And We Thought Pandemics Were Bad

Those of us of a certain age, or anyone who loves classic movies, remember the famous scene in "The Graduate" when Benjamin Braddock is given what is intended as a helpful clue about the future.  "Plastics," one of his father's friends says.  "There's a great future in plastics."

Well, we're living in that future, and it's not all that rosy.  Plastics have, indeed, become an integral part of our world, giving billions of us products that we could never otherwise have or afford.  But our future is going to increasingly be driven by an unintended consequence of the plastics revolution: microplastics.

And that's not good.

Microplastics are what happens to plastic after it has gone through the wringer, so to speak.  Plastic doesn't typically decompose, at least not in any time frame we're capable of grasping, but it does get broken down into finer and finer particles, until they reach microscopic levels (thus "microplastics").  We've known for some time that plastics were filling our landfills, getting caught in our trees and bushes, washing up on our shorelines, even collecting in huge "garbage patches" in the ocean.  But it wasn't until more recently that we've found that plastics' reach is much, much broader than we realized, or could see.

The ocean full of microplastics, and fish are as well. They're in our drinking water. Indeed, "There’s no nook or cranny on the surface of the earth that won’t have microplastics,” Professor Janice Brahney told The New York Times.  

Microscopic fragments in rain.  Credit: Brahney

Dr. Brahney was coauthor on a recent study that found microplastics were pervasive even in supposedly pristine parts of the Western U.S.  They estimated that 1,000 tons of "plastic rain" falls every year onto protected areas there; 98% of soil samples they took had microplastics.  Dr. Brahney pointed out that, because the particles are both airborne and fine, "we're breathing it, too."  

She admitted: "It’s really unnerving to think about it."

This troubling study is only one of several recent related studies.  A study in early June found microplastics circulating even on deep sea floors.  Another study took samples from microscopic creatures on King George Island, isolated between Antarctica and the tip of South America.  "If microplastics can enter the food web here, they can probably do so almost anywhere on earth," wrote coauthor Tancredi Caruso.  "But this is exactly what colleagues and I discovered."  

The authors believe: "there is a very high risk that they have already deeply penetrated the soil food web, potentially with negative impacts on the interactions between plants and soil."  

If you're still not convinced, Fast Company reports on two studies that found microplastics are being absorbed by roots of plants, ending up in the fruits and vegetables we eat.  Microplastics were found in apples, broccoli, carrots, lettuce, pears, potatoes, and wheat.  Fruits seem to have more than vegetables, possibly due to their trees' larger root system.  One of the researchers, Professor Willie Peijnenburg of Leiden University, said that, even ignoring the health risks, "simply, most people don’t like to be eating plastics."

Yet we are.

Microplastics in the ecosystem.  Credit: Wu, et. al./Science Direct

Last but not least, another recent paper Microplastics in Terrestrial Ecosystems, stressed the need to look at the broad impacts of microplastics on the entire ecosystem.  For example: "Deposition and accumulation of microplastics can affect soil properties, with consequences for process rates and net primary production (NPP), causing feedbacks to the atmosphere, including greenhouse gases (GHGs). So far, nanoplastic has unknown consequences for this system."  They may also alter water flow in soil and rate of erosion.  The authors conclude: "Feedbacks to the Earth system can be expected...Microplastic pollution is an international problem."

The trouble is we just don't know what the impacts of microplastics are on our health.  Some particles may have harmful chemicals and pollutants, most are largely carbon, but few natural systems, including our bodies, can break them down.  We may excrete many of the particles we get, but we get a lot.  One study warned: 

In all biological systems, microplastic exposure may cause particle toxicity, with oxidative stress, inflammatory lesions and increased uptake or translocation. The inability of the immune system to remove synthetic particles may lead to chronic inflammation and increase risk of neoplasia. Furthermore, microplastics may release their constituents, adsorbed contaminants and pathogenic organisms

The same is happening to our entire food chain, as well as to our atmosphere, soil, and water, and it's largely an accumulative process.  As Dr. Brahney noted to The Washington Post, " We are producing something that doesn’t go away, and just because we can’t see it doesn’t mean it’s not there."

