54 minutes | Nov 22nd 2020

Asserting myself to broaden perspectives and reduce the psychological distance of the pandemic risks.

Vital COVID-19 Information

Johns Hopkins: Coronavirus Resource Center

Bloomberg: Covid Resilience Rankings

CDC: Travel during the COVID-19 Pandemic

NYTimes: Are Covid-19 Vaccines Really 95% Effective?

STAT: ‘People are going to die’: Hospitals in half the states are facing a massive staffing shortage as Covid-19 surges

Practice Session #39

Welcome to my show notes for this week’s session of Practice!

We record these sessions every Sunday. I try to publish the audio on the same day of recording, but once in a while, I may get delayed due to various reasons.

Also, I will usually have the AI-generated transcript and my initial notes published on the same day of recording as well. On Fridays, I’ll (try to) go back through and proof the transcript while I add all of my notes.

I’ll be utilizing this opportunity to clarify and elaborate on points that I may not have conveyed as well as I would’ve liked to. I’ll also provide links to further information and resources.

So, on Friday, I’ll intersperse all my notes with the transcription from the audio below (unless I don’t ).



CK: Alrighty. Ready? Here we go.
Heyo! I’m CK, and you’re listening to Practice. I’m your functional systems integrator, and this is my podcast where practice is not just the theme of the show, but the whole purpose behind it. What started out as a practice of podcasting, as well as speaking in general, has evolved into a practice of self-coaching and self-reflection while espousing half-thoughts and providing unsolicited advice.

As always, I’m fortunate to be joined by my Practice partner and partner in life: Pam.

Pam: Hey, that’s me.

CK: Pam is also my pattern awareness manager, and every Sunday we reflect on the past week and my progress with this practice, along with other lifestyle practices, as well as theories and ideas behind the virtues of practice itself.

We’re doing this on the fly, so don’t hold me responsible for what I say here. Make sure to check out my show notes where I’ll provide some fact-checking, self-psychoanalysis and commentary on things I could have done better. You may find this and more information about this project at ForcesOfEqual.com/Practice.

Catch up with the Anomaly and the Linchpin.


CK: We’re recording today on Sunday, November 22nd, 2020. It’s 11-22… one-one-two-to 2020, lots of Dublin going on today today, we are recording practice session number 39.

Pam: Yeah. I was hoping for a doubling there.

CK: Oh, yeah. Aw, that stinks.

Pam: You blew it.

CK: Yeah. Oh, well. So let’s see. What can we talk about today? Should- ah, let’s go ahead and recite the quote for the day. The quote… I think I’m still saying “coat.”

Today’s quote comes from stoic philosopher. Seneca. I’ve quoted Seneca many times before. Here’s the quote:

But life is very short and anxious for those who forget the past, neglect the present, and fear the future.

Short and sweet, but it’s pretty loaded. There’s a lot. I mean, it’s pretty simple, but at the same time, it says a lot, which is what I like about it. And I enjoy the time dimension of it – of course, there’s the past present future. And I’m- I’ve been thinking a lot about the past present and future in how our minds function.

And of course we talk about mindfulness a lot, and how that has to do with being present in the moment. And so I think I may be able to weave this in with, uh, the topics that I’m going to go over today.

I’m not sure. Felt a little nervous and anxious while I was saying that. Uh, my mind’s in a lot of places. There’s I have a lot of thoughts going on, but kind of continuing on from stuff that we’ve talked about in weeks prior. And we’ll see what we can do.

So let’s see. Before we get into things, how was your week, Pam?

Pam: Um, it was good. I finished the third of my classes in my astrology university degree program. So pretty excited about that. Um, did not get a hundred percent on my final. There was one trick question, so I got one wrong. But I’m trying to let that go.

Um, and I started taking an NLP class, which – uh, neuro-linguistic programming, I think is what that stands for.

