It's not often that Madagascar makes it into the main international news. We were in the country a year or two ago while it was undergoing crucial presidential elections, and it still barely made the BBC. And, when it does manage international attention, it is usually for all the wrong reasons (government corruption, deforestation of irreplaceable animal habitat, bubonic plague, etc).
The latest press coverage is another in that series. Madagascan president Andry Rajoelina is heavily promoting a made-in-Madagascar remedy for COVID-19 - a kind of herbal tea made from local ingredients including the artemisia plant. The herbal drink, selling under the name COVID-Organics or CVO, was "tested" on 20 people over three weeks, and President Rajoelina has declared himself well satisfied with it, even though some have complained that it is very bitter and leads to stomach upsets.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, the Madagascar Institute of Health has warned against the magic remedy, saying that it is unproven and potentially dangerous, as has the World Health Organization, which warns that such a product may detract from proven methods like social distancing and hand-washing while offering no real clinical advantage.
But several African countries have already signed on to the remedy, excited by the prospect of a potentially "world-saving" made-in-Africa solution to the pandemic, and by President Rajoelina's strong personal endorsements. Madagascar is currently shipping the drink to Tanzania, Equatorial Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Comoros and the Republic of Congo, all countries that can ill-afford to let yet another virus run rampant through their people, and all countries that have poor health facilities and almost non-existent coronavirus reporting capabilities.
Tuesday, May 05, 2020
Sunday, May 03, 2020
Why beaches are so popular (and so overrated)
I have never really understood the big attraction of beaches. During this pandemic, the big challenge in many jurisdictions is to stop beaches from becoming overcrowded, to stop (mainly young) people from exercising their God-given right to flaunt themselves on a beach, preferably in large, noisy, often alcohol-fuelled, groups. And yet, I just don't get it.
Having said that, we have lived less than 100 metres from a beach for decades. Lake Ontario is just a stone's throw away from the front of our house, straight across the park, in the area of Toronto called The Beach or The Beaches, depending on which side you take in the ongoing and often acrimonious battle over what the neighbourhood should be called. We go for a walk on the boardwalk at least once, usually twice, a day. We never, however, actually sit on the beach (we may have done, once or twice, some 20 or 30 years ago).
For us, then, a beach is a place to walk near, not to spend time on. But I think that most of the visitors we are now having to weave our path between and around, as the weather gradually improves and social distancing rules fly out of mind and go by the board, are specifically there for the beach itself. It IS undeniably nice to see the water, with all its many moods and atmospheres. And the vicinity of the water is usually cooler on a hot day, I will give you that. But I could just as happily experience all that from a cliff-top or a grassy bank.
I may be in a minority, but I'm clearly not the only one who thinks that beaches are grossly overrated. The main problem with beaches is, of course, sand, and it's kind of hard to get away from sand on a beach, and hard to get it away from you once it has taken hold in every fold of skin and clothing. Likewise with the sun: it's hard to get away from it on a beach, and as someone who has to have dry red patches frozen off my face at least once a year, I don't want to take in more sun than is absolutely necessary, thank you very much. Noisy kids, ancient dog poo, unwanted sea-doos, competing mp3 players, errant football or frisbee passes - the list of unpleasant beach characteristics and activities goes on and on.
So, why do people want to go to the beach? Well, clearly you're asking the wrong person. But, for what it's worth, my theory is that it all comes down to tradition, stereotyping if you like, race memory even. People just have this innate belief, a belief they have never really questioned, that beach = fun. Maybe it's just a rose-tinted memory of their their own childhoods, maybe they are brainwashed by advertising and brochures, who knows. But people just believe, for whatever reason, that the beach is the place to go, the place to be.
Having said that, we have lived less than 100 metres from a beach for decades. Lake Ontario is just a stone's throw away from the front of our house, straight across the park, in the area of Toronto called The Beach or The Beaches, depending on which side you take in the ongoing and often acrimonious battle over what the neighbourhood should be called. We go for a walk on the boardwalk at least once, usually twice, a day. We never, however, actually sit on the beach (we may have done, once or twice, some 20 or 30 years ago).
