CRIPES--I'M 80!!!

By:Tina Lesher

When I was laboring in academia, I often taught students about an important libel case from 1735. At one point I would say: To help the defendant, his friends corralled an octogenarian lawyer from Philadelphia.

I would see puzzled looks on my students’ faces. “What kind of a lawyer is an octogenarian one?” they would ask almost simultaneously.

They had no clue that I was referring to the lawyer’s age!

Well, they probably had not run across the word in their young lives.  And frankly, I seldom used that word at all in conversation or writing. But now it is a major part of my life!

I have entered the ranks of octogenarians. Yes, Thanksgiving Day 2023 marks my 80th birthday.

I am not exactly enthused about the whole thing. Still, I am able to comment on what life is like as I navigate this new chapter of life. 

LOOKING THE PART: When people find out how old I am, they always say: But you look so good for your age.  Mind you, no matter how awful I appear, every single person will comment likewise. And I do the same thing when someone reveals his/her age to me---I act so surprised while I am often thinking the person actually looks older than that age!

RAILING ON…Yes, I could rail on, as they say, about things I like or dislike.  But one thing I am forced to like---RAILINGS!  We now have railings from our basement to the attic, and I cling to them as I go up and down stairs.  And I watch wherever I am to see if railings exist. (And who decided to remove those people movers from some of the airport terminals???)

TELEVISION…My family got our first TV in about 1950 (the first television set in Dunmore, Pa.) and it was about 12 inches or something like that. If we had owned a giant-sized screen like those prevalent today, we would have had to remove all the living room furniture to accommodate the set. We would have had standing room only in our abode. 

Mentioning my childhood favorite TV show---Kukla, Fran and Ollie—always gets interesting reactions from younger people who cannot believe I even watched a puppet show. Well, it was that or The Lone Ranger.

I must say I enjoyed listening to the news when I was a youngster. No need for a panel of pundits to discuss the news---we had good anchors who reported the news…period.

HEIGHT…Yes, the height of all insults is to mention that I get shorter each year.  No kidding---that is what happens to octogenarians.  We are closer to the ground compared to when we were 60 or 70. God forbid I would try to enhance my height by wearing four-inch heels. I am thankful I can afford Hoka sneakers.

ON THE DOCKET…Well, my personal calendar is laden with doctors’ appointments.  If it’s not my feet, it’s my hands. How about that sore arm---is it arthritis?  Oh, and who at 80 has not weathered cataract surgery?  It is like a ritual for old people.  It is like a moneymaker for eye surgeons.

As for pills---I have them courtesy of the neurologist, the urologist, the ophthalmologist, the endocrinologist, the dermatologist…get the GIST???

  I think at age 80 you should have one pill a day---an aspirin. Maybe a martini would be better.

DISCOUNT, PLEASE…Once you hit 80, you should get a discount on all types of goods.  Check out of your favorite supermarket and 15% should be axed from your bill. After all, you have been buying groceries at that shop for more than half a century so you deserve a reward.  

Look what we spend on Amazon---least we should get is a free gift card every time we hit a thousand dollars in purchases.

Oh, how I love Dollar Tree…discovered that business in my old age and am proud of my dollar reading glasses that now cost $1.25. What nerve---to increase the prices 25 percent all at once and still keep the Dollar Tree name. Hey, keep the dollar prices for customers who are 80 or older!

TRAVEL…Advice: do not stop traveling because you are an octogenarian! You have earned the right to see the world.

Fortunately I have been lucky enough to do so and have logged more than 40 countries/islands.

Last month, my husband, John, and I vacationed in Aruba to celebrate his 80th birthday. We are weighing where we will go next…I want to go to Antarctica but my spouse has ICED that idea!

Twice I have lived in Abu Dhabi and that proved a good base for travel in that region.

So many great travel memories, but I must say I really enjoyed being at The Hermitage in St. Petersburg, Petra in Jordan, The Parthenon in Athens, Blue Mosque in Istanbul. I laughed with the monkeys in Gibraltar and logged miles of walking in Lisbon. But many memories come from the following:

GREAT MEALS…Over the decades I have had the chance (with John, of course) to have some memorable eating experiences that have been highlights of our trips:  Dover sole in Monaco and Bruges…lunches at the famed Burj Al Arab in Dubai…dinner at a small fish eatery in Santorini…burgers at Harry’s Bar in London and in Rome and in Manhattan…fish specialties at LeBernadin in NYC…a chicken dish at La Fontaine de Mars in Paris… drinks at Shanghai’s Puli Hotel at the longest bar I have ever seen…shrimp on a stone at Papiamento in Aruba…truffles in every course at La Truffle Noir in Brussels…a one-of-everything on the menu at some restaurant in Fujiyama, Japan…and cod, cod, cod in Portugal.  

And some unusual meals: In Morocco we ate at some outdoor event where we were served half a lamb or something replete with legs---John thought it was great and I stuck to rice…we also had the pleasure of eating at Noma, the famous Copenhagen restaurant where the multi-course menu includes such things as ants and rocks.  John was not enthusiastic about the fare or the $500 per head cost.

Cooking classes have been a popular choice for us in the past several years, mostly because John has taken a real interest in all things culinary. So we have taken cooking classes in NJ and elsewhere.  A favorite was a private cooking class last year from a well-known cook on the island of Domenica although I did have my lifetime fill of plantains that day. (Prepared three ways!)

SPORTS…God bless the guys who started pickleball as I enjoy that game immensely.  I can play with people of all ages and I love the exercise.  Of course, I have been playing golf for four decades and I am as bad as I was from the start.  But I still hit the links! 

Riding my $99 beach bike also gives me a chance to exercise. In a half-hour ride around the neighborhood I note how many homes have changed hands in the half-century we have lived in this section of Westfield.

Yes, octogenarians are truly active---believe me, I never saw this trend back in Dunmore. Actually, we really did not have many octogenarians, and if people did live to that age, they were housebound or shipped off to Maloney Home and the Little Sisters of the Poor.  Seriously…

FOR REAL…When I tell people I remember “the old days,” they do not seem to think I really recall such things---Yes, the milkman brought bottles every day to our home…the doctor came to the house…young boys delivered the newspapers and came weekly to get paid…some man came to our Dunmore home at about 4 a.m. each day to stoke the furnace. After all we were in coal country…we did not eat meat on Fridays…we never wore slacks to church…in summer, a woman would walk down our street with a big dishpan on her head and would yell “Huckleberries for Sale” and our mothers would negotiate the price… we had a housekeeper (and my poor children only had me to handle the chores LOL)…we did not drink wine---whiskey and beer were the choices at our local bars that stayed open until the wee hours…we had 75 in one class at St. Paul’s School in Scranton (where Joe Biden also was a student) but we learned well courtesy of the nuns…we never heard of soccer…

IF I HAD TO DO IT OVER…I would work harder to get my books put out by a credible publisher…I would concentrate on being a comedienne (yes, I have taken comedy classes and did appear twice at Caroline’s Comedy Club)…I would live near an ocean as I love sitting and watching the waves…I would learn how to make gravy…

AMEN…I rue the term octogenarian but I am stuck with the designation so I will make the best of it. I am celebrating my birthday in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean as John and I head to NY aboard the Queen Mary 2, an ocean liner on which we have had five previous trips. Two weeks ago our marvelous children hosted a lovely dinner to mark the joint 80th birthdays of their parents. Hope they are saving up for our 90th birthday celebrations.

BAKHMUT: RUSSIA'S STALINGRAD?

By: John C. Lesher

My life-long interest in history has been piqued in recent days by the horrors of the battle for the small Ukrainian town of Bakhmut. Russian attackers and Ukrainian defenders are locked in a deadly cycle of attack and repulse, attack and repulse—seemingly an endless spiral of conflict for a town of no appreciative strategic value. This brings to mind Stalingrad: the battle that historians generally recognize as the turning point in the Russo-German theatre of WW 2.

The German offensive of 1942 had reached the Volga River and its industrial capital, Stalingrad, by late August. Both sides knew that if the Germans could cross the Volga, German tanks would be unopposed: neither by nature—no forests, mountains or major rivers—nor by Russian troops-- Russian forces were depleted east of the river, except for their Far Eastern Army which Stalin kept in position in fear of an attack by Japanese allied with Hitler. After crossing the Volga the German Army could go north to the Urals and disrupt Russian weapons manufacturing and, more importantly, south to the Caucasus oil fields and eliminate Russia’s ability to fuel its tanks and industry. Without fuel the war between Germany and Russia most probably would be over.

Hitler’s generals advised him to by-pass the city and cross the river upstream and downstream, but Hitler’s megalomania prevented him from agreeing with that strategic advice. Stalingrad’s very name meant to Hitler that the city had to be captured—a political trophy in a massively bloody egotistical contest between two dictators. Germans entered the city and for 12 weeks one of the most sanguinary battles in human history played out. The town itself had no value; it was destroyed brick by brick and urban fighting raged between blocks of the city, between buildings within those blocks, between floors in those buildings and between rooms on those floors. The Germans would not relent, the Russians refused to lose, and the 12 weeks of resistance gave Stalin the time needed to build up strength across the Volga, especially the movement of his Far Eastern forces into European Russia. The Russians counterattacked in late November and that successful counterattack represented the beginning of the German retreat from offensive operations in the Eastern European Theatre. The entire German Sixth Army was eliminated with the loss of between 200,000 and 300,000 troops.

I am seeing strong parallels to Stalingrad in the Ukrainian resistance in Bakhmut and in Russia’s mindless attacks, which seek a “victory” whose only apparent rational purpose would be to appease Mr. Putin. Both sides are suffering greatly, but Ukraine’s motivation and morale remain high—just as the Russians retained their fighting spirit at Stalingrad regardless of their casualties. By contrast, news media reports indicate that Russian servicemen are poorly trained and equipped and their willingness to die for Mr. Putin in a war without a clear national purpose is questionable. I was a member of America’s armed forces in the Viet Nam era, and that latter point of unclear national purpose brings back painful memories.

