safer than the surrounding communities, Cuomo said. Testing focus will be on schools that fall into various zones, and will be amplified as necessary. Pool testing will be allowed, and testing out will still be permitted. School districts will be allowed to exceed the 20% testing requirement, but the surrounding community will have to maintain all other mandated testing levels for nursing homes, essential workers, and other important groups simultaneously.

We have a mandatory close level for school districts and they can close at lower levels, but our advice is that you dont, Cuomo said. We believe in keeping especially K-8 open.

Governor Cuomo called the impact small gatherings are having on virus transmission a dramatic shift from the early days of the Coronavirus Pandemic. It now accounts for 65% of total transmission of the virus. Its an adaptation of social behavior to circumstance, Cuomo said. He outlined a number of other states that have the 10 or fewer rule in place. This is a nationwide problem. I understand the people say they have COVID fatigue. The truth is that Government doesnt have the ability to monitor [your home], but its a matter of public health and safety that people do not gather at home, or elsewhere. We have to communicate this to people the same way we communicated mask-wearing.

A new media campaign will begin in the coming days to drive this home point. The Governor spoke to the fact that its not political both Republicans and Democrats agree that small gatherings should not be happening.

Vaccine delivery could start in the next few weeks. The process will be built around fairness, equity, and safety. Governor Cuomo says it will be an inclusive process that includes outreach to Black, Brown, and poor communities. Vaccine critical mass is still months away. Until it reaches there operate at maximum possible level that is safe, he said. Youll continue to see these numbers increase, probably until mid-January. You have not yet seen the effects of Thanksgiving. Youll see the effects a week out from today. I expect those numbers to keep going up. I would say you start to see a stabilization in mid-January, at an increased rate from the holiday season. The rate will be much higher than it is today. You wont see a real end until the vaccine hits critical mass.

Cuomo says that wont be until late-spring or early-summer in 2021. New York is doing better than almost any other state by the numbers. New York is better prepared than any other state. And its all in our control, he added. This is all a function of human behavior, social action, and social patterns.

See the original post:
Hospital data, capacity will play major role in 'Winter Plan' for COVID-19 in NY: Here's what else will happen - FingerLakes1.com

Human Behavior

In praise of Janet Yellen the Economist – The Register-Guard

Paul Krugman| The New York Times

Its hard to overstate the enthusiasm among economists over Joe Bidens selection of Janet Yellen as the next secretary of the Treasury. Some of this enthusiasm reflects the groundbreaking nature of her appointment. She wont just be the first woman to hold the job; shell be the first person to have held all three of the traditional top U.S. policy positions in economics chair of the Council of Economic Advisers, chair of the Federal Reserve and now Treasury secretary.

And yes, theres a bit of payback for Donald Trump, who denied her a well-earned second term as Fed chair, reportedly in part because he thought she was too short.

But the good news about Yellen goes beyond her ridiculously distinguished career in public service. Before she held office, she was a serious researcher. And she was, in particular, one of the leading figures in an intellectual movement that helped save macroeconomics as a useful discipline when that usefulness was under both external and internal assault.

Before I get there, a word about Yellens time at the Federal Reserve, especially her time on the Feds board in the early 2010s, before she became chair.

At the time, the U.S. economy was slowly clawing its way back from the Great Recession a recovery impeded, not incidentally, by Republicans in Congress who pretended to care about national debt and imposed spending cuts that significantly hurt economic growth. But spending wasnt the only issue of debate; there were also fierce arguments about monetary policy.

Specifically, there were many people on the right condemning the Feds efforts to rescue the economy from the effects of the 2008 financial crisis. Among them, by the way, was Judy Shelton, the totally unqualified hack Trump is still trying to install on the Fed board, who warned in 2009 that the Feds actions would produce ruinous inflation. (Hint: They didnt.)

Even within the Fed, there was a division between hawks worried about inflation and doves who insisted that inflation wasnt a threat in a depressed economy, and that fighting the depression should take priority. Yellen was one of the leading doves and a 2013 analysis by The Wall Street Journal found that she had been the most accurate forecaster among Fed policymakers.

Why did she get it right? Part of the answer, Id argue, goes back to academic work she did in the 1980s.

At the time, as Ive suggested, useful macroeconomics was under attack. What I mean by useful macroeconomics was the understanding, shared by economists from John Maynard Keynes to Milton Friedman, that monetary and fiscal policy could be used to fight recessions and reduce their economic and human toll.

This understanding didnt fail the test of reality on the contrary, the experience of the early 1980s strongly confirmed the predictions of basic macroeconomics.

But useful economics was under threat.

On one side, right-wing politicians turned away from reality-based economics in favor of crank doctrines, especially the claim that governments can conjure up miraculous growth by cutting taxes on the rich. On the other side, a significant number of economists themselves rejected any role for policy in fighting recessions, claiming that there would be no need for such a role if people were acting rationally in their own interests, and that economic analysis should always assume that people are rational.