Um, so it is, um, sort of, uh, uh, coaching and behavioral modification practice. And it came up when you read that quote, because one of the. Um, like tenets of NLP is basically that you take the person or yourself as you are now without considering the past, which can be a little bit sticky because obviously we are who we are now because of the past. But in your quote, you said, um, that, what was it? Life is short and anxious,

CK: Yep. “…for those who forget the past, neglect the present and fear the future”

Pam: Right. So, um, forgetting the past is what brought up the idea of that tenet for NLP, because, um, they talk about how cognitive behavioral therapy really digs into what happened in the past. Whereas NLP is just like, this is where you are now, how do we change your patterns to move forward?

And you don’t really get into where your patterns came from so much as you just work on changing them. So I thought that was an interesting kind of juxtaposition to that quote.

CK: Yeah, that is interesting. And that kind of goes against a lot of the thoughts I’ve been having around this kind of stuff.

I’m definitely interested in the NLP and I’ll probably take that course or look into it or take pieces from it or something. But yeah, that’s very interesting, and now my mind is going in a lot of crazy directions.

Pam: Yeah, I get that.

CK: So, yeah…

So we’ll see what I can do w ith that.

Pam: Yeah, and I may be totally butchering it because I just started the class. So there may be other pieces that I’m leaving out. But- but yeah, it really does seem like they just say, this is who you are now. Let’s figure out how to get you from current state to desired state. That’s the entire goal with NLP is current state desired state and how you get from a to B.

So you don’t spend a lot of time digging into how you got to the current state.

CK: Yeah. I mean, I think I can see the benefit of that. But, yeah, I’ll have to think about that somewhere. So, yeah, I don’t even remember my week. Really. I think it went pretty well. I’ve been in a pretty good flow lately and getting into a routine and I’ve gotten back to website work. So that’s been fun. I haven’t been doing too much of that since I started.

Doing other stuff around the music and the sound and working on the nut, bad advice trailer and all that stuff. So on that note, the not bad advice trailer has been published and it’s available in Apple podcasts and Spotify. And I’m not sure if it popped up anywhere else yet. I think I saw it in Google podcasts or whatever their podcasting is.

And so you can check that out, go look for search for not bad advice. And if that search doesn’t work, try forces of equal. I don’t know. These podcasts search engines are finicky. It seems like. So, yeah, that’s available and check it out. That’s what I’ve been working on.

Pam: Please subscribe. You will get some not bad advice that will help you improve your life.

CK: Yep. There you go. And we’ll be releasing the first episode in about two weeks. So yeah. That to look forward to. And so yeah, things have been going well on the website. It’s uh, I, you know, it’s nice to go back to something that I know how to do and I’m comfortable with doing so. Not as much troubleshooting, although with live stuff, there’s always troubleshooting as well, but that’s.

Expected, and I, I know to expect that. So, yeah, it’s been fun. It’s been a good week and I think, well, I’ve been pretty anxious, I guess, ever since last week and well, I mean, just the whole pandemic. Um, I don’t know if this will come through to listeners, but our neighbors revving his motorcycle or something.

Stupid should be able to clean that up. But anyway, I’m still really anxious about what’s going to happen with the pandemic during this week with Thanksgiving, especially with the us leading the world in infections and deaths, which is not such a great thing to be winning yet. And now Thanksgiving being an American holiday and an American concept, that’s just going to, it’ll really show what’s going to happen when people get together, because we’ll be able to compare with other countries that don’t have this kind of concept.

Pam: I saw that a million people flew on Friday. Yeah. Which is about a third of the usual. That fly that day. So that’s that’s bad. Yeah. And so they were just packed in airports and airplanes, traveling all over the country and I’ve been tracking what happened after the Sturgis motorcycle rally. Cause they’re doing as much contract contact tracing with that as possible.

And that was about a hun, a couple of hundred thousand people that got together over the course of four or five days. And that was bad. So. What happens after this weekend, it’s going to be catastrophic. I think for after this week.

CK: Yeah, it’s scary. It’s very scary. And I, yeah, I don’t know how to relate how. Scary. This is like, I, you know, I keep trying to emphasize the risk of a whole bunch of people getting together, like the whole country getting together for Thanksgiving. I mean, not the whole country getting together, but people getting together throughout the whole country and yeah.