For us, then, a beach is a place to walk near, not to spend time on. But I think that most of the visitors we are now having to weave our path between and around, as the weather gradually improves and social distancing rules fly out of mind and go by the board, are specifically there for the beach itself. It IS undeniably nice to see the water, with all its many moods and atmospheres. And the vicinity of the water is usually cooler on a hot day, I will give you that. But I could just as happily experience all that from a cliff-top or a grassy bank.
I may be in a minority, but I'm clearly not the only one who thinks that beaches are grossly overrated. The main problem with beaches is, of course, sand, and it's kind of hard to get away from sand on a beach, and hard to get it away from you once it has taken hold in every fold of skin and clothing. Likewise with the sun: it's hard to get away from it on a beach, and as someone who has to have dry red patches frozen off my face at least once a year, I don't want to take in more sun than is absolutely necessary, thank you very much. Noisy kids, ancient dog poo, unwanted sea-doos, competing mp3 players, errant football or frisbee passes - the list of unpleasant beach characteristics and activities goes on and on.
So, why do people want to go to the beach? Well, clearly you're asking the wrong person. But, for what it's worth, my theory is that it all comes down to tradition, stereotyping if you like, race memory even. People just have this innate belief, a belief they have never really questioned, that beach = fun. Maybe it's just a rose-tinted memory of their their own childhoods, maybe they are brainwashed by advertising and brochures, who knows. But people just believe, for whatever reason, that the beach is the place to go, the place to be.
Are lockdown protesters heroes or just selfish and ill-informed
We've all seen images of the anti-lockdown protesters outside the legislatures of Anerican states like Michigan, Virginia, North Carolina, even California (even, I am embarrassed to admit, a handful in Ontario). It seems to be a peculiarly American thing - albeit with a few copycats - and a peculiarly right-wing thing to boot.
Who are these people, and why do they feel so compelled to engage in this kind of civil disobedience? Are they just there out of purely selfish motives? Or are they folk heroes protecting the rights of downtrodden Americans, and guarding against the incursions of the red menace of Communism?
I'm sure that, if asked, the protesters themselves would think of themselves in the latter category, protecting their First Amendment rights (for the record, the First Amendment to the US constitution reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"). "Freedom", to these people, is more important than anything else, more important than the wishes of governments, more important even than life itself or the lives of others (witness the "Give me liberty or give me COVID-19" placards, a play on Patrick Henry's pivotal cry during the American War of Independence).
These are extreme views to be sure - you could call them libertarian if you wanted to be generous, although many libertarians would probably object - but they may well be the motivation behind at least some of the protesters.
Another motivation may be the absolute horror felt by some (again, extreme right-wing) Americans to the spectre to what they see as communism, or indeed socialism in any form. Is the Governor of Michigan a Communist, then? Clearly not, but some Americans (and probably ONLY Americans) see any kind of regulation or government intervention as "communism", insofar as they understand it, which is, yes, ridiculous, but neverthless true (witness here the woman in Denver, Colorado, screaming, to a healthcare worker of all people, to "go back to China").
So, yes, some of the protesters are probably motivated by either or both of these political views in an extreme form, views that are not in themselves abhorrent, but probably misplaced in the current exceptional cicumstances. Some of them are probably just desperate people who need their jobs back in order to feed their families in a country where the social safety net has all but disappeared. Which brings us to the category of selfish and thoughtless.
There has been an ongoing debate for decades, centuries even, as to whether libertarianism is just another word for selfishness. What you feel about that proposition depends, almost entirely, on your own political inclinations. My own feeling us that many, if not most, of the "Operation Gridlock" protesters and their like are indeed acting out of selfishness. They want their old lives back, they want to get their hair cut at a barbershop shop or hair salon, and, probably in a lot of cases, they just want to be able hang out in their favourite bar. So do we all, but most people have the common sense and magnanimity to realize that, if we want to return to the good old days, we need to hunker down for an extended period in order to wait out the coronavirus, which we know other way to defeat. To mingle and to pretend that there is no danger is to put our communities and ourselves - and, more to the point, others, including those more vulnerable than ourselves - at increased risk. It is antisocial and potentially dangerous.