The supposed scenario unfolding is that Ukraine’s army is slowly building strength for a counterattack, while refusing to lose at Bakhmut. They are trading their blood for time, just as the Russians did 80 years ago at Stalingrad. When the counterattack comes, will the Russians stand and fight, or melt away in a disorganized retreat? If a humiliating retreat, will Putin survive the obvious embarrassment and/or be tempted to use a nuclear option? Will this be another Stalingrad, but with a reversal of roles and Russians being the surrendering force?

We obviously will have to wait for an answer. Neither side will consider peace until a clear military advantage to one or the other becomes tangible. Russia’s non-nuclear military power has faded dramatically and irreversibly; the entire world sees that decline. That “power” is an embarrassment to a proud nation. Ukrainians are deeply conscious of this weakness, and determined Ukrainians will resist for as long as Western nations give them the material and financial resources to fight.  In the meantime, I can’t help believing that Russia’s military leaders see the unsettling specter of Stalingrad in their dreams and that they are reaching for their history books and talking to surviving veterans of that momentous battle.    

Class of '61

By Tina Rodgers Lesher

More than a half century ago, when I toiled on the social pages of the Scranton papers, I occasionally handled a photo of a couple marking their 50th wedding anniversary. I recall my reaction at the time: They are so old!

Only once, I believe, did I see a picture of a small group attending a get-together marking the 60th anniversary of their high school graduation.  I remember my exact words to my colleague: How could they still be alive?

Mind you, I was 22 when I began my journalism career in Scranton and thought my fellow staffers, many in their 50s, were heading for rocking chair life.

I recently returned to my hometown to have dinner at The Radisson with a number of others from Marywood Seminary’s Class of 1961. Yes, 60 years to the day we walked across the stage to accept our diplomas from the bishop, we reunited simply to have a few laughs and to reminisce. No rocking chair life for this crew of women who are 77 or 78.

Funny how one harkens back so quickly to those Scranton years.  We were among the crowds that fought to get into Yanks Diner or Tony Harding’s on Friday nights. Our sartorial choices were not in the current slacks category---no, we actually sported skirts and stockings.  At the Sem, we wore blue uniforms and white blouses with pointed collars. (When I showed up with a button-down shirt, the directress called my mother).  For special school occasions we switched to white uniforms and blue beanies with MS printed in front.  Such fashion!

Four years of Latin and all I can utter is Veni, Vidi, Evacui---I came, I saw, I got the heck out. I remember the library teacher being upset when she asked us what DDS stood for and I thought it was a dental degree   So much for the Dewey Decimal System.  I avoided taking chemistry and thus suffered through a college class a few years later.

Because it was a girls’ school we had varsity teams and I had the privilege of being on them. Our field hockey team boasted a perfect record for all four years: we lost every game.  In basketball, six players made up a team with the offense on one side of the court and the defense on the other. You could only dribble twice. It was like an activity in slow motion. 

When I relate things about my upbringing to my offspring, they fail to believe me: “You never played soccer?  Milk was delivered? The doctor came to your house?  You could not eat meat on Friday? No cell phones or computers?” When I tell them that sometimes a family would hold a wake for a loved one in the house and not a funeral home, they shake their heads in disbelief. (Frankly, so do I).

OK, times may have changed but we in the Class of ’61 have not.  We could still sing every word of our alma mater and even a tune or two from the school’s Sing Song competition that our class won twice.  We could swap stories with sharp memories.  We could toast our Sem days and raise a glass in memory of classmates gone before us.  We could bemoan the loss of the Sem building in a fire. We could laugh about how things were in the old days.

 For our get-together, I wore my lovely onyx class ring that I have kept in my jewelry box for six decades. Of course it has moved over to my pinky finger courtesy of that extra poundage I have acquired in 60 years!   I plan to wear it again when we get together in five years to mark 65 years out of Marywood Seminary!!

(Tina Rodgers Lesher is a retired journalism professor who resides in Westfield, N.J. )

Is This Any Way To Treat the "Elderly"?

 By: Tina Rodgers Lesher

God knows I have been upset (infuriated, to be precise) that anyone ever term me elderly, but I am beginning to rethink my position regarding being 77 years of age.

Why?

Because of the (dumb) vaccine rollout. After all, 80% of deaths from COVID, both nationally and in New Jersey, are from my age group. We’re the ones dying, so why isn’t the vaccine distribution targeted to us?

For months I have watched our New Jersey governor, Phil Murphy, host press conferences in which he has kept count of the COVID cases while putting restrictions on varied activities. Sometimes he lifted those rulings; I was thrilled when our gym was opened though capacity is limited.  I love going out to lunch and dinner, whether it be outside (burr!) or inside where a certain number of tables are spaced properly within the guidelines. (But I do miss sitting at a bar---when you grow up in coal mine country you love to sit right at the bar and socialize with fellow drinkers). I am happy to join my spouse on walks, with the ones of late taking us on Jersey Shore boardwalks or county parks. 

So while I argue that I love to engage in activities often more suited for younger folk, I was enamoured of the Murphy decision to put my age group (75 and over) in the next category behind the important health care workers, first responders, etc.  So I figured it would not be too hard to make an appointment when the time came.  Ditto for friends my age.

No way!

Because the Democratic governor, acceding to suggestions from some official in the Trump Administration (you read that right), decided to throw those 65 and over into our group.  (Oh, and the smokers, too). So he added hundreds of thousands of people to our group---without thinking about the consequences.

 And then the vaccine rollout went crazy---people juggling online and on the phone to try and get vaccinated anywhere in this Garden State.

Now, mind you, John and I did get appointments---later this month--- but only because my spouse sent a pleading missive to our primary care doctor.  But I know scores of people, some older than yours truly and with underlying conditions, who cannot get appointments because the younger (as in 65) set is faster on their computers. So are the smokers.

Ridiculous!

For the first time ever, I sent off an email to the governor (or whoever reads his communications) and basically said: What is wrong with you? You made a mistake so fix it. Heck, even Alabama puts us “elderly” (I am cringing at the word) ahead of the 65-year-olds.

What should he do?

1)       Declare that a few already established COVID vaccine sites immediately allow only those 75 and over to register for the vaccine injections at those places.  

2)      Set up phone lines specifically for people to make those appointments in addition to making them available through websites for those who are not computer-savvy.

3)      Provide vouchers for Uber or other transportation companies to give rides to the vaccine sites for those lacking transportation.

Anyway, that is my two cents on a snowy day in Westfield, N.J.

Now I just pray that a town snow plow gets to our street soon today. LOL

Do Not Call Me Elderly!

By: Tina Lesher

In my mother’s generation, many women were reluctant to reveal their true age. When my mother passed away almost half a century ago, I discovered that she was two years older than I thought she was.

Seriously?

Well, I could not hide my true age if I wanted to do so!  In 2006, I authored a book titled “Club ’43,” about 12 women, all from Westfield, N.J., where I live, who were born in 1943.  I am one of those profiled in a chapter in my own book so anyone who passed grade school math could figure that yours truly is hitting age 77 today. (Oh, and I proudly remind the others that I am the youngest of that revered club as they already have celebrated their 2020 birthdays).

Of course, I go crazy when I read newspaper articles that refer to people my age as elderly. Sorry, that fails to define those of us who still manage 18 holes on the golf course or ride all over town on a beach bike. When I labored as a journalism professor, I would tell my students to “put in the age of the person in the story, not a darn adjective that labels him as old.”

Time to Reminisce

As I move forward in my quest to retain my vitality---and my memory--- I reminisce like crazy. Example:  I still chuckle when I tell people that I was transported to my kindergarten class every day in a limousine owned by the family of a classmate.  And when I went to college in West Virginia, I traveled by private plane alongside a classmate/friend who just happened to be from a family that had a jet.

 Not bad for a girl from Dunmore, Pa., a borough adjacent to Scranton, where a year’s property taxes when I lived there were less than what we pay for a week now here in Jersey.

What I think is really interesting, as I look back at my early days in life, is how things have changed so dramatically. 

Are You Kidding, Mom?

A street car came past our home in Dunmore. The milk was delivered in glass bottles.  The wash was out on the line for drying.  In the summer a woman would walk down Adams Avenue, where we resided, and yell “Huckleberries for Sale” as she maneuvered a dishpan full of the fruit on her head.  

Mention these things to my three offspring and hear a reply in concert: “Yeah, sure.”  Translation: “Are you for real, Mom?”

In Westfield, parents have a fit if a grade school class has more than 25 students.  I was one of 65 in first grade at St. Paul’s in Scranton.  (Joe Biden was a year ahead of me there).  We did not have art classes or any specialty courses.  Phys Ed?  Forget it…but we did have tap dancing once a week. All I remember is being told by the instructor to “Shuffle Ball Change.” LOL

The emphasis in grade school was on the basics. We actually learned how to diagram sentences. We pride ourselves on knowing grammar and usage.  Thus, when I hear a fellow golfer say “You can hit the ball further than me,” I cringe at the two mistakes in eight words.

As kids, we walked to school---and home for lunch.   The crossing guards were boys in the 8th  grade!   Our mothers did not pick us up if it was raining. Good reason---they lacked cars! If a family did have the resources for an auto, it was being used by the dads who went to work.  So we walkers weathered the storm---literally.  

Oh, try describing to younger members of the extended family how a Mr. Grimes would come to our Dunmore abode in the pre-dawn hours to “stoke the furnace” with coal stored in a large bin in the basement.  That description elicits almost silence, as if I am making it up. 