So. I’m coming from the perspective. So my perspective comes from reading and researching and studying sources like Johns Hopkins and Gid J idea from London and do university sources and, you know, So science really, and I, I don’t really pay attention much to mainstream news. So I get a lot of news and numbers.

Like Pam’s telling me through Pam and as scared as anxious as I am from the research, the scientific research that I do. I like, I don’t want to sound like I’m a scientist, but like, these are the sources that I look at and then hearing like these numbers that parents telling me, like, I cannot believe it’s gotten to this point.

And you know, like I mentioned before, it has a lot to do with human behavior. And just mindfulness and how we’ve gotten caught into this cycle of, you know, having other people in other corporations, telling us this information and just taking that information. And I don’t even know if the mainstream media is even.

Exemplifying the seriousness of all this stuff. Like

Pam: don’t feel like they are because they don’t want to alienate half of their listeners,

CK: Yeah, yeah,

Pam: got to make, they’ve got to make money, but I,

CK: see that.

Pam: I think that we have a misguided sense of, um, like what our personal freedoms are.

CK: Oh

Pam: That is driving this cause there was a protest in Huntington beach last night, we live near Huntington beach and there’s a strong, um, right-wing faction there.

And there was a protest last night against Newsome’s governor Newsome’s, um, curfew, which in California just says you have to stay home from 10:00 PM to 5:00 AM, which is like when most people should be sleeping anyway. And they’re protesting that is as against their personal freedoms. So, like, I don’t know how we’re ever going to get out of this.

CK: I mean, I understand that you’re losing some freedoms and liberties, but it’s such a short, sighted and narrow minded perspective because

that the reason that this kind of stuff has to be stipulated by governments. Is because people can’t think passive past their own little personal thoughts or, you know, personal feelings or personal, what’s the word entitlements

Pam: Hm.

CK: and realize that we like the government, like someone. In charge or some authority has to put in these regulations because people basically are too stupid to think of the bigger picture.

Like we talk about complex systems and these systems are dynamic and a change all the time. So a lot of the things that I see. Are very static viewpoints and singular viewpoints. So like someone might rail against one thing like the curfew or something like that and not, you know, consider all these other things going on in the whole system.

You know, like people are dying, people are getting sick, we don’t even know. All of the effects of this virus and we don’t know the long-term effects. Okay. We don’t like, I like. I, the things that I’ve been seeing in mainstream media, whenever, uh, it pops up in my vision, you know, I might happen to be doing something else on Facebook or researching something on Twitter or whatnot.

And I’ll see like the big headlines and lately it’s been around the vaccines like Pfizer and Medina, I believe. And Russia has this, uh, Sputnik. I think they’re calling it. And the, it sounds like they’re making great progress in there over like 90, 94, 95% efficacy, which is awesome. But I don’t know if people are considering or realizing, or even have any idea that the vaccine.

Development process usually takes like 10 or 20 years, like one or two decades. And we’ve gotten around to developing this vaccine in less than a year, which is monumental. That’s crazy. And it’s awesome. And it’s, it’s, it’s really amazing that our scientists have been able to do that. But the thing is.

Doing something that fast, you know, like let’s say five to 10% of the time. It usually takes, you know, like what happens when you do something really fast? It usually takes a long time. Right?

Pam: out very well.

CK: Right. So, I mean, I’m not saying that that’s, what’s going to happen with this vaccine, but we’re still uncertain.

And these trials that they basically, it usually goes through like three phases and they basically had to combine some phases. And so, you know, the trials aren’t as thorough as they usually are. So these efficacy numbers are high, but we still don’t really even know the effectiveness because efficacy doesn’t equal effectiveness.

And what I’m hearing is that a year from now we’ll have maybe one to 2 billion, we’ll have treatments for about one to 2 billion people. That’s what the projection is. The world population is something like 8 billion. So even a year from now, we may be able to treat a quarter of the world’s population. And if you think about that, who’s going to get those treatments,

Pam: Who do you think?