Which brings us, finally, to the category of ill-informed and foolish. And here I choose to rest my case.
Who are these people, and why do they feel so compelled to engage in this kind of civil disobedience? Are they just there out of purely selfish motives? Or are they folk heroes protecting the rights of downtrodden Americans, and guarding against the incursions of the red menace of Communism?
I'm sure that, if asked, the protesters themselves would think of themselves in the latter category, protecting their First Amendment rights (for the record, the First Amendment to the US constitution reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"). "Freedom", to these people, is more important than anything else, more important than the wishes of governments, more important even than life itself or the lives of others (witness the "Give me liberty or give me COVID-19" placards, a play on Patrick Henry's pivotal cry during the American War of Independence).
These are extreme views to be sure - you could call them libertarian if you wanted to be generous, although many libertarians would probably object - but they may well be the motivation behind at least some of the protesters.
Another motivation may be the absolute horror felt by some (again, extreme right-wing) Americans to the spectre to what they see as communism, or indeed socialism in any form. Is the Governor of Michigan a Communist, then? Clearly not, but some Americans (and probably ONLY Americans) see any kind of regulation or government intervention as "communism", insofar as they understand it, which is, yes, ridiculous, but neverthless true (witness here the woman in Denver, Colorado, screaming, to a healthcare worker of all people, to "go back to China").
So, yes, some of the protesters are probably motivated by either or both of these political views in an extreme form, views that are not in themselves abhorrent, but probably misplaced in the current exceptional cicumstances. Some of them are probably just desperate people who need their jobs back in order to feed their families in a country where the social safety net has all but disappeared. Which brings us to the category of selfish and thoughtless.
There has been an ongoing debate for decades, centuries even, as to whether libertarianism is just another word for selfishness. What you feel about that proposition depends, almost entirely, on your own political inclinations. My own feeling us that many, if not most, of the "Operation Gridlock" protesters and their like are indeed acting out of selfishness. They want their old lives back, they want to get their hair cut at a barbershop shop or hair salon, and, probably in a lot of cases, they just want to be able hang out in their favourite bar. So do we all, but most people have the common sense and magnanimity to realize that, if we want to return to the good old days, we need to hunker down for an extended period in order to wait out the coronavirus, which we know other way to defeat. To mingle and to pretend that there is no danger is to put our communities and ourselves - and, more to the point, others, including those more vulnerable than ourselves - at increased risk. It is antisocial and potentially dangerous.
Which brings us, finally, to the category of ill-informed and foolish. And here I choose to rest my case.
Saturday, May 02, 2020
Trump's new press secretary seems to be as prone to lies as all the others
Yet another fresh new face arrives to take up the unenviable position of White House Press Secretary, a job few people want, and still fewer survive in for any length of time.
Kayleigh McEnany started her first press briefing with a confident, " I will never lie to you. You have my word on that." She then - surprise, surprise! - proceeded to tell the expected whoppers in a vain attempt to dig her boss out of various holes he has dug himself into.
She first lied about the cost of the Mueller investigation and the mistaken claim that it resulted in the "complete and total exoneration of President Trump". She then answered the question of why Trump would call the armed militia protesting outside the Michigan legislature "very good people" by saying that he was actually referencing people's First Amendment right to protest, whereas in fact he did not mention the First Amendment at all in his tweet. She then proceeded to claim that no-one is pressuring the intelligence community to determine how the COVID-19 pandemic started, whereas senior Trump administration officials are doing just that. And then, she misquotes an FBI note about Gen. Michael Flynn, Trump's unfortunate first security advisor.