A Snow Day…Unreal

 I was in my thirties and living in Westfield when I first heard the term snow day. I got a call at about 4:30 a.m. from a “room mother” from my child’s kindergarten class. “No school today,” she said.  I figured someone must have died.  Turned out there was a half- inch of snow on the ground! Repeat: half-inch!

How about TV? While today’s youngsters have a billion choices of what to watch, we had no choice when my family got its first television. I watched Kukla, Fran and Ollie just about every night on our lone channel. I did not have the opportunity to watch such current offerings as Desperate Housewives. Pity me!

And we had relatives in town---like aunts and uncles!  We saw our cousins all the time. But my generation hightailed it out of the coal region and wound up in other states, pretty far from family members. So we had to communicate by phone. We actually often had to call an operator for long-distance help.  

And in the words of one from a younger generation: “A phone operator? Like a real person?”

Recalling Some Birthdays

Some of my birthdays have been memorable. On my 16th birthday I passed my driver’s test. (Of course, I had been driving for years on Sundays when my father would take us kids to his trucking company yards and we would drive his car and/or a pickup truck all over the private property).

 My husband, John, hosted a fun party to mark my 50th birthday. The invitations called for a Half a Hundred celebration.  I thought I was OLD…

When I was teaching at Zayed University in Abu Dhabi, my students brought in four gorgeous birthday cakes to celebrate on the same day my family was visiting from the states. 

And when my birthday was marked on Thanksgiving Day many times, I always got a superb cake, be it a fresh coconut specialty made by Mary Sileo, our housekeeper in Dunmore, or one designed by my daughter, Melissa.

Some birthdays were memorable for other reasons. In 1963, as a college junior, I took a 14-hour bus ride home on the day after President Kennedy was assassinated. The bus stopped in many towns along the way, and yet never a sound was made by anyone. Absolute quiet out of sadness.

Well, add today’s birthday to the who-can-believe it list.  Never when I was young did I think I would be wearing a MASK on my birthday. Only good news is that it covers the septuagenarian wrinkles.

That is Enough, Tina!

I could ramble on for hours about how it was in the old days, and what has since transpired, but who really wants to hear the musings of a 77-year-old? If you have read this far, you must be having a boring day.  LOL.

Just wait until I am 80. I will have lots more to say…

Electoral College Math

By: John C. Lesher

It’s well past the 2020 election of and the Associated Press and other media have proclaimed Joe Biden the President-elect by a popular vote margin of about 6 million ballots. That’s ostensibly a big win for Biden, but because we elect a single office, the Presidency, by using an Electoral College, the win for Biden was actually quite close. We don’t have one election for the Presidency—we have 51, and the cumulative results of those 51 elections do not necessarily correlate with the raw vote tabulation. The President-elect’s win could have been turned into a defeat if as few as 100,000 votes were selectively distributed among a handful of states, such as Pennsylvania, Arizona, Georgia and Nevada. In this system, all votes are not equal. Because of this dichotomy between the closeness of the Electoral College vote and the much wider margin of the 2020 popular vote tally, many are calling for the abolition of the Electoral College.

At the risk of oversimplification, the pro and con of the popular vote issue breaks down to two relatively straightforward positions: first, why keep the Electoral College when seeming fairness tells us to dump an anachronistic system and let the people decide, or, second, the Electoral college system isn’t perfect, but it works just fine because it preserves the balance of powers the founders sought. In truth, the potential unintended consequences of a switch to popular voting for the Presidency are not widely understood. The old adage “be careful what you wish for because you just might get it” applies here.

From a practical standpoint, switching from the Electoral College to a popular vote majority is not as easy as it sounds. It requires either a constitutional amendment or a state-by-state revamping of each state’s rules regarding the allocation of electoral votes. The constitutional amendment path will be very difficult, perhaps impossible.

As of the 2010 Census, three states (California, Texas and Florida) have large populations and they seat 116 of the 435 Members of the Federal House of Representatives. That’s almost 27% of the voting power in that chamber. Since seats in the House of Representatives are apportioned to the states every 10 years based on the Census Bureau’s resident population statistics, it is logical to assume that those three states also have roughly 27% of America’s voters. Preliminary indications are that the collective voting population in California, Texas and Florida will approach 28 or 29% after the 2020 census numbers are fully tabulated.

For a constitutional amendment eliminating the Electoral College to pass, 38 of our 50 state legislatures must ratify the proposal, but the demographic math doesn’t add up to passage. Seven states currently have population so low that they receive only one seat in the House; four others have only two seats and three have three. As noted, California, Texas and Florida currently have 27% of House seats and approximately that same percentage of the voting population. The 14 states having low representation and voting populations are just the opposite: 24 House seats out of 435 (5.5%) and a similarly small proportion of the nation’s registered voters.

In a national voting system where every vote is equal to every other, California, Texas and Florida will receive inordinate consideration during Presidential campaigns. Amassing Electoral College votes by small margins of victory in a few key states will no longer be a strategy.  Raw national vote totals will be the objective and California, Texas and Florida are where those votes will be found.  They, and a few other large population states, will be the subject of fawning attention from Presidential incumbents and hopefuls, with promises presumably being made for the “pork” that gets distributed in Presidential budget submissions. The 14 small states noted will be excluded from this feeding frenzy.

Why would any of those 14 small population states ever vote for a constitutional amendment potentially giving so much power, money and attention to California, Texas and Florida? My first sense is that the will of the electorate demands a popular vote standard for presidential elections, but my second sense is that the politicians who run our low population state governments will have deep reservations about approving a switch to aggregate popular voting by means of amendment ratification. It won’t happen.

That leaves advocates with the state-by-state option by which retains the Electoral Collage, but which becomes the equivalent of a popular vote election. In this system our individual state legislatures change their allocation rules so that 100% of the electoral votes within a state’s control are no longer given entirely to the presidential candidate garnering the most votes within that state. Proportionate allocation is the presumed  solution: if candidate A gets 55% of the vote within a state and candidate B 45%, A gets 55% of the electoral college votes allocated to that state and B gets 45%. The obvious problems are how to handle fractional votes and the effort needed to get a critical mass of states plus the District of Columbia to act in some semblance of unity. If popular vote election for the presidency is deemed to be a desired goal, it will take an enormous dedication on the part of the electorate to get our legislators to act en masse on this issue.

The process for a change to popular Presidential voting is relatively simple to understand, but have we thought this through? Do we really want the concentration of power in favor of large population states which will happen if popular voting for the Presidency is adopted? Popular voting has intuitive appeal to fairness and logic, but the real-world problem of the unequal distribution of political power brings us back to the 1780’s and the Constitutional Convention, where small states rebelled in fear of being overwhelmed by larger states. The compromise was a Senate of equal seating, regardless of the population of a given state. Popular voting for the Presidency will bring us back to the same arguments and fears.

Let’s slow down and talk this through. There are upsides and downsides to this issue and the downsides in particular have not been fully evaluated. Rushing into a “solution” without proper deliberation and an understanding of the true scope of the consequences is a very bad idea.

Forget Something?

By: John C. Lesher

Several days ago I wrote a blog addressing the fuss being raised about the US Post Office being unable to handle an alleged deluge of mail-in ballots, thereby creating a chaotic vote count situation this coming November. My opinion was—and is—that this is a false issue because the additional volume of mail being considered is only a tiny fraction of what the Postal Service handles routinely. The problem as I see it is not delivery—it is one of counting those ballots in the typical state where automated equipment is lacking and where each ballot must be manually opened, verified and tabulated. Simply put, the manual vote counting process takes time—lots of it.

The fear is that this attenuated manual vote-count process, which has never been seen in America in the volumes anticipated, will result in a significant delay in the reporting of election results.  In prior election cycles the typical state had only a tiny percentage of its ballots received by mail and results were verified and posted a few hours after polls closed.

Relatively small numbers of service members, diplomats and business personnel with foreign postings were the primary users of the mail-in privilege, but Corona-19 changed all that and now many states, including your author’s domicile of New Jersey, will send every registered voter a mail-in ballot, which might or might not be used. Other states are encouraging citizens to request a mail-in ballot-- Wisconsin reportedly has received well over a million such requests. Guesstimates of upwards of 80 million mail-in votes being cast are bruited about without any real knowledge on the part of those who spread such “facts.” However, if these large volume estimates are realized, the potential for significant reporting delays is a very disturbing possibility.  It will be heaven for conspiracy theorists.

The Washington Post (editorial) and the New York Times (general news article) separately published confirmation of the fears surrounding the potential for delayed election results caused by the inability of states to tabulate all those mail-in ballots in anything close to a reasonable period of time. The issue is not just one of counting delays caused by the sheer hours and days required to process votes one by one manually. An accompanying issue is that when the many states who decided to send universal ballots to their electorates began their planning, a minor detail escaped them. I say “minor” with a heavy dose of sarcasm.

Each state has a legal date by which a mail-in ballot must be received and therefore be eligible for computation. These receipt dates have been in the statute books for many years. Twenty-eight states have dates for receipt on November 2nd (2 of the 28) or on 2020’s Election Day- November 3rd. The expectation is that November 2nd and 3rd in those 28 states will witness an extremely heavy volume of mail-ins and the days-long process of manual counting and delayed results will only begin at that time. Unfortunately those 28 states are the good guys who will lead the vote count. Many of the other 22 states and the District of Columbia will be far behind. 

It seems that many of our elected state officials, particularly the governors, in their rush to prove their anti-Covid credentials, ordered universal mail-in balloting without considering those statutory dates of receipt. For example, my state of New Jersey has required that every registered voter receive a ballot by mail, but—whoops---the governor and legislature forgot to adjust the mandated return date for those ballots. That date is November 10th, a full week after Election Day. I must assume that this means New Jersey won’t be able to announce its official tally for dog catchers, let alone for the Congress and the Presidency, for a further week or so. I sincerely hope I am wrong about this, but I fear I am not. New Jersey is joined on November 10th by Minnesota, Mississippi, Nevada, New York and Utah. California? Our largest state, with 12% of America’s population and, presumably, 12% of America’s votes, doesn’t require mail-ins to be received until November 17th. Texas, our second largest state? November 4th; Illinois? November 18th; Washington? November 23.