CK: right? So there’s going to be some kind of fight for people getting the treatments and. Obviously we want to give treatments to more susceptible or what’s the word more the

Pam: Like the immunocompromised people

CK: right, right. And so, yeah, and that’s a year from now. And so. Yeah, it’s just stuff like that. Like I, people don’t, to me, it feels like people don’t feel the immediacy or the severity or the, like the actual level of risks that’s going on because there it’s like the whole, all these concepts are psychologically distant from them.

You know, if you’re not affected personally, You’re still tending toward a more normalized reality where normalize, meaning, you know, before the pandemic, you know, you’re still kind of trending toward that kind of normalcy. Because, you know, if you’re not seeing it and if you’re not in it and if you’re not relating to it, then it’s easy to fall back to normal habits or, you know, uh, revert.

What’s the redress, uh, economic turns. I I’m fumbling here, but the whole point is that. This is really serious. And if you actually look into the data, look into the science, it’s very scary and we need to be more serious about it. Um, maybe something that I could try to articulate here is the epidemiology of this virus.

And this is something that I tried to articulate. Back when the pandemic started. Remember we did a thought experiment with the Lily pads in the

Pam: Oh, yeah, we failed that.

CK: Yeah. But, uh, I’ll try again here. So we were talking about the are not, are not number of the R sub zero, which is the basic reproduction number of the, the basic reproduction rate of the infection.

Pam: Can you simplify that? So like, it’s the number that if one person has the virus, they give it to this many people.

CK: Right. Right. And the are not is if everybody is susceptible to the virus, so there’s no immunity yet. So this, you know, this number is calculated at the beginning of the pandemic. And then as we get more data and we can. Get more accurate calculations of the spread of infection. They use a different value called R sub E and I’ve also seen it at our sub T, which I’m not sure what that stands for, but the sub the E in our sub E stands for effective reproduction rate. And that’s a more accurate representation of the reproduction rate. Uh, at that point in time. So, you know, as the pandemic goes on and we’re taking some measures or not in, we are developing some treatments or not, or people are becoming immune to it or not through, you know, um, getting the virus and then overcoming it and whatnot.

The R sub E number will fluctuate. So, you know, if we’re not taking precautions and not masking up and the virus is spreading more rampantly, the R sub E number will rise. But if we’re taking precautions and flattening the curve, the R Subi will lower go down. Yeah. And so. If you remember. Well, I don’t know.


Pam: I heard it.

CK: So the thing with the AR number is that if it goes past the one, that means the rate will increase exponentially. So versus if it is one or lower. It won’t spread as fast. So for example, if it’s one, then one person will only pass it to one other person and that one other person can only spread it to one other person.

So it’s much more manageable that way, but once it starts going up past one, even 1.1, that means one person will spread it to 1.1 people which doesn’t sound like a lot. But let’s take two, as an example, actually, at the beginning of the pandemic, the, our not number that was predicted and calculated was, uh, between two and three, depending on the science that you’re looking at.

So let’s say it’s our of two, which means our sub two, which are, are not of two, which means that. One person can pass it to two people, basically meaning that the rates doubling. So one person passes it to two people and those two people can pass it to four people and the four people pass it to eight people.

And so you can see how it easily gains exponentially and logarithmically. And so I was trying to. Except the exemplify this using the Louie pond in a pond example. And I was playing around with this in my head. And hopefully I can recite this, uh, accurately because as I was doing this, I even, I couldn’t believe like the, the, this concept.

So what I’m trying to articulate here is how fast this. Virus can spread. And so if we use the example of our, so our sub E being two, and just a quick side note here in New York, when it was going crazy and the, uh, infect infections were spreading like wildfire, they hadn’t our Subi of five or something around five.

Yeah. So that’s just to exemplify how. Crazy. This can get, so, uh, what I’m seeing now, I think something like 30 or so States are, are between one and 1.5 or something

Pam: there’s only a couple that are below one.

CK: Yeah. So that’s, that’s already been, and this is before Thanksgiving and all these people are going to get together. And so the, the exponentiality is already starting.

And so let’s, for example, say that our, our study is to, so it’s spreading twice, you know, twice as fast or two times. Um, so one person can spread to two people

Pam: yeah.