Credit: Prata, et. al./Science Direct

We know that lead is bad for us, such as in our drinking water.  We've identified many carcinogens, such as asbestos or dioxin, to which we're trying to reduce our exposure.  We understand that air pollution is bad for us.  But we haven't gotten our heads around the fact that remnants of all those plastic water bottles, to name one common source, are literally everywhere, down to the cellular level.  And we don't really have any idea what it is doing to us, our food supply, or the planet on which we live.  

"Microplastics are now considered an emerging food safety concern, but we really don’t have all the answers yet," microbiologist Dave Love told Discover earlier this year.     Dr. Love admits, "At the end of the day, there’s not a clear consensus yet on what the advice should be for consumers."  

Prata, et. alia urged:

Nonetheless, knowledge on microplastic toxicity is still limited and largely influenced by exposure concentration, particle properties, adsorbed contaminants, tissues involved and individual susceptibility, requiring further research.

Everyone agrees more research is necessary, but meanwhile, we keep producing more plastics, which end up, well, everywhere, at every size, right down to nanoparticles.  It doesn't take a microbiologist to realize that is not good, and is certainly going to get worse.

Right now, the world is (understandably) preoccupied with another microscopic object, the coronavirus.  COVID-19 is infecting tens of millions of worldwide and killing hundreds of thousands.  It would be ironic if microplastics prove to be the greater threat to us, the world, and everything in it. 

TikTok Teens' Time

I knew about TikTok, but not "TikTok Teens."  I was vaguely aware of K-Pop, but I didn't know its fans had common interests beyond, you know, K-Pop.  I'd been tracking Gen X and Millennials but hadn't really focused on Gen Z.  It turns out that these overlapping groups are quite socially aware and are starting to make their influence felt. 

I can't wait for them to pay more attention to health care. 

This is the generation that has grown up during/in the wake of 9/11, the War on Terror, the War on Drugs, the 2008 recession, the coronavirus pandemic, and the current recession -- not to mention smartphones, social media, online shopping, and streaming.  Greta Thunberg is Gen Z, as is Billie Eilish, each of whom is leading their own social movements.  This generation has a lot to protest about, and a lot of ways to do it.
 
They were in the news this past weekend due to, of all things, President Trump's Tulsa rally.  His campaign had boasted about having a million people sign up for the rally, only to find that the arena was less than a third filled.  An outdoor rally for the expected overflow crowd was cancelled. 

Source: TikTok

It didn't take long for the TikTok Teens/K-Pop fans to boast on social media about their covert -- to us older folks -- campaign to register for the rally as a way to gum up the campaign efforts.  Steve Schmidt, an anti-Trump Republican strategist, tweeted: "The teens of America have struck a savage blow against @realDonaldTrump.”

One social media influencer explained to The New York Times: 

It spread mostly through Alt TikTok — we kept it on the quiet side where people do pranks and a lot of activism.  K-pop Twitter and Alt TikTok have a good alliance where they spread information amongst each other very quickly. They all know the algorithms and how they can boost videos to get where they want.

Most doubt that these efforts had much to do with the low attendance -- it can be more likely attributed to concerns over COVID-19 and/or the concurrent Juneteenth celebrations/Black Lives Matter protests -- but they were responsible for cluttering up the Trump campaign's efforts to collect supporter/donor information from the registration.  As a subversive guerilla marketing campaign, it was brilliant -- and effective. 

It was not their first such involvement.  One of the surprises with the BLM protests have been the number young people in attendance, of all races.  Jose Antonio Vargas, an immigration advocate,  described the coalition of young white, black, Latino, and Asian protesters as "a new kind of majority...We have arrived at a real cultural shift."  