The assumed delays in official results for this coming election have potential constitutional implications. Can you imagine a particular person in Washington quietly and meekly awaiting those results, or calmly accepting claims of victory by others? At the very least there will be a Tweet storm. Distrust and suspicion will be common currency.

This is a self-inflicted wound to our tradition of rapidly delivered, credible election results. Where it will play out—quite possibly in our court system—is anyone’s guess. All I know is that we didn’t think it through. Massive mail-in voting requires an array of automated equipment that will minimize the manual processes associated with opening, verifying and counting each envelope, as well as legislative action by the many states to move forward their mandated dates for receipt of ballots so that there is sufficient time for a definitive count to be delivered on Election Day.  

Pandemic Update

By: Tina Lesher

A few months ago I penned a piece about my pandemic observations, and a number of bored friends have inquired as to when I planned to update those musings.

Heck, I figured I would never have to do that as the viral period would be well gone by now and I would move into more interesting parts of my life, such as sailing to Europe and spending five weeks in Paris as a celebration of my 50th wedding anniversary (and that of my spouse, too!).

Courtesy of the coronavirus lifestyle of late, we are more inclined to paddle a canoe down the Raritan than enjoy the luxury of our favorite Queen Mary 2 as it makes its way across the Atlantic.

Well, there has got to be a silver lining to all of this. 

What idiot created that term?  For us, it is a GOLD lining, as in a half-century of wedded bliss.

So now that we are stuck at our Jersey abode, we are enjoying the fruits of our most recent acquisition: a new mattress.

Seriously, who gets a mattress at this stage of a married union? And one that costs more than a transatlantic voyage? It would be cheaper to take a sleeping pill and stay put on a recliner.

I think the pandemic has affected the lifestyle of the average senior citizen.

How may times can you ask your offspring: What is Hulu?

You can hear the mumbling as you are provided with the answer, and then told that it will cost you a few bucks to order it.

Hey, who needs streaming services (notice I have adopted the modern terminology) when you can tape scores of the old Law and Order episodes from decades ago?  And what fun it is to answer ALL the Jeopardy questions on the repeated shows! 

While my culinary talents have never reached gourmet level or even an interest in cooking, during this pandemic, when our trip to France was curtailed, I became a real fan of the brief tips provided by famed chef Jacques Pepin on Facebook.  His recipes are simple---and fantastic.  I especially like the French toast recipe wherein the bread is soaked in softened vanilla ice cream. Even John admitted it tastes great. But he is not exactly crazy about other Pepin favorites, like an onion sandwich.  Guess they had more sophisticated food back at the diner in Pottsville, Pa., where my spouse grew up.

One of my major hobbies for the past seven decades has been eating---out. Now the Garden State has axed indoor dining, so I have joined many others as we dine alongside major thoroughfares, often with lovely plastic ware.  Nothing like a glass of pinot noir in a plastic cup as the sounds of music erupt from passing pickup trucks. Oh, to be a part of such historical times.

I still follow the rules: when I enter my favorite stores (like 7-11) I always don a mask, of course.  And now John and I have matching masks emblazoned with Quarantined Together.  These lovely coverings were gifts from our children who entertained at an anniversary family party at Monmouth Racetrack, a favorite destination of ours. You can bet I failed to pick a winner.

As the pandemic stretches on, I fear it could prove disastrous to my psychological health. It is difficult for yours truly to figure out who is behind a mask at the grocery store.  Is that person smiling or frowning at me?   I do not know whether to say hello.  

So I nod.  That is what we seniors do---we nod. 

In fact, we nod off a lot. Sometimes on overpriced mattresses.

Some good news, though:  gyms can open next week in Jersey.  I can go back to the land of workouts, the local Y. But there is always a catch, and in this case it is that the respective gyms can only open their doors to 25 percent capacity at a time.

Online registration will be the rule. So I will be sweating it out at home as I try to beat the young folks to the computer signups.

That might be the extent of my sweating.

Oh, well. C’est la vie.  While I will not get to order a nice Bordeaux in Paris, I keep my sanity by remembering that, in New Jersey, the wine stores are open!

Mail-in Ballots

By John C. Lesher

I’ve been screaming at the talking heads on TV for the past several weeks and, since no one in a TV studio has been responding to me, perhaps a blog will get some form of feedback.

The fuss about the alleged failures of the Post Office and the certain collapse of democracy occasioned by mail-in balloting has me a bit hot under the collar. There are some real issues here, but for the most part innocent misconceptions and outright lies are the rule. Politicians will be politicians and Democrats are falsely claiming the sky is falling because of Post Office attempts to take a multi-billion dollar money loser and make it more business-like; the President sows unreasoned fear of massive fraud in vote-counting and of stolen elections. Let’s back up, take a deep breath and review objective facts.

The Post Office’s own statistics indicate that the United States Postal Service handles 750 million pieces of mail every day and that 189 million of those deliveries are first class mail. The first class part is important because any ballots sent by state governments to individual voters are in first class envelopes. Numerous articles in almost any paper you can read repeat ad nauseam that the several states that have decided to conduct balloting this November solely by mail, or by a combination of mail and polling place availability, will produce anywhere from 50 to 80 million  first class ballot envelopes.

Those envelopes will begin to be delivered to voters approximately one month before the November Election Day, depending on the requirements of state law. Voters can cast their ballots at any time after receipt. The only caveat regarding a return deadline is that the returned ballots must be postmarked by a certain date if the ballot is to be counted. State law determines each state’s deadline date.

Do The Math

Let’s do some numbers: 189 million pieces per day for 30 days equals a Post Office that handles routinely over five and a half billion first class envelopes in the month before the election. How many of the outside estimate of 80 million ballots will be returned is anyone’s guess and when they will be returned is also an unknown. Even If we assume that the higher estimate of 80 million is correct and that every one of those ballots is mailed back in the 10 days before Election Day, the addition to the Post Office volume is very modest; more realistic assumptions concerning volume and timing produce an effect on the Post Office that is simply not concerning. This is a false issue.

Once the ballots are in the mail, the real fun begins. The President’s mantra of distrust regarding election results, based in significant part on claims that vote counts will be riddled with fraud, has no statistical back-up, but does raise some legitimate issues. Massive fraud is not one of them.

Before starting on the concept of mail-in fraud, I wish to make it unequivocally clear that I favor mail-in voting. My doctoral dissertation involved a two-year study of certain aspects of America’s electoral system. One disturbing reality of our democracy is that we vote at rates that are the lowest of all liberal democracies. We tend to sit on the couch and let the other guy spend the time and make the effort to vote. In my opinion voting by mail will greatly increase the percentage of participation in an election by the public. All you have to do is fill out the form and put it in a mail slot (and you have 30 days in which to do so). The envelope doesn’t even require a stamp. No more excuses about needing time off from work or “it was today?? really??”

The issue of mail-in ballot fraud is a canard. de Tocqueville in his volumes On Democracy in America marveled at how there always seemed to be an election somewhere in America for some purpose. That widespread distribution of voting activity is our greatest protection against fraud. Every state, county, electoral district, town and ward has volunteers counting ballots, verifying signatures and overseeing the process. There are simply too many people involved in too many scattered locations to have fraud on a massive scale. Yes, fraud can and will occur--your local small town alderman could be elected by stealing some votes-- but truly significant vote manipulation sufficient to throw an election is hard to fathom on a district, state or national level. The thousands of citizens participating in the process insure probity, not to mention the fact that Democrats will check on Republicans without mercy and visa-versa.

That said, we cannot ignore some crucial issues regarding greatly expanded mail-in voting. There are many legitimate questions regarding ballot security and verification, but the salient concept is that of time. Americans are used to instant gratification in many things, one of which is the results of an election. “Who won last night” is a standard breakfast question the morning after the polls close. Unfortunately, we must accept the fact that mail-in voting tabulations cannot be accomplished in as timely a manner as we would like and this could lead to mistrust in government and deep suspicion concerning the issue of fraud. Large-scale fraud will not be there, but the lingering doubts of accurate election results will grow and fester as each day passes without an official tally or a concession by a candidate. This could be a conspiracy theorist’s paradise, but why?

Unlike the systems in almost all jurisdictions where a machine tally of votes is immediately available for verification, paper mail-in ballots must be handled individually: postmark date verified; authorized signature checked; vote-by-vote manual tabulation of each candidate and each office on the ballot, etc. Counting will take many days after Election Day, perhaps weeks. It is a potential train wreck in the making. I for one do not see our elected officials preparing for this. They all seem to accept the fact that some level of fraud could occur and that election results will be released far more slowly than in the past, but I see no public announcement as to how these situations will be addressed.

A suggestion: let’s have two Election Days—the first would be a deadline date for mail-in ballots that would be, say, two weeks prior to the first Tuesday in November. This will give election commissions time to count the mail-ins and insure their legitimacy. The second date would remain as is in November and voters would go to polling places. The obvious problem with this suggestion is the potential influence on an election if leaks occurred regarding the mail-in counts. My suggestion is not perfect, but if mail-in voting is to grow it must be accomplished by some system that assures the electorate of an honest result in a timely manner.

Historic Preservation--Westfield Style

By: John C. Lesher

I have reviewed the proposal for the creation of an Historic Preservation Commission being considered by the Town Council and am concerned about this legislation, particularly with what I regard as the lack of foresight and evaluation of the unintended consequences of this action. The HPC’s mandate will be to choose which properties in Westfield will be designated as “historic.”  

