The Great Influenza (John M. Barry)

 

The 1918 influenza pandemic rocked the world in the waning years of World War I, killing between 35-100 million people. The Great Influenza is the story of both the disease and the scientists working to fight it. 

The author wanted to include the political angle- what the leaders did to fight it from a social/political perspective- but "finding useful material on the epidemic proved remarkably difficult . . . [the political leaders were] far too busy, far too overwhelmed, to pay attention to keeping records." So instead the focus on the state of medical science- "partly because it didn't seem possible to write about the scientists without exploring the nature of American medicine at this time, for the scientists in this book did far more than laboratory reasearch. They changed the very nature of medicine in the United States." So this book was about how American medicine was modernizing in addition to explaining the potential origins, spread, horrors, and impact of the illness itself.

The book was good; informative and well-written. I was mildly disappointed, as I wished for more insight into effective public pandemic policy (or, at least, lessons learned from failed attempts). It's an occasional mention throughout, and then covered at the end, but that isn't the focus. 

Rating: A-

Post-script:

This book excited me because it was written before COVID and, as a result, unaffected by current political influences and "heat of the moment" emotion that can cloud judgment. Due to his research, the author was included on committees in the early 2000s looking at pandemic preparation, as many used this 1918 pandemic as a model. He talks about some suggestions at the very end- the last 10 pages- and that part is intriguing, if unsatisfying. I'd have like to read much more on the topic- and the back cover implies the books covers it, saying "this [1918] crisis provides us with a precise and sobering model as we confront the epidemics looming on our own horizon." If this crisis did, the book didn't cover it. But it sounds more accurate to say the 1918 flu did not provide us with a great model, but more a cautionary tale in several aspects. 

In the final ten pages, here are the comments, observations, and lessons based on the "commonalities of the few pandemics we have information about: 1889, 1918, 1957, 1968, and 2009:"* 

• Pandemics come in waves. We've seen this with COVID, with the first wave (in Europe) in early 2020, then smoldering, then roaring back in the autumn.
• Every wave of a pandemic is at least a little different, due to rapid mutation.
• The one answer is a universal vaccine. Obvious, and nearly impossible to create, test, manufacture, distribute, and administer quickly enough. Mutations can render it less effective or useless- and it may be impossible to develop an effective one in the first place.

Vaccines aside, what can we do or what must we remember? Barry's points, either at the end or collected from principles throughout the book:

• Develop and maintain a good surveillance system. This requires cooperative governments and capable medical personnel to identify new diseases (and mutations of it) and distribute knowledge quickly. Doing so is a critical 'early alert' mechanism that accelerates vaccine development and other countermeasures.
• Prepare. There are known items to either stockpile or ensure manufacturing capacity is present to produce: medicines, ventilators, oxygen tanks, masks, and so on. Supply chain is relevant here, too- identifying and addressing in advance the basic materials necessary should a pandemic erupt.
• Plan. The government must identify plans (in advance of a pandemic). Plans of paths to take based on certain triggers- and sticking to them even when emotion might tempt to do otherwise.
• Public officials and the media must tell the truth. Not minimize, not exaggerate- deliver the unvarnished truth. In 1918, "the fear, not the disease, threatened to break society apart." And the fear was generated, in part, by officials downplaying the pandemic. This countered what people saw with their eyes- healthy people dying with alarming rapidity, bodies literally piling up in the streets- and the result was chaos. "Those in authority must retain the public's trust. The way to do that is to distort nothing, to put the best face on nothing, to try to manipulate no one."
• Remember the need for concerted action. "Society cannot function if it is every man for himself." And this action must be within and between communities, towns, states, and countries. Action taken in one without appropriate steps in another will be effectively pointless. The public must comply for public health measures to have any hope of success.
• Remember the realities of science. The scientific method is such that initial hypotheses may be proved wrong. In the heat of the moment, the demand for action- to do something, anything, NOW- can lead scientists and medical personnel alike to give advice based on initial and limited observations. Advice that could be proven wrong as more information comes to light. This could mean that later recommendations contradict earlier ones. We abhor a vacuum of knowledge, so we want to act, even when (frankly) nobody knows what to do. This can lead doctors and scientists (not to mention government/media) to take educated guesses and make proclamations just to do something. (My addition: remember that, and treat each other with grace as we stumble in darkness together.)
• Identify public health measures. There are several:
• The only way to completely avoid a disease transmitted from human to human is simple: avoid humans. Some towns or institutions did isolate- implement a complete 'external' lockdown (nobody in or out) in 1918 and were completely spared. Duration must be 6-10 weeks (depending on virus/etc.) A lockdown of this severity is almost impossible. 
• Mundane but known hygienic tasks like washing hands must be done rigorously. "Success depends on rigor, emphasis, and discipline."
• Masks can protect, but must be worn properly (and most people- even doctors- do not do so). Interestingly, the author argues that "for a few individuals and situations N95 masks may make sense, but for the general public over a period of weeks they do not."
• Observe obvious matters like keeping sick people home and appropriate coughing etiquette.
• "In a truly lethal pandemic, state and local authorities could take much more aggressive steps, such as closing theaters, bars, and even banning sporting events . . . " 
• Interestingly, studies of past pandemics argue against children being super-spreaders, finding that the spread was overwhelmingly adult to adult (at first), and then adult to child (later). As such, the author argues that closing schools "might well make sense in a lethal pandemic, but it will not in a mild one." 

