Dealing With Outbreaks

Enabling new mechanisms for growth in a post covid world:

I think it’s an important question. What is going to power growth in a post coronavirus world. Source: Impact of Covid19 pandemic (Note: I haven’t actually reviewed this particular page on Wikipedia. But I have read other articles, been tuning into updates from our Federal government. As well, generally talking to others).

I don’t think that I am actually going to classify what, I think is going to power growth in a post-coronavirus reality. I think, this task is ideally suited for someone who has looked at this very topic from a historical lens. The only reference that I can think of is a mention of someone in Elon Musk’s biography. I believe that the individual was serving in US DoD. Next, I think, I am not sure, but way before the coronavirus there was a something I saw on NATO’s website or one of their feeds. Reviving the economic base (I think this was around 2010, post 2008 crash) was cited as a big area of focus. So logic states that there are probably individuals and maybe teams across the military and intelligence circles and civilian circles as well. Folks who are looking at trends on an on-going basis. This thought is balanced with something I once read in once of the books written by Ray Kurzweil. That the way that we actually measure the economy is somewhat broken (paraphrased). Because the pace of technological growth is very rapid and we are using the same set of indicators that we have used all of these decades in order to measure the economy.

This being said, it does seem like cornavirus has negatively impacted the economy. I think it’s really contingent upon how long this outbreak lasts for. The overall duration and our overall response to the event, is going to determine what the consequences are going to be in the future. From my limited perspective, I can think of outcomes on a spectrum.

Points to consider:

• I believe that growth is directly tied with funding science across the board. A lot of breakthroughs happen in a serendipitous fashion. I believe we have received an ample set of warnings. Based on my limited range of knowledge. By Asimov, who was a proponent of the library sysem and dedicated a big chunk of his life towards introducing ideas in the realm of science fiction and many of his ideas became science fact in as little as 2 decades. Next, via Carl Sagan who has actually written a book on this very topic. Link included. Then by Dr. Michio Kaku who has rightfully categorized ‘science as the engine of prosperity’. There is a long list of individuals who, throughout the times have highlighted how important it is to continually work towards enabling and nurturing our scientific research base.
• Last, when I looked at the data set, the trend seems to have been slowing down all across the Western world. Definitely across United Stated where the trend has been almost stangant over multiple decades. At least from the perspective of government’s expenditure on research and development as a proportion of the overall GDP. Also, here is another sample article, link
• From the Kurzweilian line of thinking, growth is going to be primarily powered via (in random order). a) Genetics b) Nano-technology and c) Robotics. Source Actual source is the book - The singularity is near.
• I’d add artificial intelligence to the GNR set of technologies. At the same time, I also believe that it is going to require many many different breakthroughs and other components across many other branches of science. As well as input from individuals working other areas across the social science and arts. As an example and this is just one example. We cannot have a breakthough in one specific domain. For us to introduce that breakthrough through society and hope that things are going to work themselves out. I also do not think that that the top-down approach works. So it requires collaboration in a massively distributed sense. And you need the active participation of individuals and teams from across industry, academic, military, governance (policy ++), from the general public. It’s not just in the domains of how the technology is going to scale, the economic impact - both in terms of net economies of scale and also the sub-verticals that are going to be potentially displaced by the introduction of a new technology. Plus you need input from the general public. Usually this start with your original set of customers.

In this very first iteration of this blog-post, I am going to try and define this problem and share some resources along the way. I welcome others to join and collaborate with me on this and other endeavours highlighted on this site.

Disclosure

Before I begin, let me articulate, that: * I do not believe that I am very reactive. Definitely not over-reactive. I almost never engage, unless I am engaged by a trusted party. * Also, I have reached out to members of our local government here an I have offered to assist in my limited capacity. * As well, I am a citizen of the world and so I am ready and willing to be engaged by our trusted parties. * Also, this blog-post is not very well researched. So, I am open to being challenged and as it relates to the information that has been presented in this blog-post. I am also open to how blog-posts like these can be improved in the future. I am actually very open to criticism of all kinds. If we focus on the content, the structure and delivery of the content. As well, figure out means of actually improving the processes that led to the enablement of this blogpost in the first place.

What coronavirus is not (Unless the evidence presented is to the contrary)