A home is the typical American’s largest financial asset, and enormous influence over the financial security of all town residents will be handed to nine unelected Commission members, eight of whom are to be appointed by the Mayor. That appointment power without third-party review has the potential to become deeply political. None of these appointed individuals will have public accountability, and some of them do not even have to be residents of the Town. Yet, they will wield enormous power. In general, there appears to be no limit to the Commission’s powers of designation, other than extremely vague and subjective criteria of evaluation contained in the ordinance.

What IS clear in the ordinance is that once a property is designated as “historic” severe restrictions on property improvements and sales will be imposed permanently on the designated properties and the property owners. Rights of appeal of the designation of any property or district as “historic” are notably weak. To my mind, the cumulative effect of this ordinance—zero accountability of decision-makers and little or no rights of protest-- is a taking of property without proper compensation—a constitutional violation.

I see little consideration of how this will play out in the real world. As currently proposed in the ordinance, individuals who desire to purchase a pre-1930 home (such as your author’s), demolish it and build anew will have to wait several weeks—perhaps months--for a ruling on a demolition permit according to the timeline in the legislation. Defenders of the ordinance claim that this demolition restriction applies only to developers. That is simply wrong. I know of several homes in Westfield purchased and demolished by individuals who were not developers. Also, what about a property owner not attempting to sell, who simply decides to do an extensive renovation involving demolition?

There isn’t a lawyer in this State who, once hired to represent a residential purchaser wishing to demolish a pre-1930 home, won’t fail to place language in the contract of sale that gives the purchaser the right to withdraw from the contract without penalty if a decision on the property’s historic designation is not delivered within a relatively short period of time. Financial institutions will follow suit and financing will be problematical. This probably will lead to a two-tiered residential market—pre and post-1930.  I fear that because of the uncertainty caused by the Historic Preservation Commission ordinance, properties constructed pre-1930 will suffer an immediate diminution of value.

Is the HPC prepared to give immediate responses to the many inquiries for designation that could flood it? The extended period of time in the ordinance for review and decision concerning a demolition request is deeply harmful to a seller or renovator.  I am opposed to this entire ordinance but, at the very least, the proposed legislation should have the following changes: (1) a short statutory time limit in which the HPC must rule on demolition requests by owners or in-contract purchasers: failure to rule in a timely manner --say, 7 days--should mean that the home in question is not to be considered historic, nor can it be reconsidered for historic designation at a later date. Demolition could then proceed as requested; (2) a meaningful process of appeal whereby an affected homeowner can successfully challenge an historic designation.

Finally, what magic is there in 1930? Is there some architecturally recognized era that 1930 divides from another historic period? I think not—it appears to be purely arbitrary and will fail for vagueness if ever challenged in court.

Coronavirus Part 9

By: John C. Lesher

My favorite state—New Jersey—has finally begun to loosen the governor’s Coronavirus restrictions and permit “normal” activity, such as meals in a restaurant setting. You thought toilet paper and paper towels were in short supply three months ago? Try getting a restaurant reservation today. Unfortunately, New Jersey’s version of dining out is to be taken literally: outside-only dining. “Al fresco” service is the cultured attempt to put a positive spin on the fact that wind and weather could ruin your linguine.

What bothers me is that so many times I have heard on TV and in newspapers that getting our economic and social lives back together—restaurant meals are a prime example---could be dangerous and cause more Covid19 infections. Counts of new infections (aka “spikes” in the news media) are continually proffered as evidence that the world is ending and we must get back into our self-quarantined mode for some further, indefinite, period.

I’m a great believer in facts and hard core data, but this observer sees no properly tabulated effort to separate fact from fiction regarding the pandemic. We have heard constantly that the number of cases is increasing every day. I accept that bland statement as true. However, by itself, in isolation, an increase in the case tally is meaningless. Our media should be ashamed of puerile reporting methods that give a partial, and possibly misleading, picture of the state of our recovery from the virus. This is dangerously close to fear-mongering and I must object.

For starters, every doctor in America worthy of self-promoting TV or radio air time has said we must test, test, test. I agree and, as best I can tell, tens of thousands of tests are being performed every day throughout the 50 states. This testing obviously uncovers infections, both current and prior. The fact that the case numbers have gone up is, to some unknown degree, a self-fulfilling prophesy because the testing is fulfilling its intended purpose of tracing this disease. More tests mean more cases, but that does not necessarily mean that the virus is spreading or contracting, or that it has become more or less lethal.

To get an accurate picture of this disease, and present facts to the American public so we can safely re-open our economy, we need to analyze the following:

1-What is the new infection rate among Americans? Simply counting the total number of cases is woefully short of relevance. Over the past, say, six weeks, has the daily new case number gone up, down or stayed the same? The absolute number of cases will go up in coming weeks (testing alone will insure that) but concerns are greatly mitigated if the rate of new cases is declining.

2-Hospital utilization should be examined. We heard over and over that our hospital facilities were about to be overrun by emergency cases of the virus. Thankfully, we now know that claim was true in only a few unfortunate situations, but we should take a hard look at our capacity to handle any new surge. Are the new cases producing a glut of new hospitalizations or are these new cases relatively mild and, in the main, not life-threatening? Is our hospital capacity being affected adversely?

3-The number of deaths is less important than the death rate. How many people die per some unit of comparison, such as deaths per 100,000 residents? Is it stable? Increasing? Decreasing? Do new deaths correlate with new infections? Ideally, new infections—regardless of rate—will be accompanied by a declining death rate.

4-Recent studies indicate that the virus targets our senior population with horrible efficiency. Conversely, younger people—especially those 21 or younger—have seen very little of this disease. Are new cases continuing this profile? Is the death rate among our seniors improving?

We need facts, not media hype and hysteria. The data are available. Our elected officials should do the right thing and go into full analysis mode. Hopefully, we’ll find that rising cases are accompanied by ample hospital capacity and a declining death rate among all age groups. If not, we can act accordingly and address problems as necessary. Until we get such a factual base of information I will take the poorly researched “oh my God” media reports with a grain of salt and will continue trying to make dinner reservations at any restaurant that will have me.

Pandemic Observations

By: Tina Lesher

The weeks-long semi-hibernation, courtesy of the coronavirus, has resulted in my making some observations about pandemic living. Out of boredom more than anything else, I hereby submit a list of what I have observed in the past many weeks.  Is it nine? Or 11? Or whatever…

Bicycles are the favorite mode of exercise.  If only I owned a bike shop because their sales are booming---everyone wants to have a bike.   I see scores of bike riders every day---many are trading their usual gym visits for pedaling around the neighborhood streets. I am one of those riders, tooling around in my cheap beach bike that I bet I could sell for big bucks these days!

Forget flowers or shrubs: Balloons are the latest outdoor décor for homes in our town.  At least one or two homes on EVERY block are festooned with balloon creations designed to celebrate a birthday or graduation.  So who ever thought balloon companies would POP UP to be the success story of a pandemic?

Word of the month? MASK.  We are wearing them and politicians are arguing about UNMASKING certain important people.  And when I saw a recent re-run of The Lone Ranger, I noticed that his mask would not pass muster in this virus era.

Screaming for streaming.  I cannot imagine a household that lacks Netflix or Amazon Prime or some other so-called streaming service. My spouse and I watch an episode of some show every night and, at times, take a 30-day trial on a service we previously never heard of. This is a long way from my upbringing in Pennsylvania: my family’s Dumont TV set had one channel and we watched Kukla, Fran and Ollie constantly. (Oh, you never head of that? You must be under 70).   https://slate.com/culture/2015/02/kukla-fran-and-ollie-the-gentle-puppets-that-bewitched-america-in-the-1950s.html

Food store craze.  Those of us who (thankfully) have the resources to go to the store and buy provisions are stocking up.  The average family now owns about 50 boxes of pasta. Of course, it is not easy to get to the pasta section when you must abide by the one-way aisle mandate and thus pass by the candy shelves enroute to the spaghetti? We have so much dark chocolate…

Sidewalks.  Why are homeowners not fined for allowing their sidewalks to be in horrendous shape? I walk with my head turned down to avoid falling. This approach does not help when the sidewalk extends right into a major street.

Culinary Artist. Yes, I have become a baker of sorts in these trying times. (I mean I am trying). My specialty: peanut butter cookies.  Three ingredients:  a cup of peanut butter, a cup of granulated sugar and one egg.  10 minutes in oven.  Those cookies  are addictive---well, I eat the whole batch myself as I compliment myself for such good baking!

Hair Today, Gone Tomorrow.  Or at least the color that normally rests on one’s head. It is missing in action and replaced by gray strands that are exploding in the hair of people my age. Will I get to dye before I die?

Weight a minute. Eating all day is a way of life for homebound people. Missing my regular swimming and classes at the Y has translated to a pounding on my body. Emphasis on POUNDing.

Zoom fatigue. So many people spend their days in Zoom-like sessions and smile while  continually looking at an unshaved colleague/friend behind his computer in a basement? The trend should become the basis of a new song for the next Broadway presentation of OKLAHOMA: “I could have ZOOMED all night and still have asked for more.”  God forbid.

Recycling Day and this is what I observed in a walk around the neighborhood: Most people were recycling empty cases from a wine store delivery, or scores of liquor and beer bottles.  The liquor stores never had to close in New Jersey and that says a lot about the Garden State! Those passing our abode on Recycling Day may notice that we love red wine…and white wine.

Sad elements: The obits have taken up many pages in our daily newspapers.  And major chains are sold out of sympathy cards.  Never thought I would see that in my lifetime.  (And I thank God I still am in my lifetime).  

Coronavirus Part 8

By: John C. Lesher

The New York Times ran an edition recently in which the standard front page was replaced by the names of approximately 1,000 Americans who died from the Coronavirus. Names, ages and brief biographical notes were given. The deceased were listed in order by date of death, although the actual date and location of death for each decedent were not given. The data were culled from obituaries found in roughly 300 newspapers and other media sources published throughout the United States.