Which is where Yellen came in; she was a prominent figure in the rise of new Keynesian economics, which rested on one key insight: People arent stupid, but they arent perfectly rational and self-interested. And even a bit of realism about human behavior restores the case for aggressive policies to fight recessions. In later work Yellen would show that labor market outcomes depend a lot not just on pure dollars-and-cents calculations, but also on perceptions of fairness.

All this may sound abstruse, but I can vouch from my own experience that this work had a huge impact on many young economists basically giving them a license to be sensible.

And it seems to me that theres a direct line from the disciplined realism of Yellens academic research to her success as a policymaker. She was always someone who understood the value of data and models. Indeed, rigorous thinking becomes more, not less important in crazy times like these, when past experience offers little guidance about what we should be doing. But she also never forgot that economics is about people, who arent the emotionless, hyperrational calculating machines economists sometimes wish they were.

Now, none of this means that things will necessarily go well. The race is not to the swift, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet success to policymakers of understanding, but time and chance happen to them all. Trumps cabinet was a clown show possibly the worst cabinet in Americas history but it wasnt until 2020 that the consequences of the administrations incompetence became fully apparent.

Still, its immensely reassuring to know that economic policy will be made by someone who knows what she is doing.

Paul Krugman writes for The New York Times.

Original post:
In praise of Janet Yellen the Economist - The Register-Guard

Human Behavior

Female Hunters – Women at the Hearth and on the Hunt – SAPIENS – SAPIENS

This article was originally published atThe Conversationand has beenrepublished under Creative Commons.

For a long time, it was assumed that hunting in ancient societies was primarily carried out by men. Now a new studyadds to a body of evidence challenging this idea. The research reports the discovery of a female body buried alongside hunting tools in the Americas some 9,000 years ago.

The woman, discovered in the Andean highlands, was dubbed Wilamaya Patjxa individual six, or WPI6. She was found with her legs in a semi-flexed position, with the collection of stone tools placed carefully next to them. These included projectile pointstools that were likely used to tip lightweight spears thrown with anatlatl (also called a spear thrower). The authors argue that such projectile points were used for hunting large animals.

WPI6 was between 17 and 19 years old at time of death. It was an analysis of substances known as peptides in her teeth, which aremarkers for biological sex, that showed that she was female. There were also large mammal bones in the burial fill, demonstrating the significance of hunting in her society.

The authors of the study, published in Science Advances, also reviewed evidence of other skeletons buried around the same period in the Americas, looking specifically at graves containing similar tools associated with big-game hunting. They found that of the 27 skeletons for which sex could be determined, 41 percent were likely female.

The authors propose that this may mean that big-game hunting was indeed carried out by both men and women in hunter-gatherer groups at that time in the Americas.

This idea goes against a hypothesis, dating back to the 1960s, known as the Man the Hunter model, which is increasingly being debunked. It suggests that huntingand especially, big-game huntingwas primarily, if not exclusively, undertaken by male members of past hunter-gatherer societies.

The hypothesis is based on a few different lines of evidence. Probably most significantly, it considers recent and present-day hunter-gatherer societies to try to understand how those in the deeper past may have been organized.

The remains of the ancient woman identified as WPI6 were found at the Wilamaya Patjxa site in what is today southern Peru. Randall Haas

The stereotypical view of hunter-gatherer groups is that they involve a gendered division of labor, with men hunting and women being more likely to stay nearer to the home with young children, or to fish and forage, though even thenthere is some variation. For example, amongAgta foragers in the Philippines, women are primary hunters rather than assistants.

Some present-day hunter-gatherers still use atlatls today, and some people alsoenjoy using atlatlsin competitive throwing events, with women and children regularly taking part. Archaeologists studyingdata from these eventssuggest that atlatls may well have been equalizersfacilitating hunting by both women and men, possibly because they reduce the importance of body size and strength.

The new study further debunks the hypothesis, adding to a few previous archaeological findings. For example, at the 34,000-year-old site of Sunghir in Russia, archaeologistsdiscovered the burial of two youngsters, one of whom was likely a girl of around 9 to 11 years old. Both individuals had physical abnormalities and were buried with 16 mammoth ivory spearsan incredible offering of what were probably valuable hunting tools.

In 2017, a famous burial of a Viking warrior from Sweden, discovered early in the 20th century and long assumed to be male,was found to be biologically female. This finding caused a significant and somewhat surprising amount of debate, and points to how our own modern ideas of gender roles can affect interpretations of more recent history too.

It has been argued that distinguishing between boy jobs and girl jobs, as one former British prime minister put it, could have evolutionary advantages. For example, it can allow pregnant and lactating mothers to stay near to a home base, keeping themselves and youngsters protected from harm. But we are increasingly learning that this model is far too simplistic.

With hunting being a keystone to survival for many highly mobile hunter-gatherer groups, community-wide participation also makes good evolutionary sense. The past, as some say, is a foreign country, and the more evidence we have, the more variable human behavior looks to have been.

Go here to see the original:
Female Hunters - Women at the Hearth and on the Hunt - SAPIENS - SAPIENS