Next, let’s dispel what coronavirus is not: * Since this site/blog mostly promotes ideas and thinking that is focused on making life interplanetary, in a sustainable sense. Hence, in this realm, I believe it’s important to dispel the claim that coronavirus came from space.. * Here, we: a) Need conclusive evidence that there is zero risk of contamination an as it relates to the experiment being conducted. Meaning, we are searching for traces of life that is supposedly coming from outer space. But how do we know for sure that it’s not life from here on earth. b) I think there is a lot of DNA, that has been located on the surface and yet, we haven’t been able to map it to an organism. I am not able to dig up a link to this particular sub-point. Perhaps someone else can comment on this? c) To distinguish if life is indeed raining down on earth from all the different parts of the galaxy or solar system at the very least. I personally cannot think of a squeaky clean way of doing that. Even if we do create machines that can create copies of themselves, run the newly minted machines through an incinerator. What is the guarantee that the microbes that were on the original replicator (designed by humans) is not going to be passing on germs and other microbes to the successive machines and that these microbes are not going to be able to survive the harsher conditions that the machines are going to be subject to. and d) It seems highly unlikely that a virus or bacteria from an extra-terrestrial origin is going to integrate on such a rapid scale with DNA that it finds on earth. So even I, with a zero background in biology can appreciate that. * However, I also believe in evidence based science. Particularly, when it comes to claims such as these. So far, there is no evidence to support this theory. * Now, if there is any evidence to suggest that there is truth to theories like panspermia, Neopanspermia or even Directed panspermia. I think, what ought to happen in such a situation is that we’d then need to become really clear and as it relates to the actual definition. We’d need to be careful, with the choosing of the word. And we’d then need to distinguish the sub-definitions and give them different ratings of sorts. * Now with the recent reports of finding phospine on Venus. As well, the prospect of finding life on Mars. Again, we’d need some kind of a contamination resistant mechanism of actually being able to identify the source of these findings. And so, how will we actually ensure that there are zero microbes that originated from earth that are actually on these sensing devices. Sounds like a materials, magnifications problem to me (At the very least). * Next, I do not think that this is a fake emergency. However, I also believe that individuals should absolutely have the right to look at data and form their own conclusions and that each one of us should have the liberty to do so. I personally think that it’s impossible to pull a cover up on a global scale and of this magnitude. If anything, claims such as these are probably symptomatic and as it relates to the Kubler-Ross model. Somewhere in between denial and anger. Then again, I am not a mathematician, a biologist or a data scientist. So here is to our freedoms. May we continue to exercise our freedoms with good judgement and common sense.

Moving on. Let’s deal with the issue the way it is. At the same time, let’s continue to be open to new evidence and as it is presented.

From the perspective of systems thinking:

• The signs were there. With SARS. MERS and other outbreaks.
• There are inputs that led to this situation in the first place. I am not an expert in this area. But we:
  • Do not have an integrated quality global healthcare infrastructure on our planet. But people move from one part of the world to another part all the time.
  • Even if we place travel restrictions. It doesn’t really stop a major disease outbreak from spreading in the future. A pathogen that has been lurking around for quite some time, can make itself intimately familiar with one particular variant of DNA and then over to the next. This, is my uneducated guess is how diseases ‘jumps’ from a non-human animal to a human animal (or the other way around, I am assuming). This is in the realm of zoonosis. But zoonosis is also not the only way that diseases could spread in the future. There are at the very least, two very distinct conversations that emerge from this point onwards. And one of these conversations is simply about the infinite set of ways a pathogen can leap from one host to another.
  • We need to work co-operatively in order to regulate wet markets all over the world.
  • Individuals in one part of the world have lesser immunity to certain diseases vs individuals in another part of the world. For example and maybe this is an example on the other extreme end of the spectrum. But:
  • There is evidence to suggest that there have been at-least 140 indvidual female sex workers in Africa, who are resistant to the HIV virus. Source. These statistics are from the year 2010.
  • There are humans who eats bats in different parts of the world. Some of these humans kill smaller bats by breaking their neck with their teeth. So invariably some of the blood from the bats enters this individuals system. Now, I do not know much much evidence we have collected. But suppose if the bat was infected with something, how would that infection affect the person that I just described vs someone who has never really come in contact with a bat in such a way.
  • On the milder end of the spectrum, we have the flu virus. The way I understand it, we take a more recent strain of the flu virus and make it less potent. This less potent strain is then replicated (Or maybe the replication happens first). But, generally speaking this is how a vaccine is developed. I believe Edward Jenner did the pioneering work and as it relates to vaccinations. If memory serves me correct, Jenner infected his gardener’s son with cowpox, with the intent of figuring out if he boy would then develop immunity to smallpox. Which the boy did. The story makes you wonder about the ethics surrounding this situation. In an alternate variation, he could have also tested the vaccines on himself. If not Jenner, then someone else would have eventually stumbled upon this concept of vaccinations. It would just have taken longer. At least 143 years, whereby the discovery related to viruses was actually made. And then some more time would have passed, with improvements to the design of the microscope.

Synthesizing (In an uneducated sense)

• There were inputs that lead to the spread of diseases like these in the first place.
• The question is, on which scale are bacteria and viruses evolving. If we, as humans living in our cities and our suburbs are not coming in contact with the viruses and bacteria and often, then what is that doing to our overall level of immunity.
• This doesn’t mean that we go about infecting everyone with everything on some time frequency. A lot of viruses and bacteria end up causing permanent damage to one of multiple parts of our body. So that would be a pretty terrible idea. I reckon?
• That being said, I think we may need a discussion with regards to what is really going on in our environment. Specifically with regards to immunity. However that works.
• I have no idea how immunity actually works. Meaning, I have absolutely no idea what the actual biological correlates would be that power herd-immunity. How does immunity actually work on a fundamental level. What kind of molecular interactions happen in our body, in order to contain the replication process of these invaders.
• What would come out of the discussion such as this is. Maybe we will look into re-architecting our systems, so that we incentivize more individuals and encourge them to take biological sciences.
• Maybe we need more research and as it relates to how phages work.
• We definitely need more basic research across the board. I think we have a trumendous opportunity for training a lot more people in STEM related fields. It’s becoming more and more apparent that continuing to enable the base of the scientific research base is directly connected to ensuring that we either maintain or improve our quality of life.