It wasn't an auspicipous start, but then it wasn't unexpected either. The very best you can say is that, like Donald Trump, she probably believes the lies she tells.
Kayleigh McEnany started her first press briefing with a confident, " I will never lie to you. You have my word on that." She then - surprise, surprise! - proceeded to tell the expected whoppers in a vain attempt to dig her boss out of various holes he has dug himself into.
She first lied about the cost of the Mueller investigation and the mistaken claim that it resulted in the "complete and total exoneration of President Trump". She then answered the question of why Trump would call the armed militia protesting outside the Michigan legislature "very good people" by saying that he was actually referencing people's First Amendment right to protest, whereas in fact he did not mention the First Amendment at all in his tweet. She then proceeded to claim that no-one is pressuring the intelligence community to determine how the COVID-19 pandemic started, whereas senior Trump administration officials are doing just that. And then, she misquotes an FBI note about Gen. Michael Flynn, Trump's unfortunate first security advisor.
It wasn't an auspicipous start, but then it wasn't unexpected either. The very best you can say is that, like Donald Trump, she probably believes the lies she tells.
Friday, May 01, 2020
I had forgotten all about fainting goats
I am just reading a novel (Fishbowl by Bradley Somers, as it happens) which makes a passing reference to something I knew about but had forgotten all about: fainting goats.
It's kind of amusing, but also kind of sad and pathetic, and certainly not as amusing as some of the viral YouTube videos on the subject might suggest, with all their guffawing and their unnecessary and deliberate spooking of the goats.
Medically, it's quite fascinating. They are called myotonic goats, after myotonia congenita, a genetic condition that causes their limbs to stiffen briefly after a shock or startle. They don't actually faint - they don't lose consciousness - their limbs just seize up instead of the usual fight-or-flight chemical reaction that most animals experience in such circumstances, one that typically leads to muscle movement rather than muscle stiffening.
It is something that can also affect dogs, and other farmyard stock, even humans, but it mainly occurs in a particularly species of goat. They are often called Tennessee fainting goats, because, for some reason, most of them are found in Tennessee and neighbouring states in the southern USA (they are one of the few species of goats native to North America). They are also sometimes known, less respectfully, as wooden leg goats, or stiff leg goats, or just nervous goats.
It's kind of amusing, but also kind of sad and pathetic, and certainly not as amusing as some of the viral YouTube videos on the subject might suggest, with all their guffawing and their unnecessary and deliberate spooking of the goats.
Medically, it's quite fascinating. They are called myotonic goats, after myotonia congenita, a genetic condition that causes their limbs to stiffen briefly after a shock or startle. They don't actually faint - they don't lose consciousness - their limbs just seize up instead of the usual fight-or-flight chemical reaction that most animals experience in such circumstances, one that typically leads to muscle movement rather than muscle stiffening.
It is something that can also affect dogs, and other farmyard stock, even humans, but it mainly occurs in a particularly species of goat. They are often called Tennessee fainting goats, because, for some reason, most of them are found in Tennessee and neighbouring states in the southern USA (they are one of the few species of goats native to North America). They are also sometimes known, less respectfully, as wooden leg goats, or stiff leg goats, or just nervous goats.
China returns to its confrontational bullying ways
China started off the COVID-19 outbreak with a relatively positive image for its aoparently sharing details early, and a grudging respect for the depth and strictness of its lockdown procedures. The more that we have learned since - or pieced together from sparse, censored or politically-massaged information - has irrevocably tarnished that image, to the extent that we are all the way back to the dubious, suspicious attitudes the West used to have towards China. And perhaps even a bit further back.
I'm not talking about Donald Trump's repeated blatherings about the coronavirus originating in a Chinese lab. China says that other Western countries are merely lapdogs of the US, and that America is guilty of gross political manipulation (a pretty rich accusation coming from Beijing!) But the the truth could not be further from that: hardly anyone takes Trump seriously any more, and the USA has long lost any respect or international influence or moral authority it might ever have had.