Our current pandemic proves that, regardless of scientific advances in the past century, there are unstoppable forces in nature. Forces that require truth, cooperation, planning, preparedness, hard work, and sacrifices to confront and endure. There are no easy answers and even hindsight may not shed light on what should have been done. Thus, it's important (as always) to treat each other with truth and grace, looking not only to ourselves, but thinking on how we can love each other in such difficult days.

*remember those were all influenza epidemics, which is different than COVID. Nevertheless, I believe some of the principles hold true.

Good Mourning

It took almost a year, but it finally hit me- I mourn over the pandemic. Of course, I've lived in it the same as everyone else for the past eleven months in Germany- the lockdowns, the restrictions, the masks, the distancing. And I've had pandemic fatigue before now. But it's getting more real.

The first few weeks were almost enjoyable- a nice break from the typical busyness. We then enjoyed beautiful weather through spring and summer- the best weather I've seen in ten Northern European summers, with perfect temperatures and constant sun. I picked up bicycling, we toured castle ruins, and hiked the myriad trails. That distracted us from the continuing difficulties, as we could still enjoy the great outdoors. But descent into the November gloom- without the Christmas markets to brighten the season- followed by the typical wet/gray/dark of January and February have finally done it for me; I've had it. I mourn.

On the one hand, we count ourselves blessed throughout this time- none of us have fallen ill, we've maintained jobs, we have all we need. On the other, we mourn. So much has been lost- lives, jobs, time, opportunities, experiences, community, fellowship. Some things will recover and return to full strength in time; others may be gone forever. We mourn. I mourn in particular for fellowship. Quality time with friends and family. How many relationships were stifled or unrealized because of the continued isolation? 

Ultimately, our mourning points us to the underlying reason why pandemics happen: things are not the way they're supposed to be. And why is that? Sin. When man broke fellowship with God by rebelling against Him (by sinning, in other words), it introduced all manner of corruption into the world. Hardship, poverty, illness, injustice, killing, theft, war, famine, evil. And so mourning is a recognition of reality.

I hate mourning. I want to be happy all the time. Make lemonade when lemons come, etc. Yet Jesus says "blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted" (Matthew 5:4). In context, he's referring to sin. Jesus' words encourage us to remember these present difficulties and see them for what they are- and mourning is the appropriate response.  This gospel coalition article goes into more detail. Mourn. Mourn sin. Mourn brokenness. Mourn.

But Jesus doesn't leave us there. Mourning is a necessary part of life; a right recognition of evil's reality and results. But He promises comfort. For the Christian, Jesus's work on the cross broke this curse. It delivered victory. And more- He says "Behold, I am making all things new" (Revelation 21:5). "Everything sad is going to come untrue and it will somehow be greater for having once been broken and lost." (Tim Keller) 

Mourning is a part- but it is not the end. May we mourn this time, and may our mourning point us to Jesus: to thirst for and cling to Him always. We shall be comforted.