The method of listing was similar to the presentation of names on the Vietnam War Memorial in Washington, D.C., and, like a visitor to that Memorial, a reader is tempted to search the list to see if, sadly, some familiar name appears. I did the search and found no familiar name, but noticed something that caused me to take a much closer look at the thousand profiles.

The proportion of senior citizens listed was shocking. Throughout the lockdown associated with the pandemic we have heard that nursing homes were centers of severe infections and their senior residents were particularly vulnerable to the virus. The data in the Times indicate the brutal reality of that claim and possibly indicate that, if anything, its effect on seniors has been under-reported.  

I looked at each entry and recorded it by age group: under 30; 30-39; 40-49; 50-59; 60-69 and 70 and over. I cannot speak as a skilled statistician and assert with confidence that the thousand names presented (my count was 1,011) represent a truly random and statistically valid national sample of the victims of the virus. All I know is that the numbers published are as follows (age group followed by the number of deaths in that group out of the 1,011 deaths presented by the Times):

Under 30—11—one of these was a 5 year old; the next youngest was 22.

30-39—13

40-49—40

50-59—68

60-69—161

70 and over—718

Depending on how you identify a senior citizen, the percentage of senior deaths varies: 71% if only those 70 or over are considered, but the percentage rises to 87% if your definition starts at age 60. I am forced to repeat that I have no way of knowing if this thousand person sample is representative of mortality for the entire nation caused by the Coronavirus. That said, a thousand case sample is usually of sufficient size to give a clear indication of a valid trend line.

Assuming the validity of the sample, the data have a mix of good and bad news that we should study closely. I have said in prior blogs that I supported the decisions by elected officials in the 50 states to lock down our citizenry and, as a consequence, our economy. Simply put, our officials lacked concrete data and prior experience with a biological enemy and they decided to err on the side of caution. But now is now and we are beginning to see how this pathogen works its way through our society. We have an evolving “book” on this virus and should evaluate whether or not various impositions on social and business activities have been effective, or, much worse, have they been harmful—a cure worse than the disease. If the virus resurges in the fall or winter as some predict, will we apply the same prophylaxis? What have we learned?

The primary and glaring conclusion from the age-group breakout is that seniors need highly concentrated attention. It is a clear warning that anyone in a certain age group (your author is 76) is intensely vulnerable to the most damaging aspects of this virus. However, the 87% mortality number shown above for those over 60 couldn’t possibly have come solely from nursing homes and other residences of seniors.  I assume that the senior mortality shown came from nursing homes, Veterans hospitals and extended care facilities, but also included those seniors enjoying various independent living arrangements. I will leave it to experts to suggest methodologies by which we can protect all seniors, not just the institutionalized; suffice it to say that the Times’ data are a strong indicator that our aged populous needs a special and immediate focus from health providers.

What about other age groups?  For example, has closing our schools helped? We are intensely protective of our children, but the data raise the possibility that our youth are in far less danger than previously supposed. Several nations (e.g., Denmark) have re-opened schools with strictures such as social distancing in place. All persons under 30—not just children—represent only 1% of the mortality shown in the Times compilation. The 1% statistic drops to 1/10 of 1% when those 21 and under are considered.

Another query is whether we needed to shut down every business deemed “non-essential.”We’ll never know the answers until a survey of the entire mortality data set is subject to a rigorous statistical manipulation. That data set is available. We need our skilled mathematicians to review it and advise our elected officials as to the true risks to every segment of our population.

We must keep in mind that there are tolerances in life that we accept as necessary. The 35,000 killed annually in motor vehicle accidents, and the 2,000,000 injured, is a prime example. I believe if the full data analysis suggested by this blog is performed, we will be able to judge with a reasonable level of accuracy the risks of any particular activity to any segment of our population. We then can target our remedies onto specific areas of concern and avoid a repeat of the one-size-fits-all lockdown of an entire society. 

Coronavirus Part 7

By: John C. Lesher

It’s mid-May and most of the nation has been locked down for many weeks. It’s time we begin the assessment of what we did right or wrong in our response to the virus. It’s far too early to reach definitive conclusions, but, on the supposition that there could be a second round of this pandemic before we find an effective vaccine, we should start to evaluate the merits of what we’ve done to contain this disease. If it comes back, what prophylactic methods would serve us best: what should we keep as having been of proven effectiveness and what procedures can we discard safely because they were constraints that were of dubious value?

We now are aware of the collateral damage of a lockdown: economic chaos. Given that reality, what appears to have been necessary (and to have worked) and what was overkill?  It is easy for me to have a critical eye because I have the benefit of hindsight. Our elected officials had no unerring crystal balls at hand and they made hard choices based on the information and expert advice they were given. They chose--wisely-- to err on the side of caution. I understand and support that, but this is now and we have approximately three months experience with our lockdown. We need to get into military mode and make an objective “after action report.” 

A first look should be to question the one-size-fits-all approach to a national lockdown. Some states recorded a death rate from coronavirus not substantively different from that allegedly caused by the seasonal flu we take for granted; others--notably the New York/New Jersey metropolitan area--were devastated.  The necessity of equal lockdown treatment in these disparate cases should be evaluated objectively. A second matter to examine is the horrible toll experienced in residences for seniors, but this examination should not be confined to long-term care facilities like nursing homes.  As an example, newspaper headlines indicate that some VA hospitals, which have large numbers of senior patients, have had disturbing rates of both infection and death.

A recent article in the New York Times noted that a bit more than a third of all deaths attributed to the pandemic, occurred “at nursing homes and other long-term care facilities for older adults.” These facilities had only 11% of America’s recorded cases.  If you could play a statistical mind game and pretend that America’s senior residences and New York City and its suburbs didn’t exist, deaths from the pandemic would be reduced by well more than half. That fantasy obviously can’t be realized, but it does point to a possible approach if we have to go through another round of containment. Instead of universal rules imposed on all geographic areas, businesses and facilities equally, why not try a targeted approach? I am not the first to suggest this: tailor and adapt our remedies to our needs.  

Service curtailments, or even shutdowns, in the crowded trains, subways and buses of densely populated urban areas such as New York are fully warranted; so too are cancellations of massive sporting events. Senior residences need lockdowns to the extent legally permitted in order to protect the most vulnerable among us. These are the easily identified targets. However, do we need to close all table service at every restaurant in America, or shutter the thousands of other types of businesses that have a modest flow of in and out traffic during hours of operation? Should we have categorized all businesses, wherever located, by the criteria of “essential” or “non-essential?”

I believe the effort to categorize by the standard of “essential” vs. “non-essential” was valid, but incomplete. That binary choice was the easiest and fastest to make, but in addition to deciding what was and what was not “essential,” we should have looked at business and non-business activities in the context of the probability of contamination and spread of disease. That would include location, frequency of use and an assumed degree of human interaction. Airlines, subways, public beaches and large spectator events by that standard have high interaction and need restrictions on use, but you could argue that closing down a golf course or a public park had no effect on either the spread or the containment of coronavirus. The same is true of many business activities.

The standard just suggested, if applied to business in general, would have resulted in the development of rules of use that might have permitted many businesses to continue in operation, albeit with restrictions. Restaurants and fast food outlets could have remained open for table service with x customers permitted at any one time and with social distancing rules in effect. Millions of employees would have retained their earning capacity. Many states are now beginning a cautious reopening process with similar rules being enforced.

This pandemic will end only after development and widespread use of an effective vaccine. In the meantime, let’s take a detached and austere look at what we’ve done and attempt to measure the effectiveness of how we organized our fight against coronavirus. Maybe we’ll find that the total lockdown was fully warranted, maybe not, but failing to evaluate our actions will only guarantee another painful round of economic uncertainty if the virus visits us again.

Coronavirus Part 6

By: John C. Lesher

I’ve written about the virus itself in five prior blogs, but now it’s time to evaluate ancillary matters—very serious ancillary matters: who pays for all this and where does the money come from?

Economies are circular things that depend on a form of velocity—the velocity of money. I earn money and save some, but spend most of it on necessities and taxes. If I am lucky enough to have surplus income after those required expenditures, I use my disposable income on luxuries. I go to the movies, take a vacation, go out to dinner. At each step of this spend-the-income process, the money I distribute pays another person’s salary or pays for some good or service. The money representing those salaries and goods and services is, in turn, spent by the recipients and also taxed—the same dollar gets spent and taxed multiple times.

The more often and faster we Americans spend our dollars the faster money gets circulated and the Velocity of that money goes higher. More velocity means more jobs, but also more tax revenue to fund government. But what if some crazy, totally unanticipated happening throws a wrench into the smoothly running gears of our economic system? Something that stops monetary velocity cold?

Well, it happened. So now what? Washington has passed relief legislation totaling trillions of dollars for individuals and small businesses, but relatively little of that is directed at state government. Our federal constitution gives the federal government—and only the federal government—the right to print those Federal Reserve Notes we love to fold and put into our pockets. State and local governments are completely dependent on tax revenue generated from some combination of federal distributions, property taxes, fees, sales taxes and income taxes. The obvious problem is that when people lack employment, state and local economies sink rapidly.

State and local tax receipts have been eroded dramatically by the Coronavirus, but the typical government is reluctant to lay off the multitude of teachers, police officers, firefighters, judges, prison guards, etc., that provide services to civilians. States also contribute large sums for numerous other things we never see, but take for granted: Medicare/Medicaid payments, highway upkeep, health and pension contributions and aid to education are a few among many. State monetary reserves are eroding rapidly; significant curtailment of state aid to individuals and local communities and/or large scale layoffs of service personnel are disturbing possibilities. We can live with potholes, but police and fire protection are basics.