But, as China gradually becomes the first major country to return to economic growth (having had a significant head start over the others), it is returning to its confrontational bullying ways with a vengeance. Literally with a vengeance, as it perceives itself to have been egregiously wronged by a number of countries who have been publicly questioning its sincerity and transparency throughout the pandemic period.
For example, China has public questioned why Chinese students should go to such a "hostile" country as Australia, or why China should buy Australian beef or wine (very thinly-veiled economic threats); it has accused the French media of "malevolence" and "lies" in no uncertain terms; it has threatened to suspend medical supplies to the Netherlands for its media coverage "full of prejudice, discrimination and malice", and for its recognition of Taiwan as an independent country; another (unnamed) country was given a stark demand to rededicate itself to the one-China principle (under which Taiwan is merely a wayward province of the greater Chinese nation) in order to receive masks and other protective equipment from China; and China has painted Western democracy in general as having lost confidence and become "psychologically fragile" in the face of the obvious superiority of an authoritarian approach to dealing with emergencies of this nature.
I suppose we should be grateful that things are returning to business as usual. But not everything about the old order was good, and the huge reset that the pandemic has necessitated seems like such a good time to reset international relations too. The constant antagonism and back-biting of Trump, Putin, Xi and others is just so exhausting.
I'm not talking about Donald Trump's repeated blatherings about the coronavirus originating in a Chinese lab. China says that other Western countries are merely lapdogs of the US, and that America is guilty of gross political manipulation (a pretty rich accusation coming from Beijing!) But the the truth could not be further from that: hardly anyone takes Trump seriously any more, and the USA has long lost any respect or international influence or moral authority it might ever have had.
But, as China gradually becomes the first major country to return to economic growth (having had a significant head start over the others), it is returning to its confrontational bullying ways with a vengeance. Literally with a vengeance, as it perceives itself to have been egregiously wronged by a number of countries who have been publicly questioning its sincerity and transparency throughout the pandemic period.
For example, China has public questioned why Chinese students should go to such a "hostile" country as Australia, or why China should buy Australian beef or wine (very thinly-veiled economic threats); it has accused the French media of "malevolence" and "lies" in no uncertain terms; it has threatened to suspend medical supplies to the Netherlands for its media coverage "full of prejudice, discrimination and malice", and for its recognition of Taiwan as an independent country; another (unnamed) country was given a stark demand to rededicate itself to the one-China principle (under which Taiwan is merely a wayward province of the greater Chinese nation) in order to receive masks and other protective equipment from China; and China has painted Western democracy in general as having lost confidence and become "psychologically fragile" in the face of the obvious superiority of an authoritarian approach to dealing with emergencies of this nature.
I suppose we should be grateful that things are returning to business as usual. But not everything about the old order was good, and the huge reset that the pandemic has necessitated seems like such a good time to reset international relations too. The constant antagonism and back-biting of Trump, Putin, Xi and others is just so exhausting.
Nunavut registers its first COVID-19 case
The tiny remote Arctic community of Pond Inlet in Nunavut has just registered its first case of COVID-19. In fact, the first case in the whole territory, which was the last unifected part of Canada. 10 other people in the territory have been tested and are awaiting results, but this is the first official case. The individual is already in self-isolation
At first blush, you wonder how this is even possible. But, on reflection, this town of 1,600 mainly Inuit inhabitants, accessible only by air or sea, is entirely reliant on the outside world for all of its groceries, medications and other supplies. So, in a way, it's surprising that it's it has taken this long to happen.
Unlike many other far northern communities, Pond Inlet has a pretty well-equipped and well-trained medical centre, and testing kits are being sent over from the capital, Iqaluit. All 20 of the infected person's recent contacts are been traced and, in such a small place, it is actually practical to contact and segregate them.
