dr.ricky online

Category: Opinion

  • A conversation with vaccine hesitancy

    A conversation with vaccine hesitancy

    Excerpted. 

    [VaccineHesitantFriend]: I completely understand that. We are lucky to be here in the US. And I’m doing my part by not getting the vaccine, so those other countries can have it. Sorry I don’t put anything into my body without fully understanding it, and not going to start now. That’s my personal choice, not a privilege. 

    [me] I’ll be glad to help you understand the vaccines. Please feel free to post questions and I’ll do the underlying research. You may have a legitimate concern that we have missed and I’ll be glad to learn something from it. Scientists from the American Society for Virology have volunteered their time to have online town halls to help explain vaccination. 

    [VHF]: I really appreciate that. And a question I ask a lot of people is why can’t we put all this effort into curing cancer? Or getting rid of child slavery? Just seems interesting to me that all these scientist and government officials group together to cure a disease that other scientists created. Would really love to hear your answer on this. The only answer I ever get is… there’s just too much money being made. 

    [Me] Important distinction: a cure deals with people with a disease, and a vaccine is about preventing the disease in the first place. There’s no evidence that COVID19 was engineered or created by scientists – the genetic sequence of the virus available to the public (as is most of the publications), and we can check for tell tale marks of engineering. They aren’t there. But proving a negative is rather difficult, so as more evidence arises, we can follow up. The mRNA vaccines are actually partly developed to prevent cancer, and it just turns out that COVID-19 is the first wide application of the technology. More applications will come in the future. Note that this attached review is from 2018 – the mRNA vaccines have been in development for a while – https://www.nature.com/articles/nrd.2017.243

    [VHF] Well this is where I part ways from the discussion. It was absolutely made in a lab. And your boy Fauci is a big fat liar. Thanks for the info and the responses. 

    There’s more to say about the question of money and the profit motive, but the issue was never really about vaccination, or the nature of the technology. Once a narrative is threatened, the conversation was shut down.

  • On feeling safe

    On feeling safe

    On feeling safe

    Recently, I saw an advertisement for a beach volleyball tournament in Texas, a state that is at the moment undergoing a major COVID-19 outbreak. The advertisement made specific mention about keeping participants safe, so I inquired about what specific measures were being taken. The reply I received included the mention that players sign a waiver ostensibly absolving the tournament sponsor from liability — a measure that I noted is the exact opposite of assuring player safety. Paraphrasing the response: “If you don’t feel safe, you don’t have to participate.”

    This has become a standard answer to a lot of activities that are potential infection points – the idea that people need to feel safe. Safety (more accurately, risk) can be objectively measured and quantitated. Feeling safe is a subjective perception that can affect judgment. That answer appealing to the feeling of safety means that the author does not consider the pandemic more than a subjective concern – a figment of imagination.

    The COVID-19 death rate in Texas has doubled: in the last week, on average the virus has killed more than a hundred people every day. The responsible thing to do as proprietors is not just to appeal to a feeling of safety but to actually engage in practices that limit infection. Those are not difficult: air circulation, distancing, frequent hand washing, and masking, and a culture that take them seriously. Community practice is what makes them effective. Then you wouldn’t need the safety net of the waiver.

  • The blue finger of democracy

    Blue finger of democracy

    In 2005, when elections were restored to Iraq, voters marked their participation by dipping their index finger in blue ink. Texas forbade the use of mail-in ballots for elections beyond a certain set of strictures, so most are forced to vote in person at a time when COVID–19 cases are increasing at an alarming rate in the state. Poll workers heroically dressed in PPE to allow citizens to practice their fundamental right to vote. Physical contact is limited, and each voter is provided a finger condom, and an alcohol wipe to sterilize surfaces. At the very least, one only needs one finger to interact with the voting machine (I’ll note that the machine isn’t easy to reach from a wheelchair).

    Election Day is July 14, 2020 but to avoid the potential crowds spreading the virus, early voting is advisable. Early voting should be accessible from just about any of the precincts. Go vote.

  • COVID-19 Tests

    COVID-19 Tests

    Coronavirus in Texas
    Snapshot from Texas Tribune tracking of coronavirus testing in Texas.

    Before May 14, 2020, Texas reporting of coronavirus test mixed results from two different kinds of tests: the PCR tests and the antibody tests. The PCR test looks for the presence of the genetic material of SARS-COV-2, it answers the question: “Is the patient infected and contagious?”