The money machine of Washington must turn its attention to the states. My suggestion is to go to the New York City playbook from the mid-1970’s. The City was effectively bankrupt and a rescue package was assembled by leading Wall Street investment bankers, led by Felix Rohatyn of Lazard Freres. Rohatyn’s creation was the Municipal Assistance Corporation (foreverafter, The MAC). It issued long-term bonds whose proceeds paid off the City’s short term debt, jawboned banks into lowered interest payments, required unions to accept wage freezes and benefit cuts, forced the City into fiscal prudence and successfully lobbied Washington for aid from the federal government of approximately 20% of the face value of the bonds issued. The City also ceded certain taxing authority to the State of New York and those “temporary” taxes remain in effect today.

A duplicate of the MAC program does not neatly fit into the needs of our states stemming from the Coronavirus. However, it gives a view from 30,000 feet of how an aid package could be implemented. Perhaps the federal government could set up a lending facility administered by the regional Federal Reserve banks that would lend money on very favorable terms to the states. Loan forgiveness over time would be part of the package, but only if a borrowing state adopted certain standards of fiscal restraint.

We have to get the country back to work and to our new normal, whatever that is. While doing so we must not lose sight of the fact that government and the services it provides through our tax dollars must be an equal partner in this recovery.

Coronavirus Part 5

By: John C. Lesher

I’ve been writing blogs on this pandemic for several weeks now, but this one is, to me, the most serious of all. We’ve been locked down for the better part of two months and the most obvious effect has been the startling rapidity of the collapse of America’s economy. The standard reason given for immuring more than 300 million citizens is the health and personal safety of those millions. Government’s primary obligation in a liberal democracy is the security of those it serves, and health is a vital part of that obligation. The fact that the US has had over 60,000 deaths from Covid 19 is testament to the need for dramatic action on the part of government, and my sympathy goes out to those who have suffered loss from this terrible disease.  

Now comes the “But.” At what point does the lockdown become more harmful than a re-opening of our way of life? I have no crystal ball to give an unerring date or roadmap in answer to that question. I only know that the concept of “health” has different perspectives from which it can be viewed.

Attempting to stop or slow the coronavirus is a major component of the current evaluation of the term “health,” but there are deleterious side effects that are inextricable from the lockdown. They consist of the negative physical, mental and economic pressures directly caused by the social distancing and business curtailment restrictions under which we now live.

At the moment, national news outlets are saying that 95% of dental care in America has been eliminated along with almost 100% of elective surgery. Local hospitals and emergency rooms are devoted to coronavirus cases and are very reluctant to use the time of their doctors and their beds and equipment for any but the most pressing admissions. The medical group to which my doctors belong has sent out e-mail messages stating that virtual office visits will commence this week, but seeing a doctor “live” is still verboten. In sum: the standards of care to which we have been accustomed are no longer there and no one can predict when they will return.

How long can we go before dental issues become more serious than mild toothaches, or elective procedures degrade to surgery being “medically indicated?” How many visits to doctors’ offices must be deferred before the lack of follow-up testing resulting from those missed visits permits the widespread continuation of undiscovered complications that would have been revealed under normal circumstances?

Mental and economic health are closely linked. The mental pressures on those millions who live on weekly paychecks with little cash in reserve are enormous. Thirty million new unemployment claims in the past four weeks says all that is needed to know. Governor Phil Murphy admitted on national television that he re-opened state and county parks out of concern for the mental health of New Jersey’s residents.

I believe it is time that we ask a difficult question: how long can these restrictions go on before the benefits produced by disease control measures are superseded by detrimental physical, mental and economic effects on the populous—when more people are adversely affected by lockdown than by coronavirus--when the cure is worse than the disease? Logically, there is a point at which the trend lines cross. Would we keep the nation in lockdown for six months after the last Covid 19 case was reported? That’s a rhetorical question and the obvious answer is “of course not.” That said, what benchmark will we employ to evaluate the need for continued lockdown or a release from confinement?  

Another way of phrasing this is: what levels of morbidity and mortality will we accept as the cost of re-opening America? We accept 35,000 road deaths per year and two million injuries because we consider cars and trucks to be integral to our lifestyles. We can’t realistically say that coronavirus will be wiped out in the coming few months, so, are we willing to make a similar qualitative/quantitative choice regarding Covid 19?

I don’t believe that the lockdown orders will morph into widespread civil unrest, but I do expect non-violent civil disobedience to grow because Americans want—very badly—to work. Let’s be clear-eyed about this. We are soon going to have to make a very hard evaluation: continued lockdown or a tentative and careful re-emergence of our economic structure, knowing full well that more deaths will ensue.

Septuagenarian In the Time of Virus

By: Tina Lesher

Who ever thought that septuagenarians would be prime material for front-page news?

And yet, courtesy of the Presidential contests and the coronavirus, we have made the grade.

Heck, when I was a little kid in Scranton, and attending the same school as Joe Biden, I did not even  know anyone who was as “old” as 70. My grandparents were all deceased; my paternal grandmother had passed away in 1906!   If I met a person in his 60s, I figured he was ready to head for life at Maloney Home, the nearby nursing facility operated by the Little Sisters of the Poor.

I left the area to get an education; then, armed with a graduate degree in journalism, I came back to my hometown and worked for The Scranton Tribune.  It still upsets me that the paper refused to let women toil as real reporters and relegated them (all two of us) to the society pages. (Frankly, I have written more wedding announcements that any living American). In the course of my work, I periodically dealt with publication of a photo of a couple celebrating their golden wedding anniversary. It would shock me, and I would remark to my editor: “How could anyone live long enough to be married for 50 years?”

Well, I now can look at my own wedding photo splashed on those 1970 social pages and think: Good God, my golden anniversary is this year!

Biden and Bernie Sanders have brought those in the 70s to the forefront of politics. (Should either win, he will be more than 80 at the end of the first term).   President Trump also is in his 70s, so we pretty much have guaranteed that we will be led by one of those people whom I once termed “old.”

These days, though, my life, and that of other septuagenarians, is filled with taking trips, playing golf, seeing shows, discussing books and politics, volunteering here and there, etc.  We are considered “the new 50.”  We are far from OLD.

Or so we thought.

Along came the coronavirus and we are being told that those of us from 70 up are at risk more than any other age group.  We should stay home.  We should remember to wash our hands. We should go to the supermarkets during “senior” hours.  We should stock up on toilet paper. We should avoid life. 

Yes, we are reluctantly doing that…life is at a standstill for my husband, John, and me. Our regular active daily routines have been upended!

No regular swimming and dance classes for me, and no daily workouts for John as our Y is closed. No use of the tickets we bought for Broadway.  No lunches and dinners at restaurants that we have frequented several times a week in our retired years.  No movies at the local cinemas.

Oh, we do hit the grocery store because it represents our only real outings in Westfield as our other stores are closed to foot traffic.  We are purchasing foods we may never touch unless we find a lot of recipes for pepperoncini peppers.  The “senior” shopping hours are historic so we do not want to miss out at shopping during those times even if we need little or nothing.

Oh, and how many times a day are we told in person or on the Internet to remember to engage in social distancing.  You think that is a new term in the lexicon of socializing? Heck, we did social distancing back in Scranton in the 60s when we wanted to avoid someone who might ask us to a prom.  

My brothers, both in their 70s, and our friends keep in touch but their lives are as boring “at home” as ours. Abiding by the coronavirus “rules” is like a walk in the park for us. (Well, that is because most of what we can do is take a walk in the park).  We would all rather be at the gym.

Am I scared silly by the coronavirus situation?  No, not really. As a news junkie, I keep up with the stats. Of course, the reports often focus on victims who are in their 70s, but I see a lot more of people that age pictured on the obit pages, and it was not the current virus that claimed their demise. But the idea of pundits with no medical background giving their opinions on television actually makes me shake my head in disbelief.

As for John, he already penned his two cents about the whole thing in a blog he writes.  (http://www.theleshers.com/blog-posts/2020/3/14/cxarr8hrkh1xnwf7dtrwn79x3dfzx5). Many Facebookers agreed with him.

These days, we are forced to listen to the voices of our offspring: Do you need anything? (No). Do you have enough food? (Yes).  Are you following the recommended guidelines? (Yes.)   

Our children know that we love to travel, and that we have visited about 40 countries. But now they are clamoring for us to cancel our golden anniversary trip in late summer: a transatlantic crossing and five weeks in Paris. Sorry, we are not budging until forced to do so.  

Let’s face it. We hate being labeled or treated as OLD. Save that designation for centenarians.  We septuagenarians just want to have fun, maybe even hanging out with others our age at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

(Tina Lesher of Westfield, N.J., is professor emerita of journalism at William Paterson University).

Coronavirus Part 4

By: John C. Lesher

This is my fourth blog since early March concerning the coronavirus plague. I don’t regard these missives as a journal, or chronology or a diary: just a series of thoughts based on day-to-day observations of fellow Americans coping with the economic and societal consequences of “social distancing.” A read of Defoe’s A Journal of the Plague Year would be a good start for all of us trying to understand the fully realized consequences of an all-out pandemic (in Defoe’s case, London in 1665). Thankfully, Defoe’s Journal is not America’s reality.

But, what is our reality? In addition to the illness tolls we read about every day, dramatic economic failures are the inescapable norm at the moment. As this is being written, over 26 million new unemployment claims have been filed; airline runways are, as usual, filled with planes, but these planes are parked, not awaiting takeoff; my wife and I had planned a 50th anniversary cruise followed by a 5 week rental in Paris—good luck with that; construction is less than half of what it was two months ago. Ok I’ll stop—you know the drill.

Two things are obviously needed to get us out of this horrible rut. The first is a safe, effective and widely utilized vaccine; the second is a restart of the stalled economy. I know far more about business than medicine, so I’ll stick to my knitting and present a few thoughts on economic matters.