Dreyer's English (Benjamin Dreyer)

 

The self-proclaimed "utterly correct guide to clarity and style," Dreyer's English is an informative and entertaining guide to writing by the copy chief of Random House. Dreyer's goal: to "write about the issues I most often run across while copyediting and how I attempt to address them, about topics where I thought I truly had something to add to the conversation, and about curiosities and aranca that interested or simply amused me." This not, nor intended to be, an exhaustive guidebook. He looks at tidying up prose, rules and nonrules, punctuation, numbers, foreign words, a little grammar, frequently misspelled words, confusing matters, handling proper nouns, and more.

English has rules- sort of. But not really. Some are hard and fast- but there are always exceptions.

The English language . . . is not so easily ruled and regulated. It developed without codification, sucking up new constructions and vocabulary every time some foreigner set foot on the British Isles-to say nothing of the mischief we Americans have wreaked on it these last few centuries-and continues to evolve anarchically. It has, to my great dismay, no enforceable laws, much less someone to enforce the laws it doesn't have.

We, of course, look to the dictionary. Yet "the dictionary takes its cues from use: If writers don't change things, the dictionary doesn't change things." As a result, Dreyer's approach is to be rigid when needed but flexible in many matters- "if a style choice follows the rules but results in something that looks awful or makes no sense on the page, rethink it." He knows his stuff, but doesn't rely overmuch on the technical terminology- "you'd be amazed at how far you can get in life having no idea what the subjunctive mood is."

I loved this book, and intend to keep it as a handy reference. Dreyer explains concepts well, is the master of his craft, includes a healthy dose of humor, and is pleasingly flexible/accommodating in his edicts. I learned a lot. Highly recommended.

Rating: A

Mein Rheingau (H.P. Mayer)

 

Author and photographer H.P. Mayer traveled the Rheingau (a wine-growing area between Frankfurt and Koblenz) "by gyrocopter, canoe, steamboat, bicycle or simply on foot" to create Mein Rheingau, "a pictorial journey through the Rheingau with some typical and also some very rare motifs." 

This short book (with descriptions in both German and English) is wonderful for those who live in this region. The pictures are decent but won't win any awards. The chosen locations are (as the author said) both typical and unusual, which was a nice mix. The aerial perspectives were nice. I enjoy owning this and perusing the images as I fondly recall our years here, but I'm not sure non-locals would enjoy it as much.

Rating (for locals): B

Batman: Hush (Various)

Something is amiss in Gotham- that's saying something about a city known for the bizarre. Killer Croc is acting savage (even for him); Catwoman is off; Huntress isn't right; Poison Ivy . . . they all appear out for revenge, and out of their minds. What is going on? As Batman follows the trail and encounters the familiar Rogue's gallery, he remains maddeningly far from the solution. Will he figure it out before it's too late?

I read this years ago; then as now, I loved it.  The story is formulaic in places but had satisfying twists in others. The art is fantastic, and the overall experience is enjoyable. Recommended.

Rating: A

Parzival (Wolfram von Eschenbach)

After his widowed mother shields him in childhood, Parzival eventually learns of knights and chivalry and sets off on adventure. He will rise to great fame- and even become a knight at King Arthur's "Table Round"- but an early mis-step will cost him dearly, and he must endure much as he seeks to right his sin and find the Grail. Will he succeed?

It's been a long time since I read an Arthurian book, as my focus on the legendary king occurred during our time in England. But when we visited Wertheim Castle last summer, I stumbled across a sign that associated the site with Eschenbach and his writing Parzival, a very popular work in the German Middle Ages. This warranted its inclusion on my German Reading List and got me back into Arthur. The tale focuses on Parzival and Gawain. Was it worth it? Sadly, no.

This was a difficult read for me- it was convoluted and bizarre in the details it chose to include. It had marginally interesting passages, but those were overshadowed by its deficiencies. I don't question the author's talent- the original German was in rhyming couplet, which I suspect would have made this much more enjoyable. I just find the Medieval way of writing uninteresting. Some trends across Arthurian literature from this era:

• A focus on certain sins (or what were perceived to be sins) and notable nonchalance towards others
• A main character whose prime folly appears baffling (Parzival's chief sin doesn't qualify to me as a sin at all, but his whole quest hinged on it)
• An admirable (if misplaced) desire to atone for sins, almost to the point of negating the point of the cross. These characters very much think they have to work for salvation.
• Many of the main characters are related (or friends of people who are), but they often don't recognize each other

I'm glad this one is over.