Pew Research Center recently profiled Gen Z, finding them more ethnically and racially diverse, more education, more tech savvy, and, politically, "progressive and pro-government."  They are not, as you might have guessed, likely to be Trump supporters.  Axios predicted: "Generation Z is coming of political age...Gen Z is likely to continue engaging even after the [BLM] protests end because of the power of smartphones and social media." 

Earlier this month, in The Atlantic, Kaitlyn Tiffany profiled how K-Pop fans (or "kpop stans") had broadened their social media efforts to support social movements, such as BLM.  She described their strategy:

They would not use any of their normal promotional hashtags to boost their favorite music, instead keeping themselves and the platform focused on the message of Black Lives Matter. They would repurpose accounts that normally track chart positions and celebrity Instagram posts to instead disseminate information about how to support the protests. They would clog up every police department’s digital efforts. They would flood racist hashtags like #whitelivesmatter and #alllivesmatter with more concert footage to render them useless.

Reuters described TikTok's involvement in the BLM protests as its "Arab Spring" moment, comparing it to Twitter's importance in those events.  "Because the BLM movement has been present in society for such a long time, my generation has been able to use TikTok to spread awareness through the lens of a young person’s mindset," one teen said.  One BLM organizer pointed out: "The younger crowd does not want to be on Facebook and they are not on Facebook. They are on SnapChat and TikTok."  

Political strategist Tim Fullerton told The Washington Post: 

The bigger story, long-term, is that it’s really impressive to see young people using TikTok as an organizing tool. And I do think that we're going to see a lot of that in the lead-up to November. That's a difficult audience to reach, so it could be a powerful tool.  They’re using their voice in a new and different way and engaging people.  They clearly did something that hadn’t been done before.

All that is great, but it doesn't mean Gen Z is also leading the charge on healthcare, even during the pandemic.  They're no more likely to wear masks than other age groups, and are less likely to get vaccinated for it once one is available.   In many states experiencing a resurgence of COVID-19 cases, young people are increasingly being the ones infected. 

Not many masks --or social distancing.  Credit: ABC11

NPR reported: "some public health experts said the increase is because some younger adults may perceive they are less at risk than their parents or grandparents and are more likely to venture back into society as it reopens."  That attitude is part of the reason that young people may be unwittingly spreading the disease, according to results from Japan.  

Dr. Thomas Tsai, a professor at Harvard's School of Public Health, warns:

We need to change our whole thinking about COVID-19 during this stage of the pandemic.  It's difficult to contain the virus physically because you have younger individuals, who may be pre-symptomatic or mildly symptomatic, who are going about their normal lives and reengaging with society."

Epidemiologist Dr. Judith Malmgren told NPR that reaching Gen Z is different: "They are not reading print media. You need to be on social media. You need to use short sentences. You need to use very direct messaging."  Another epidemiologist, Dr. Wafaa El-Sadr, added: "I think young people can potentially have a very, very valuable role if we can harness their energy and attention."

If.

This is the generation that is going to inherit our apathy towards climate change and huge budget deficits.  It shouldn't have to inherit our dysfunctional healthcare system as well.  If they are looking for big, important social challenges, well, Defund Health Care!

Your Face Is Not Your Own

I swear I'd been thinking about writing about facial recognition long before I discovered that John Oliver devoted his show last night to it.  Last week I wrote about how "Defund Police" should be expanded to "Defund Health Care," and included a link to Mr. Oliver's related episode, only to have a critic comment that I should have just given the link and left it at that. 

Now, I can't blame anyone for preferring Mr. Oliver's insights to mine, so I'll link to his observations straightaway...but if you're interested in some thoughts about facial recognition and healthcare, I hope you'll keep reading.