CK: and so. Using the Louie pods, Lily pads. And upon example, the thought exercise is to determine if the loop, if the pond is full a hundred percent full, let’s say in a hundred days, it’s a hundred percent full.

How long does it take to get half full. So if, you know, if the Louie pads multiply by two, and if it doubles every day and it’s full in a hundred days, how long would it take to have been half full 99 days? Because the next day it’d be, if you double it the next day, it’d be 100. Does that make sense? Am I articulating this right?

Pam: Um, can you just say the answer again? Like it, it would take 99.

CK: So if it takes a hundred days, okay. So if, so we have a pond and Louie, Louie pads grow in this pond. So the pond starts empty and although we’ve had starts growing and. Did the Louis pads double every day.

Pam: Okay.

CK: And it will take a hundred days for the pond to fill. And let’s say it takes a hundred Louie pads to fill the pond. How many days would it have taken for the pond to be helpful?

Pam: and that’s the 99.

CK: Right.

Pam: So

CK: So, so we’re, we’re kind of working backwards here in this thought exercise, so well, so we’ll go ahead.

Pam: So it takes 99 days to get to that like half full threshold. And then one day, boom, overnight it’s full.

CK: Right. So, yeah. Right. So working backwards from that. It would take 98 days for it to be a quarter full. So 25 Lily pads in the pond on the 98th day on the 97th day would be half of that. So 12.5 on the 97th day. And then on a 96 day, it would be like 6.2, five 95th day. It’d be 3.12, five 94th day. It’d be like 1.5.

65. And then on an 93rd day, it’d be below one. So starting from day zero to day 93, between day 93 and 94, you get one movie pen in the pond. So it takes 93 to 94 days for one Lily pad to form. And then as it keeps doubling. Just six or seven days later, it reaches a hundred percent full with a hundred Louie pads.

Pam: Okay. So we’re not starting with one, we’re starting with zero and it takes 93 days or whatever to get to one. And then it becomes explosive. Okay.

CK: So taking that example, let’s say, let’s say it takes a thousand Lily pads to fill the pond in a hundred days. So then on the 99th day, there’d be 500 Lily pads and then working on down. So let’s see, 93 I said is when we get to one in the a hundred example. So then with 1,093, it would be at 10 and then 92 would be at five and then 91 would be at two and a half.

And then. 90 would be around one in the quarter. So around 90 days it would take to have one Louie pad up here, one full that we Pedro. And then by 10 days later, there’ll be a thousand. So that’s how. Crazy. I mean, that’s just, I hope that kind of exemplifies this exponential growth. And before considering now that the R sub E is just over one, we may be at that point, you know, we’re already seeing increases in.

The rates of infection and the death rates. Well, actually, I mean, the death rates are kind of decreasing in comparison to the rates of infection, because we’re getting more knowledge about what to do with the hospitalized and better medications and, you know, better information around that stuff. But the rate of infection is increasing and,

Pam: And once our hospitals get full, we won’t have that positive change to the death rate.

CK: Exactly. Exactly. So that’s one of the other things that I was getting too. And they were saying, you know, once the RCB gets over some point between one and 1.5, that the hospitals will be full and we won’t be able to manage hospitalizations and, you know, it’ll just go crazy. And so we’re at that point now.

We’re hearing about hospitals being falling and people having to travel to different hospitals and all that stuff. And that’s before Thanksgiving weekend and these numbers are lagging indicators. So, you know, we’re not getting this data in real time, this a data from a few days ago or a week ago or a week or two ago.

So it’s. One probably worse than we know it is now. And two, if that our Sabine number rises anymore, we are pretty screwed like the numbers. So in my example, of a hundred days, um, with the Lily pad in the pond example, you know, we’re still in. The days before we hit like 90. So we haven’t hit that exploding, exponential growth yet. And once that happens, you know, from, you know, from the example with a thousand, when we pads on a hundred day, starting with, you know, it, one forming on day 90 in, it took 10 days. For it to reproduce a thousand times. And so, yeah, I don’t know. I hope this helps kind of illustrate the severity of the exponential growth in the potential of how this is going to spread.