Rating: C

The Intolerance of Tolerance (D.A. Carson)

"Tolerance" is certainly a buzzword in today's culture. In his important book on the subject, Professor D.A. Carson argues that "the notion of tolerance is changing, and with the new definitions the shape of tolerance itself has changed. Although a few things can be said in favor of the newer definition, the sad reality is that this new, contemporary tolerance is intrinscially intolerant. It is blind to its own shortcomings because it erroneously thinks it holds the moral high ground; it cannot be questioned because it has become part of the West's plausibility structure. Worse, this new tolerance is socially dangerous and is certainly intellectually debilitating. Even the good that it wishes to achieve is better accomplished in other ways."

Carson starts by comparing the old vs. new definitions of tolerance. Through dictionary definitions, we trace a subtle yet important difference:

One definition of tolerance: "accepting the existence of different views"

Another: "acceptance of different views"

Carson calls the first the old definition and the second the new. See the difference? "To accept that a different or oppositing position exists and deserves the right to exist is one thing; to accept the position itself means that one is no longer opposing it . . . [and so] "we move from allowing the free expression of contrary opinions to the acceptance of all opinions." But yet, not all opinions, for "any sort of exclusive truth claim is widely viewed as a sign of gross intolerance." "No absolutism is permitted, except for the absolute prohibition of absolutism. Tolerance rules, except that there must be no tolerance for those who disagree with this peculiar definition of tolerance." A sad state of affairs indeed.

Carson spends the rest of the book looking more at this problem, its history, inconsistencies, implications, and how Christians should proceed. While I can't cover every point here (my highlighter got a lot of work on this book), I will present a few cogent points:

• Everyone is religious, meaning (in part) that we ground ourselves in an overall framework or system of values and operate out of them, viewing ourselves (and the world) through that lens. This new definition of tolerance is no different- claiming to be neutral or independent, it is in fact grounded within a larger framework of thought- a framework that decrees what is is good and bad, what is acceptable and unacceptable, etc. In a view of what is true, in other words. In today's America, it is often secular humanism- hardly a neutral or unbiased position.
• All forms of tolerance (old and new) have limits. And that's a good thing. (Murder is wrong. Pedophilia is wrong. And so on.) What matters is getting those limits correct- not pretending they don't exist- and being aware of the underlying influences and worldviews that are informing our conclusions of what should and shouldn't be permitted (in word or deed). 
• The new form of tolerance is confusing and conflicted. Far from championing true diversity (with real and profound differences between cultures, religions, and so on), it "tends to stifle and subdue the distinctive claims of other cultures . . . [and] destroys everything that disagrees with it." And, in fact, the word itself is often inappropriately used: you must in fact disagree with something to be capable of tolerating it. And it is conflicted: like postmodernism, it "can be quite as exclusive and censorious as the orthodoxies it opposes" (Terry Eagleton).

In summary, champions of the new tolerance "are not principled defenders of tolerance, inclusion, and free speech. Rather, they appeal to tolerance selectively in order to promote their own selective values."

------------------------------

This is a great book, well worthy of reflection. Carson argues that the old tolerance, while not perfect, was admirable in that it allowed competing truth claims to be held and voiced. Today, there is one truth- the 'new' tolerance- with limits set by a very specific agenda that seeks to destroy or discredit all who disagree. This agenda claims (among other things) that you can have and practice a religion- so long as you keep it private, don't make truth claims, and don't let it influence your speech or conduct. Such a religion, of course, isn't a religion at all. And this new agenda is, in fact, a religion: it is grounded in its own belief system that adherents claim is superior and seek to impose on others. It mimics what it seeks to depose.

We cannot escape the reality of truth, of limits, and of bias. We need true tolerance to care for each other; part of that is allowing people to hold truly different- deeply different- views, with competing truth claims, without kicking them out of the public square. An important book on a critical issue.

Rating: A