Facial recognition is, indeed, in the news lately, and not in a good way.  Its use, particularly by law enforcement agencies, has become more widely known, as have some of its shortcomings.  At best, it is still weak at accurately identifying minority faces (or women), and at worst it poses significant privacy concerns for, well, everyone.  The fact that someone using such software could identify you in a crowd using publicly available photographs, and then track your past and subsequent movements, is the essence of Big Brother. 

For once technology companies are at least pretending to be concerned.  IBM was the first, saying it was getting out of the facial recognition business entirely, including research, due to concerns about bias and potential for abuse.  CEO Arvind Krishna's letter to Congress urged: 

We believe now is the time to begin a national dialogue on whether and how facial recognition technology should be employed by domestic law enforcement agencies. Artificial Intelligence is a powerful tool that can help.   

Both Amazon and Microsoft subsequently put moratoriums on police use of their facial recognition software.  "We’re implementing a one-year moratorium on police use of Amazon’s facial recognition technology... We hope this one-year moratorium might give Congress enough time to implement appropriate rules, and we stand ready to help if requested," Amazon announced.  

Microsoft President Brad Smith echoed the call, stating: "We’ve decided that we will not sell facial-recognition technology to police departments in the United States until we have a national law in place, grounded in human rights, that will govern this technology."    

Of course, Amazon and Microsoft are still selling their software to other parties, and there are several companies still selling to law enforcement, such as NEC and Clearview AI. 

Credit: MediaJustice

The seemingly sudden (and narrowly focused) concern for our privacy rights has been spurred by the resurgence of the Black Lives Matter movement, in the wake of the nationwide protests about the George Floyd murder.  It made people uneasy that facial recognition might be used by the police to identify protesters, who were, of course, protesting the police.

There are at least two ironies here.  One is that the masks many protesters have been wearing due to coronavirus concerns make it more difficult for facial recognition software to identify them, although that is a technical challenge developers are addressing.   Masks have served a dual privacy/pandemic role in Hong Kong for some time, and there is an interesting design battle going on for masks and clothing that help defeat or at least confuse facial recognition, so it remains an open question whether they are a roadblock or just a speed bump.  

The other irony is it was smartphone video, another almost constant form of surveillance, that captured Mr. Floyd's demise.  In The Wall Street Journal, Joanna Stern wrote:

Many white Americans, myself included, failed until recently to grasp one of the biggest impacts of the smartphone: its ability to make the world witness police brutality toward African-Americans that was all too easy to ignore in the past. We could now see, with our own eyes, the black sides of stories that were otherwise lost when white officers filed their police reports.

One activist told her: The smartphone is a weapon that tells the story. This is going to tell what happened to me, this is what will tell what took place."

Technology gives, technology takes away.

Years ago I speculated that facial recognition could be used to identify when we might be sick, and perhaps be used to diagnose us, and this is now within reach of existing technologies.  We've got an array of surveillance measures that are tracking who we are, where we are, what we're doing, and even how we might be feeling.   

And we thought it was bad when we realized Google was reading our emails or Facebook was monetizing our interests. 

Credit: CPO Magazine

Whether we like it or not, whether we realize it or not, we not only don't know who is monitoring what we're doing on the internet, but we also don't know when what cameras are watching us, nor who is using which software to do what with those images.  Americans like to believe we have a constitutional right to privacy, but most would be surprised to find that such rights are more implied than explicit.

We should applaud the positions that Amazon, IBM, and Microsoft are taking on facial recognition, and we should welcome an explicit discussion about what the limits of facial recognition should be, but we shouldn't kid ourselves that the technology isn't going to advance faster than our privacy laws.  We've known that privacy has been an issue in tech for some time now, and despite efforts like the E.U.'s GDPR or California's Consumer Privacy Act, few of us would say we've become more reassured about our online privacy (and note how COVID-19 is pushing GDPR to its limits).  Facial recognition just adds to those concerns. 