Governors and health experts are filling the airwaves with constant references to the necessity of widespread testing as a first step to re-opening America for business. The cogent reason given is that we need a reliable statistical profile of this disease in order to evaluate when and where conditions are sufficiently safe to restart economic activity. I agree with that assessment. My only quibble is that I believe the required profile already exists, or at least is well underway to compilation, and I hope our statistical experts look at data hiding in plain sight.

A front page New York Times article on April 24th, is a starting point. The article is headlined “Coronavirus Death Rates: How the States Compare,” and jumps to charts on P. A11 that tell an intriguing tale. The charts measure death rates per 100,000 residents of each state. Some of the death rates are heartbreaking—New York at 79, New Jersey at 57, Connecticut at 43 and Massachusetts at 32 lead the nation, along with Louisiana, which matches Massachusetts at 32. In terms of human life, a state like New York, with 20 million residents, had 16,000 deaths at its rate of 79 deaths per 100,000; New Jersey with 8 million residents and a 57 rate per 100,000 has experienced 4,700 deaths.

The “BosWash” corridor from the nation’s capital to Boston has experienced in excess of half the cases and deaths from coronavirus in the United States. Approximately one or two percent of our land mass has experienced more than 50% of the morbidity and mortality of this pandemic. This is presumably in large measure because BosWash is America’s most densely populated area, centering on New York City. Whatever the reason for this concentration of coronavirus infection in the Northeast, the fact is that its distribution throughout the 50 states is very uneven.

A further look at the charts published by the Times tells a more hopeful story. Particularly notable is the experience of 13 of our states. Seven of them (Alaska, Arkansas, Hawaii, Montana, South Dakota, Utah and Wyoming) have experienced one death per 100,000 residents. This translates in Montana, with one million residents, to only 10 deaths from coronavirus. It is notable that the governors of Arkansas, Utah and Wyoming have not issued stay-at-home orders, although they have strongly encouraged social distancing, closed schools and banned mass gatherings. An additional six states (Nebraska, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, Texas and West Virginia) have slightly higher death rates at two per 100,000 residents. Nebraska and North Dakota do not have stay-at-home orders, but also have restricted gatherings, closed schools, etc.

Eight of the states where low death totals per capita are concentrated are low-population jurisdictions, but Hawaii, North Carolina and Texas don’t fit that mold. Hawaii’s head count is 1.45 million, but 2/3 of that number is on one island, Oahu, which has a density of 1,600 residents per square mile. That density is exceeded only by America’s largest metropolitan areas; North Carolina’s population is nearly 11 million (ninth most residents in the nation) and Texas is our second most populated state with 25-30 million.

I’ll leave it to social scientists and medical professionals to devise theories explaining why these 13 states have suffered such limited harm from the coronavirus. I’ll look only at the death rate and pose a challenging question. Should these 13 states resume business activity, at least on a tentative and carefully controlled basis?  Is a bakery in Missoula a danger to society? A Burger King in Wheeling a public menace? At some point in the near future we will have to assume the risk of resumed business activity and social interaction. Why not start—cautiously!!- in states with very limited adverse effects from the corona virus?

The BosWash corridor obviously needs close monitoring that will continue until those areas have infection and death rates greatly reduced from present statistics. However, a national one-size-fits-all lockdown approach to control the spread of this virus might be an unwarranted cure worse than the disease.  Equating New York City and Wyoming is, frankly, illogical. Let’s take prudent and carefully monitored steps to re-open America, and start with those 13 states.

Coronavirus Part 2

By: John C. Lesher

Two and a half weeks ago I wrote a blog in which I speculated that coronavirus-19 had infected thousands in the NY metropolitan area weeks, or even months, before it was correctly identified. I suggested that those who “had the flu” this past winter volunteer to be tested for coronavirus antibodies. The antibodies, if I am right, will be found and could be used to develop a vaccine. I also expressed my belief that the medical, economic and social pressures we are experiencing will only disappear when some reputable research facility announces the development of a vaccine that can be produced quickly and in volume.

Last week two newspaper articles I read noted that hospitals in the US were requesting recovered coronavirus patients to give their blood so that their plasma could be used as a treatment for the seriously infected. That fact leads me to expanded thinking on the topic of a vaccine.

As I understand it, the virus known as “19” (because it was discovered last year) is one of a family of viruses that evolve and mutate regularly and with astonishing speed. If so, then 19 might be the first wave of a potential series of viral pandemics. I am not a Chicken Little warning you that the sky is falling after being struck by an acorn from above, nor do I wish to be a Cassandra, accurate in prophecy, but dismissed as a raving crank. I regard myself as pragmatic and believe we must take a cold and clinical view of what this pandemic teaches us.

Our only true defense is one that is active: that means a vaccine. Everything else is reactive and catch-up. If this virus returns next winter, and we do not have a vaccine in place, our experience this season means we will have the needed ventilators and masks in abundance, as well as a population that has some degree of resistance.  This will mitigate our needs, but is no substitute for an effective vaccination program. But what if coronavirus-19 doesn’t return as-is and takes a mutated form? Let’s call it coronavirus-20. What then? Will any vaccine currently being developed as a defense against 19 be a protection against 20?

The Congress has just voted a 2.2 trillion dollar financial package to assist the millions who are adversely affected by the mandated shutdowns of our economy. All well and good—I fully support this emergency response by government. However, one element of that package needs a major re-thinking. It doesn’t go anywhere close to funding the long-term anti-disease needs of America. I stress the words “long-term.” This assault by pathogens isn’t going away.

I fear we are in a new age where the power of military weapons is dwarfed by the mega-trillions of life forms called viruses that we can’t see, feel or communicate with. Excuse the cliché, but we need a new Manhattan project to research and develop defenses against these invisible enemies. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention must be expanded massively, with co-operative ventures entered into between the federal government and the highly regarded, already staffed and equipped university hospitals and research labs that are common in the United States. This domestic co-operation also could be international—perhaps a NATO-type alliance for peaceful research into these diseases. The obvious Holy Grail would be a family of vaccines effective against whatever Mother Nature chooses to throw at us in coming years. Talk is cheap and time is short—let’s get going!

Coronavirus Part 3

By: John C. Lesher

Remember the scene in JAWS when the mayor of Amityville ordered Chief Brody to remove his BEACH CLOSED signs and then told everyone it was safe to go back in the water?  The end or reduction of corona 19’s mandated social distancing and the random attacks of a rogue killer shark aren’t quite the same, but the lingering doubts about personal safety are real in either case.

I have written in previous blogs that our trepidation concerning renewed close personal contacts won’t go away fully until we see a safe, effective and internationally utilized vaccine. We’ll slowly return to “normal,” but 12 months or more for development, testing, manufacture  and distribution of a vaccine is what we hear from experts—let’s hope the “or more” part doesn’t materialize.

As normalcy returns, what will our lives be like outside the burrows we have inhabited for many weeks? I’ll assume that a reasonable supply/demand balance for toilet paper, paper towels and hand sanitizers eventually will materialize, but will you be eager to host Thanksgiving dinner this year? How will you greet and say good-bye to friends and family? Lots of hugs and kisses? Maybe not. Will you continue to work frequently from home or hop on the bus/train/subway and resume your daily commute?

A host of other such questions is unanswerable at the moment. Will my wife and I resume our pre-virus routine of dining out frequently? Movies followed by the really great Chinese place around the corner from the theatre? Broadway shows? Sporting events? One risk most of us will take is a visit to a hairdresser or barber. I say “most” in deference to my reality of being bald on top, although I’m beginning to look like Disney’s shaggy dog around my ears and neck. These matters all boil down to an inter-relationship between how willing we are to resume social contacts and--think about it-- how much money we wish to spend during that process.

I’ve made light of some things, but stark reality tells us that we are a nation with significant disposable income and our economy depends on a collective America getting off the couch and spending that surplus money on entertainment or simple pleasures. The fact that 22 million Americans filed for unemployment benefits in the few weeks since governors ordered restaurants and other places of congregation closed is testimony to the extent America’s economy is based on our non-essential spending habits. It’s a vicious downward spiral: by staying at home and not spending money, millions lose jobs because tips disappear and employers lack the cash flow to pay salaries; the millions who lose jobs obviously have far less money to spend and this exacerbation causes further job losses. That is why it is so vital that Federal and State governments send out assistance checks ASAP so that basic necessities can be purchased, money can circulate and, hopefully, job creation can resume.

As the days, weeks and months go by, this crisis will ease and individual choice will decide the extent to which we are willing to interact with our fellow humans. I respect that. However, a hunker-down mentality has to be replaced by one where we recognize the mutual interdependence of our health and personal safety and the economic health of society. Stated simply, we need to get out of the house and slowly, but surely, restock ourselves with what social scientists reference as “social capital.”

Social capital is a catch-all term for the myriad inter-relationships with others we engage in every day. It is the polar opposite of sitting at home in isolation. We need to rebuild social capital:  buy a book and restart your book club discussions; reconvene your PTA and its fundraisers; go to the gym; patronize a restaurant; meet a friend for coffee; visit museums and houses of worship; start purchasing small luxuries again, even if they are purchased from an internet catalogue and delivered to your home.

Getting over this pandemic will be similar to a recovery from orthopedic surgery. Not doing the recommended exercises retards the pace of healing and downgrades the quality of the procedure. Putting up with the therapist’s demands speeds you to a more rapid recovery with superior results. In this case, “corona therapy” calls for rebuilding social capital by overcoming the fear of a resumption of interaction with others, coupled with the willingness to resume prior spending habits. The fear of renewed contact, and the resumption of a lifestyle, is visceral, but we have to make this choice at some point in the relatively near future.  As for me, I’m looking forward to my local movie theatre followed by lo mein at that great Chinese restaurant.