It makes you realize that, in this day and age, everywhere is connected, and nowhere is exempt. Worldwide, other than North Korea and Turkmenistan (and who believes either of THEM?), the only countries still to register cases (as of 18th April) are small Pacific Islands: Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu and Vanuatu. Oh, and little landlocked Lesotho, which again I would be tempted not to believe (the little country, deep within South Africa, closed its borders and announced a strict lockdown on March 31st, but it is still accepting trade and supply vehicles from South Africa, a country which has a pretty substantial outbreak of the virus.
UPDATE
Turns out, Nunavut is now back down to zero cases, as the suspected Pond Inlet case is now considered to have been a false positive!
At first blush, you wonder how this is even possible. But, on reflection, this town of 1,600 mainly Inuit inhabitants, accessible only by air or sea, is entirely reliant on the outside world for all of its groceries, medications and other supplies. So, in a way, it's surprising that it's it has taken this long to happen.
Unlike many other far northern communities, Pond Inlet has a pretty well-equipped and well-trained medical centre, and testing kits are being sent over from the capital, Iqaluit. All 20 of the infected person's recent contacts are been traced and, in such a small place, it is actually practical to contact and segregate them.
It makes you realize that, in this day and age, everywhere is connected, and nowhere is exempt. Worldwide, other than North Korea and Turkmenistan (and who believes either of THEM?), the only countries still to register cases (as of 18th April) are small Pacific Islands: Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu and Vanuatu. Oh, and little landlocked Lesotho, which again I would be tempted not to believe (the little country, deep within South Africa, closed its borders and announced a strict lockdown on March 31st, but it is still accepting trade and supply vehicles from South Africa, a country which has a pretty substantial outbreak of the virus.
UPDATE
Turns out, Nunavut is now back down to zero cases, as the suspected Pond Inlet case is now considered to have been a false positive!
Thursday, April 30, 2020
How do you deal with a president who won't answer legitimate questions?
Here's a good example of just why it's so difficult to take Donald Trump to task over the various mistruths and barefaced lies he routinely peddles.
Case in point: Trump's repeated claims that he somehow inherited "broken" COVID-19 tests from Barack Obama. When asked in a CNN interview yeaterday how it was possible for the Obama administration to have developed COVID-19 tests three years before the novel coronavirus was even discovered, all Trump does is to repeat over and over again, "We started off with bad, broken tests and obsolete tests ... We had broken tests. We had tests that were obsolete. We had tests that didn't take care of people." Regardless of the fact that some of it doesn't actually make sense, at no point does he even try to address the interviewer's point, which was put quite succinctly, "It's a new virus, so how could the tests be broken?"
If he doesn't answer legitimate questions, but merely parrots the same non-sensical tropes, insofar as they serve his own re-election purposes, then what else can you do? What Trump is doing is making a political calculation: he just doesn't care what liberal "fake news" outlets like CNN, and the kind people who watch them, think; he is much more concerned with hammering home his message to his own core supporters.
"Broken"? I'll say. The longer Trump remains in power, the more democracy dies a death of a thousand cuts. Never has there been such a cynical politician in a position of such power and influence.
Case in point: Trump's repeated claims that he somehow inherited "broken" COVID-19 tests from Barack Obama. When asked in a CNN interview yeaterday how it was possible for the Obama administration to have developed COVID-19 tests three years before the novel coronavirus was even discovered, all Trump does is to repeat over and over again, "We started off with bad, broken tests and obsolete tests ... We had broken tests. We had tests that were obsolete. We had tests that didn't take care of people." Regardless of the fact that some of it doesn't actually make sense, at no point does he even try to address the interviewer's point, which was put quite succinctly, "It's a new virus, so how could the tests be broken?"
If he doesn't answer legitimate questions, but merely parrots the same non-sensical tropes, insofar as they serve his own re-election purposes, then what else can you do? What Trump is doing is making a political calculation: he just doesn't care what liberal "fake news" outlets like CNN, and the kind people who watch them, think; he is much more concerned with hammering home his message to his own core supporters.
"Broken"? I'll say. The longer Trump remains in power, the more democracy dies a death of a thousand cuts. Never has there been such a cynical politician in a position of such power and influence.