Few of us would protest using facial recognition to reunite lost/missing children, to capture escaped killers, or perhaps even to isolate people infected with a deadly infectious disease.  Few, though, would probably be comfortable with third parties, whether they be law enforcement agencies or simply advertisers, always knowing where we are and have been.  There's a line to be drawn, but it's going to be a blurry one.   

I don't know exactly where the line is, but I'd start with cui bono: who benefits? 

As Ms. Stern wrote about smartphone cameras, "Like any technology story, what we do with them, and the world we want them to capture, is up to us." 

Defund Health Care!

In the wake of the protests related to George Floyd's death, there have been many calls to "defund police."  Those words come as a shock to many people, some of whom can't imagine even reducing police budgets, much less abolishing entire police departments, as a few advocates do indeed call for.

If we're talking about institutions that are supposed to protect us but too often cause us harm, maybe we should be talking about defunding health care as well.

Credit: Kyra Ching

America loves the police.  They're like mom and apple pie; not supporting them is essentially seen as being unpatriotic.  Until recent events, it's been political suicide to try to attack police budgets.  It's much easier for politicians to urge more police, with more hardware, even military grade, while searching for budget cuts that will attract less attention.

It remains to be seen whether the current climate will actually lead to action, but there are faint signs of change.  The mayor of Los Angeles has promised to cut $150 million from its police budget, the New York City mayor vowed to cut some of its $6b police budget, and the Minneapolis City Council voted to "begin the process of ending the Minneapolis Police Department," perhaps spurred by seeing the mayor do a "walk of shame" of jeers from protesters when he would not agree to even defunding it.

Let's look at the problem.  According to a Washington Post analysis, U.S. police fatally shoot about 1,000 people per year (and, bear in mind, George Floyd wasn't shot).  Police-related deaths are far higher, in absolute numbers or per capita, than other developed countries, as are arrests, use-of-force, and imprisonments.  All of this falls disproportionately on people of color, especially African-American men.

Not coincidentally, over the past forty years our spending on "law & order" has grown steadily, while our spending on social welfare programs has stagnated; they've gone from being roughly equal shares of national income to law & order being twice as much.  Even worse, there is no clear correlation between all that spending and crime rates.  As I've discussed previously, most of our arrests are not for violent crimes but for drug offenses as part of our "War on Drugs," even though our use of drugs isn't dissimilar to other countries while our treatment of drug users is.

We've cut social service programs and forced police to pick up the resulting problems, like drug addiction and homelessness.   As has been debated for years, we've turned our police into warriors instead of guardians.

If you haven't watched it yet, John Oliver nails the problems yet again:

On average, minorities have far less income and wealth, attend lower performing schools, are less likely to graduate from college, have lower rates of home or business ownership, and serve in fewer technical/managerial/executive roles.  We can't police ourselves out of the hole we've dug for many of our fellow citizens.  The question isn't why we have crime but, indeed, why don't we have more?

So, what does this have to do with health care?

We have the world's most expensive healthcare system, but one whose spending doesn't buy us better health or even longer lives.  A substantial portion of that spending is wasted at best and inappropriate or even dangerous at worst.  We have way too many medical errors, and those errors lead to a shocking number of injuries and deaths.

If you want to know why we should be angry at our healthcare system, read Elisabeth Rosenthal's An American Sickness, Cathryn Jakobson Ramin's Crooked, Beth Macy's Dopesick, or Jeanne Lenzer's The Danger Within Us, to name just a few recent exposes.

More of us suffer from our healthcare system than from the police system, with African-Americans having perhaps again the most to complain about, so, yes, why not call to defund health care? 

We can do better.

Ironically, the pandemic has effectively defunded large parts of our healthcare system.  For the first time anyone can remember, healthcare spending dropped.  Healthcare jobs, usually one of the major sources of new jobs, have been lost.  People are delaying care at astonishing levels.  Even ER visits for true emergencies, like heart attacks or suicide attempts, are way down.

With some exceptions, like increased use of telehealth, we're just not doing this defunding in any way that necessarily either improves our health or the healthcare system post-pandemic.