    The other kind, the antibody test, looks for the presence of early antibodies in the blood. It answers the question, “Has the patient been infected in the past?” At this time, we do not know if the presence of antibodies confers immunity to the virus. 

    Mixing the two results is highly problematic. It can make it appear that there are fewer infectious individuals, since antibody tests tend to come up negative more, and that inflates the denominator. Part of the reason why Gov Abbott proceeded with Phase 2 in reopening Texas activities is be attributed the increasing rate of detected infections to an increased number tests happening. However, that is not the case – much of this increase is due to mixing of the antibody tests. The rate of PCR tests is almost flat, but the rate of new infected cases continue to rise. 

  • Podcast suggestion: Invisible Women

    Podcast suggestion: Invisible Women

    99% Invisible is always a thoughtprovoking podcast on how design affects the world around us – but this episode is particularly important. We take design for granted, and only notice when it doesn’t work explicitly. But in all the subtle ways, design decisions are a product of the culture the designers live in.

     

  • Season of Giving

    There’s a great guy here in town who volunteers his time in a local church gym to host free indoor volleyball sessions. He sets up three nets, welcomes people, negotiates disputes, and tries to get people to play equitably. All for free. Now that it’s the holiday season, and schedules are a bit more free, the most recent attendance was naturally through the roof…rather out the door. I was having a conversation with someone who was complaining about the record attendance – more than 60 people for three courts. And how it was such a pain to get time to play.

    This has always been disturbing to me. A significant population already come to the church with just the expectation of getting to play, without contributing to setup or cleanup (well, not willingly anyway). But this is Christmas. In a church. And if this setting cannot inspire players to give others something they’re getting for free (time on the court), then we have desperately lost the meaning of the season for giving.

    Be grateful for all the gifts that you already received. I wish you and yours a happy holiday season, and lessons of kindness and respect.

  • Becoming height neutral

    Becoming height neutral

    The website Beachvolleyballspace covered the recent FIVB Gstaad Major with an article celebrating the winners, the currently top ranked Canadian team of Paredes and Pavan claiming the gold. The article title (Canadian women dominate Gstaad Major – Japan challenges top teams) makes special mention of the fifth place Japanese team of Murakami and Ishii. Why? Was it a remarkable breakthrough performance?

    The whole latter half was spent mentioning how much shorter the team was relative to their opponents. That’s it. Beach volleyball culture venerates height so much that it’s often the first and only statistic mentioned for players. No mention that Murakami is a 7 year veteran of the FIVB circuit – it’s newsworthy because they were supposed to lose.

    Height discrimination is so pervasive that coaches will refuse to consider athletes just for being too short. I’ve spoken with talented young women who have already given up the dream of playing beach volleyball for college because they’ve been told time and again that their genetics will simply not give them a chance. Players constantly pine about being taller, and taller players, regardless of experience, are always groomed. A metric this damning should be backed by extensive studies or data – yet every discussion I’ve had with coaches either point to anecdotal experience, or cherrypicked material. Saying that the best athletes in the world are always taller is flawed logic – they are the product of this pervasive bias, so of course the selection for taller players is evident. What’s more telling is that despite this, players of all sizes break through: Bruno Schmidt, Shelda Bede, Holly McPeak, Annie Martin. If the thesis is that height is always a beach volleyball advantage, these counterexamples are sufficient to discredit it.

    The cultural baggage of height superiority is entrained from a young age, and repeated incessantly – thus, how height becomes an advantage stems from a psychological one. Taller players are simply given more opportunities to play, to explore, to make mistakes. Pay attention without bias next time, and see the language difference between how coaches treat taller and shorter players, and how they treat each other. A shorter team hands to the taller team an immediate advantage by simply expecting themselves to be at a disadvantage. The way out of this is to begin young, and to start instilling in them the confidence of height neutrality. Even among older athletes, we can unlock a richer vein of talent from our pool of players by simply opening our eyes beyond how tall they stand or how high they jump. The game is deeper and wider than the height of its tallest players.

  • Earned or Found

    Earned or Found

    I was having this discussion once about buying chicken. My friend was of the opinion that there are just superior sources of birds, and that one should judge a restaurant already by knowing where they buy their chicken. My position was that it was a poor measure of the skill of chef – after all, where true mastery lies is in extracting a delicious dish from what’s considered inferior ingredients. It’s what our grandmothers have honed through a lifetime of experience – making do with what was available, and still nurturing their families. At the end of the day, when those fancy chefs need inspiration, they go to learn from those grandmas and aunties.