Pam: I have a different visual that might help that came. So if anyone has ever done, um, their ancestry, like on ancestry.com or any of those sites, you get this like family tree that starts, and it’s the smallest at the top. Because those are, you know, your, your ancient, ancient ancestors. And then they had five kids.

And then each of those five kids had like three kids and then each of those had two. Then we get to this point where we’re here now. And you know, everybody’s having, you know, one or none, but you can see the families that had more kids get bigger, right. And very quickly, and your tree starts really small and then it gets huge at the bottom and you can’t even keep it on the screen.

And that’s that reproduction number. Literally it’s children. It’s your reproduction number, but it’s the same with viruses. So if you picture that in your head, what that looks like, and if you imagine that each of those children down the line is someone getting infected, you can see very quickly how that virus spreads and how big that number can get.

CK: yeah. Great visual. And thank you for that. The other crazy thing is that the, I don’t know. If people understand the whole super spreaders concept because, you know, it’s, it sounds like a crazy word, but I feel like people think that, you know, some people just shed more of the virus or something like that.

So are, do you know what the super spreader, um,

Pam: I’ve heard of super spreader events and things like that. But, um, I guess I hadn’t considered an individual being a super spreader.

CK: Okay. W uh, they’re not necessarily, it doesn’t have to do with the individual. It has to do more with like the circumstance and. You know, it, the whole, the whole thing about this pandemic and the virus is that it’s so invisible and a lot of people are asymptomatic. And so, you know, they may be more lax with the guidelines and the precautions and the preventative measures and all that stuff.

And because of that, You could be out somewhere or interacting somewhere and unknowingly spread the virus and what they found with what they’ve calculated with COVID is that about 10 to 20 people or 10 to 20% of people are responsible for 80% of the spread and yeah, and that’s not. Necessarily 10 to 20% of certain people or certain types of people or people that behave a certain way.

It has more to do with the uncertainty or invisibility of this virus because people don’t know that they’re spreading it, but the unknowing spread is happening only with 10 to 20% of people. And so, yeah. And you can’t really know if you’re a part of that group, unless obviously you’re just not taking any precautions and just going out everywhere and doing your thing in spreading the virus.

But that whole, the whole thing is like, it only takes 10 to 20% for 80% spread. You know, unless you’re testing before you interact or something like that, you

Pam: that you could have, you could be asymptomatic and have been exposed two days ago

CK: right. And that’s not even a hundred percent certain, so yeah, the thing, I think one of the big things is that the probability of spreading the virus. Two people personally may seem low, but it’s just very risky in terms of public health and the complex system in epidemiology. Like, you know, thinking about it, percentage wise, the percentage of, you know, Getting the virus seems low and it seems like, you know, you’re unlikely to get in and you’re therefore you’re unlikely to spread it.

But the thing is you don’t know, and that’s the big thing. So you have to remove as much risk as possible. And obviously the best way to do that is to self quarantine. But also, you know, there’s a lot of other things that go into life and there’s other things that you have to do. So you still want to remove as much risk as possible.

So follow guidelines and mask up and test if you can, and self quarantine, when you can, you know, pre and post interaction and. No, you have to do all these things to reduce the probability of spreading the virus. And you can look at things what I’ve been liking to do. What I’ve been, what I’ve liked to do lately is look at things from just basic, a basic economic standpoint, because there’s so much kind of being thrown at us and all these different.

Concepts in guidelines that we have to consider and, you know, different people telling us different things. But if we look at things from a basic economic standpoint and economics, meaning, you know, a lot of people relate economics to money, but it has it functionally or fundamentally has to do with behavior.

And how you spend something in. In return for something else.

Pam: that’s just about resource management or resource usage. Doesn’t have to be money.

CK: Exactly. So a simple principle is the cost benefit principle, and you can do a cost benefit analysis on your decision-making. And it’s almost kind of like a pros and cons list, but you know, is the cost is the benefit. Of what you’re going to do worth the cost. So, you know, is it worth the cost of potentially infecting someone and them dying?