In terms of specificity:

• Best case scenario: I don’t know what this means. I have no idea how vaccinations really work. How many vaccines we will actually develop/can develop. Who should get them. If it’s actually safe to test deliver the vaccine to such a large population. I also wonder the precedent this will set for future outbreaks.
• Status quo: If we go back to the way things were, then we are going to experience a similar outcome in the future. Because it will be the same set of inputs, leading to a similar set of outputs or outcomes. (I’ll use the terms interchangably in this post).
• Probabilistic model a: We have a second wave and the numbers start going down after that. Economy starts opening up. But, that doesn’t really solve the problem that I described in the bullet point right above. (Status quo)
• Probabilistic model b: We have a nth wave.
• Worst case scenario: Fear grips society. Personally speaking, I haven’t studied how outbreaks affect civilization. I think, related to defining this end of the spectrum - David Eagleman comes to mind, amongst others. Note: Sharing a link to this particular talk by David Eagleman doesn’t mean that I am agreeing with him. I saw a portion of this particular video and I thought I’d share. The making of this comment, ought not to suggest that coronavirus ought to be categorized as a major outbreak. I think the actual classification of the outbreak is an important activity. I think it’s best that there is seamless co-operation and knowledge sharing between civilian led medical teams (performing a variety of functions) and military personnel. Plans can be enabled, in order dynamically scale ranks in an effective manner. Increasing the numbers in the rank of reserves will be necessary. However, there should be programs that are of a higher quality. Programs that are designed to help the reserves transition back to civilian life, once the outbreak has gone away. Quality educational program, programs to enlist on a full-time basis. As well, there should be a health-care angle with a core focus on mental health. In particular, the possibility that reserves and existing enlisted service folks experience trauma. There are some technologies that exist that will be useful here. There will be need to think through the series of interactions and design process, tools and resources in order to assist service folks throughout the various cycles.
• What should be an integral part of each one of these scenarios above: I’ve already clarified my position, many a times that the lack of affordable and quality healthcare on our planet is a very important issue. I think the lack of affordable and accessible mental health related services is also a big part of this. If the majority of the people on this planet had good mental health, then we would see less of all the undesirable effects. Also, in situations that aren’t exactly typical or that deviate from the normal, individuals are going to be more in control of their actions and in theory, the mirror neurons are not going to be firing from one person to another in a memetic fashion that is harmful for the well-being of the collective. On the contrary, with better mental health - individuals would have a higher probability of coping with challenging times like these and they would be more likely to support each other and encourage each other.

What’s actually going to happen:

It’s impossible to predict. What will happen, will primarily depend on (I think, I am not sure about) a) How long the outbreak will actually last for and b) How will groups and society at large, reacts to this situation. * I am sure that there are a ton of different institutions doing a ton of great work across the different domains. Based on my very limited experience, I believe that the Peace Innovation Lab via Stanford University is best positioned to scale. I say this because: a) They are not wasting time. b) They start forming teams and start collecting data from day 1. c) It’s a peaceful endeavour and so the path of least resistance and as it relates to getting people on board from all the different parts of the world. * I think that there should be a plan to feed humans, if the supply chain systems happen to get disrupted. What if there is another major outbreak and it’s highly contagious. What if the outbreak is so bad that the grocery stores have to be shutdown, the weather goes terrible during the winter and a solar storm knocks out the grid. I mean, what are the odds that a solar storm and an outbreak are going to occur at the same time. But, what if it does happen. Will people die by the tens, if not hundreds of millions? The only organization that I have personally come across that is focused on feeding humans (and hopefully animals) during disasters is AllFed. I am not very familiar with how they are planning to feed billions of people. But I do believe that someone should focus on this. I also think that the plan to feed billions of people would involve contingency mechanisms, which will include but will not be limited to. a) Provisioning farms and more seed vaults that lay dormant and their operations are tested from time to time. b) Doing the same on a non-terrestrial habitat. c) Actually growing crops on a non-terrestrial habitat. Not just as an insurance, if something were to go wrong. But also with regards to powering abundance that is necessary to help feed an ever growing population on earth, without wrecking the ecology. * Specific to the former (duration). The outbreak on the timeline is what determines how different segments of society are going to be impacted. It is said that universitites, libraries and monasteries are the repositories of knowledge. This is how knowledge has historically been seeded, specifically when it comes to a major transition. I think it is important to have care-takers of knowledge. I think this should be a civilian led effort. With support from military and intelligence on a global level.

(I am going to post this. Because there is no way to save the draft. I will then come back and continue with this post.)