    When I encounter conversations among volleyball coaches, I hear echoes of this conversation. There’s immediate talk about how this player is tall, or that player is athletic, or if that other player has that relentless competitiveness to pursue the ball – and that of course, they should be the first picks when being trained. But how is that the measure of the coach? In many circles, by only considering the win-loss record of a squad, the measure of a coach is that of a prospector, that if they can just find the right pieces already pre formed, or that it just needs a little polishing, they can win and be rewarded. For all that is preached about growth mindset, coaches often fail to accept the challenge of being mentors and teachers, of seeing the murkiest glimmer of potential and bringing it forward.

    And maybe some of that is inherent in the reward system that doesn’t see the historical context of good athletes, or how we judge beach volleyball players on individual performance versus team contexts – and how they were trained in either. In a sense, the outcome of good competent coaching is to make the role of the coach invisible. Much like how our grandmothers simply dished out miracle after miracle from their meager cupboards that we take for granted – as we rain accolades on the preening chefs that cannot be bothered with the cheap cuts.

  • Improving Quads 2: Reduce seams

    Improving Quads 2: Reduce seams

    The convention of most teams in beach quads format is the “diamond” formation when receiving serve – the players orient themselves with three players staggered in a V formation, and the setter at the apex nearest the net.

    Diamond formation

    The idea here is that the ball is passed close to the net where the setter is then able to send it to one of the two player flanking to finish the kill. As discussed before, using the net as a orientation system has its disadvantages, but another issue with this strategy is the three-person receive formation. The weakest point of any serve receive formation is the “seam” between any two players, where communication is weakest, particularly with athletes conditioned to keep their eyes on the ball at all times (an issue to be addressed at another time). And in the “diamond” formation, there are two possible seams, one on either side of the middle back player. A simple fix is thus to reduce the number of seams — use a two player receive strategy.

    • Even with the larger sized court, two people are sufficient for serve receive passing – in fact, the doubles game was played on the larger sized court for quite a long time.
    • Communication is clearer – unlike a middle player flanked by two potentially mobile barriers, each receiving player only has to deal with the edge of the court, which could potentially be out.
    • It frees up a player to run a quicker attack or fake, increasing the odds of a side out.

    The key here is to have confidence that the passers will develop the range to control the service, and have good communication with the setter.

  • A nuclear option

    A nuclear option

    On the Facebook group Volleyball Coaches and Trainers (VCT), a coach shared a rule with regards to juniors beach volleyball tournaments held in the Chicago area – an optional one, in which any team, at any time, can request that no hand setting be used for the remainder of that particular match. It’s a bit peculiar, since it does open the possibility of changing the parameters of a match when it is already in progress. Then again, I don’t see it as being too different from the current AVP tournament format that changes the scoring system and let serve penalty at match point. But the stream of comments (I think over 100 at the time of writing) demonstrate a substantial objection to it, using words like “ludicrous” and “stupid” – mostly to defend the practice of hand setting.

    The VCT group is not open to public perusal, but many commenters decried the rule as depriving their teams of a tactical, if not critical, advantage. There are even those coaches who would forbid their teams from playing in tournaments that did not allow hand setting. Which is puzzling to me – volleyball variations happen all over the world, and as far as adaptations are concerned, this one is pretty mild. I’d say the 9-man game with race-based selection baked into the rules is far more controversial. As an act, hand setting on the beach may look esthetically pleasing, but is functionally disposable – historically, the team with the highest win record, Misty May and Kerri Walsh, employed hand setting sparingly, often not at all. Notice that the rule in question is a nuclear option: it bars the requesting team from hand setting as well. When invoked, it applies equally to both teams in a sport that is supposed to value versatility and grit. So why see this as some kind of attack on learning a skill instead of an opportunity to diversify the game?

    Hand setting is the golden calf of beach volleyball – some coaches insist on seeing it executed, without objectively quantifying its effects on team performance. But challenging the assertion of it’s inherent superiority is the topic of another post, the key point here is that the game is completely playable without hand setting, and in refusing the participate due to a small restriction, what are we really teaching our kids? Are we not participating because we cannot get things our way? Should we not focus on the opportunity offered to learn how a different related culture works? How we answer these speaks to what we prioritize as coaches, and that could be the difference.