Is that worth the benefit of getting together, you know, with your family or going out or, you know, whatever you want to do. And, you know, it might be, you know, you may calculate it to be beneficial. Um, you know, the cost of like quarantining and testing and following all the guidelines, maybe worth the benefit of you getting together, you know, taking all those.

Measures to lower the risk as much as possible might be a cost. That’s worth it for you to go and interact and socialize or whatever. But, you know, there’s, there’s still some risk there. So you kind of have to measure that. And you know, I’m not saying that people need to let themselves down in self quarantine.

I mean, I I’m saying they should, and that’s the best case scenario and that’s the best way to. Prevent the spread, but I also understand, you know, there’s other things going on and there’s mental health and, you know, it’s socialization is a huge part of health and mental health. So there’s all these things we have to consider.

So if you are going to get together with family and whatnot, reduce the risk as much as possible, you know, lower that cost as much as possible. So that. The benefit is worth it. I mean, still, I don’t know if it’s worth it to get someone infected and then dying. So, you know, you got to think about that, but yeah.

Pam: me is that the million people that flew, did that and still came to the decision. That it was worth it

CK: I don’t know if they did that though,

Pam: subconsciously I think, you know, you, you think about it. Like they may not sit down and, you know, make a pros and cons chart. But I think that everyone is doing this mental calculation and at some level they thought about it and they still decided, yep.

An airport is a good idea.

CK: Yeah. Uh, yeah, I mean, That’s probably true in most respects, but I also think that they’re not really, they don’t have like the perspective of the actual severity of what could happen. And like I was saying before, they’re psychologically distant from this, you know, they’re not seeing it happened, you know, close to them and you know, it’s hard and therefore it’s harder to believe what’s going on in the news or all around the world.

And, you know, the mainstream media, it gets, people hung up on single issues where there’s this whole dynamic complex system going on and all these different issues. And yeah, I mean, like we. Like we don’t even know the long-term effects of this virus. Like I’m seeing science, like, so, um, we’re going along here.

So I apologize for that, but I just, I gotta get this out of my, out of my mind or I just, I got to speak my mind here. So there’s, you know, there’s the notion that children are kind of. Exempt from this whole thing, because they’re not really effective, although there’s been like over a hundred or so child deaths in the U S from Covin.

Pam: And we don’t know the long-term effects.

CK: Exactly. So I saw something around the nature of the virus and how it, uh, affects like, like it gets transferred through the MRN, the messenger RNA into the cytoplasm of yourself. So cytoplasm is kind of like the, to see the. Yeah, they do that kind of makes up the cell that the nucleus is, or, um, what, what’s the, is it the nucleus?

No, that’s an Adam.

Pam: No, when he places the inside of the

CK: Oh yeah. Nucleus inside itself. So the nucleus is suspended in the cytoplasm within the cell. And so the MRAA gets into the cytoplasm and it. Disrupts or mutates certain genes so that it creates this virus and replicates it. And it, um, it changes something so that your protein structure changes.

And, uh, I, I, I’m sorry, I might be mixing some of these things up, so I’ll try to post some actual. Information, some scientific resources, but the cytoplasm is where your mitochondria live, which is like the energy powerhouse for yourselves. And it’s like the fundamental metabolic system or metabolic process, you know, for your body to function.

And this virus is affecting that, which is why we’ve seen effects throughout the entire body. You know, people are having effects on their brain. People are having effects in different systems and it gets into your circulatory system. And obviously that goes throughout your body and there could be multi-systemic effects and.

So we, we don’t know how this is going to affect us. Long-term and I think I saw that it’s affecting some children in terms of, um, causing vasculitis, which is like an inflammation of your blood vessels. And that can cause tons of problems throughout your body, throughout your systems and lead to like auto-immune issues and Kawasaki’s disease and stuff like that.

And so this is like really crazy dangerous stuff that we could be dealing with that we don’t know. And we don’t even know how it might mutate, like we’re seeing stories from Denmark, I think, where it’s already mutated in a mink.

Pam: Oh, yeah, that’s right.

CK: Yeah. So like, we need to. Hunker down. And like, we need to realize the dangers of what we’re doing here and the potential risks and you know, all that stuff.

And, you know, we, we can’t just act like everything’s normal. And so, yeah, I don’t know what else to say.

Pam: Well, I wanted to add real quick, just for some perspective on what getting sick as a child can do for you do to you as an adult. I don’t know if people realize that shingles, which became a really popular topic because they came out with medication that, um, deals with it. So of course it’s on commercials all over the place cause they can make money on it.

But. Shingles is an extremely painful condition that people get as adults. And that is from the chicken pox virus. So you get that when you’re a kid and then 50 years later, you have your skin on fire. And that’s something that like we know about and it happens. And it’s a harmless, you know, quote unquote, harmless, childhood virus.

Obviously some people have worse effects from it, but that’s something that’s already happening. And we know that and it’s still. Something that happens in it’s very painful. So we don’t know what’s going to happen in 50 years when these kids that are getting it.

CK: Yeah. And I mean, the thing is I hope I’m wrong and I hope, you know, this isn’t as serious as the science is showing that it could be. And the thing is all, all these scientists probably hope they’re wrong too. Like they don’t want. This huge pandemic getting out of control and all these people dying, but we have to look at the facts and the numbers that we have in the data that we’re getting and the observations that we can make now.

And we have all this information now and we can see what’s going on in different countries and in areas that have instituted different. Guidelines and, you know, we can see how different things are affecting how this is going. Like we have that information. We can see what’s going on. So yeah, I think, uh, I think that’s enough.

I can get off my soapbox now.

Pam: do you want to end on a quick magic note?

CK: please.

Pam: So, um, your communication today was very, um, I would say aggressive for you. Like you were very emotionally charged. Um, so you have your moon or the transiting moon right now. Th the actual moon that we can see is in opposition to where Mars was when you were born.

So the moon is like feelings and emotions, and Mars is like outwardly aggressive and action, and like, Forceful. So you had, um, forceful and aggressive emotional things going on today with that aspect. And mercury is sextile your Venus, which means that you think and communicate about values, like what we value as a society, or as you personally.

So everything that you talked about today was like, what are you, what are you valuing? And it was very aggressive and, um, I also pulled the Terrell card real quick before we started talking. And I wasn’t sure that it was going to work, but it’s the six of swords, which is basically saying that the only way to get out of a bad situation is to help each other help is available.

Ask for it, give it work together, and you can get out of the bad situation.

CK: Yes. Yeah. That’s great. Thank you for that. So I have hope and yeah, I hope. We can finally get over this. It’s crazy to me that it’s gone this long. I don’t think it should have gone this long. Um, it’s other places that have done a lot better and it’s, it’s pretty sad to be honest where we’re at.

Pam: Embarrassing.

CK: Uh, yeah, yeah, yeah, totally. So, and on that note, I guess, so yeah, people, you know, I know this is hard, but you know, at least get perspective on actually what’s going on and do your best to lower the risk as much as possible. That’s all I ask. So hope. That, uh, told me last, how I close out, but anyway, um, yeah, I think, uh, I don’t know.

We’ll just send it there.

Pam: Thanks for joining us.

CK: Yeah. So thanks for joining us as always. And I hope that wasn’t too. Um, what’s the word?

Pam: So boxy

CK: Well, not only soapboxy but like doomsday.

Pam: that’s where we are.

CK: I know. Yeah. Like you have, like, that’s the thing, like you have to know the seriousness and the severity of what’s going on. And if we don’t consider that, if we just block that out, it’s gonna just creep up on us and hit us, like, you know, like a ton of bricks. So, yep. Well, we didn’t sit there and see how things go.

So I hope everyone has a happy Thanksgiving, Pam, where can people find you?

Pam: You can find me on Twitter, where I am at Pamela underscored Lund.

CK: And you might be able to find me on Twitter at CK disco? Uh, I’m not sure. I kind of feel like I need to spread. This information more so maybe I’ll get on Twitter, but yeah, we’ll see what happens and thanks for joining me as always. Thank you to Pam for joining me as always and hope you come back next week and keep on practicing to loo stop on three one, two, three.

Play Next
Mark Played