Credit: CDC

Start with public health.  If the COVID-19 pandemic has taught us anything, it is that we do not have a robust public health system, at any level.  We spend trillions of dollars on advanced medical care, but pinch pennies on public health, a pound foolish investment if there ever was one.  That has led to not only our slow, mistaken-ridden response, but also to the wide gap in African-American fatality rates from it, which are largely driven by the underlying health disparities, which themselves are both public health and socio-economic failures.

Focus next on social determinants of health (SDOH).  SDOH contributes much more to our health than medical care does, and investments in it produce outsized returns.  Better housing, a cleaner environment, better education, more income equality will result in a healthier population (and probably lower crime).

Then focus on primary care, which should be central to our healthcare system.  Over the past few decades, we've been funding institutions and sub-specialists more than primary care, and the pandemic has made that worse.  That is akin to the warrior versus guardian distinction for police.

Then, and only then, take a hard look at who we're paying for what care, with what outcomes.  There won't be enough money for everything our healthcare system is doing now, and that's OK; the goal is to need less care.

We're not going to get rid of the police.  As much as we rightfully decry some police practices, when it's your life or your property that is threatened, you're thankful for the police.  The issue is not whether to have police but what we should expect them to do and how to do that, and what we can do to reduce the need for them.

Same with healthcare.  When your loved one gets COVID-19, or has a heart attack, you want those ICUs and sub-specialties.  When the pharmaceutical companies develop vaccines for COVID-19, you'll be thankful for them too.  The issue is not whether to have a healthcare system but in how to make it less about medical care and more about health.

We should take this opportunity to defund healthcare, but do it thoughtfully.

We Can't Breathe

I was wondering what might crowd COVID-19 off the news.  The historic economic devastation caused by it has been subsumed into it, just another casualty of the pandemic.  In better times, perhaps SpaceX's efforts would inspire us.  But, no, it took the police killing of yet another person of color to take our attention away.

Now, let me say right off that I am not the best person to discuss George Floyd's death and the woeful pattern it is part of.  I have certainly been the beneficiary of white male privilege.  I've never been unjustly pulled over or arrested.  I haven't taken part in the protests.  But people like me need to speak out.  Writing about anything else right now seems almost irresponsible.

OK: you've seen the video.  You've heard Mr. Floyd protest that he can't breathe, that the officer was killing him.  You've seen other officers stand by and not do anything -- some even assisting -- even as bystanders pleaded for them to let Mr. Floyd breathe.  It's disturbing, it's distressing, and it's nothing new.

I saw a video from one of the resulting protests where another officer restrained a protester -- a black man, of course -- in exactly the same way, although in this case another officer eventually moved the officer's knee off the protester's neck.  He'd learned what that video looked like.

There now have been protests in over 140 U.S. cities, with the National Guard mobilized in almost half the states.  Most protests have been peaceful, but there has been looting, there have been shootings, and there have been deaths among both protesters and police.  It's a level of civil unrest not seen since the 1960's.

And we thought it was bad when we just wanted the grocery stores to have toilet paper again, when wearing a mask was considered a hardship.

It's a shame that some protests have ended up in destruction, and it's a tragedy that others have ended with violence.  It's possible that there are extremists who are seeking to use the protests as an opportunity to sow their own kinds of chaos.  But let's not use that as an excuse not to understand the justifiable frustration and anger that underlies the protests.

The New York Times profiled how Minneapolis might have a reputation as a diverse, liberal city, but "there remains an extraordinary racial gap for Minnesotans when it comes to education outcomes and health care."  Lawrence R. Jacobs, a professor at the University of Minnesota, explained: "

The racism has been around for a very, very long time.  You can see it in the redlining of neighborhoods, the education system, the transportation system and, obviously, policing.”

Similarly, The Washington Post called racial inequality in Minneapolis "among the worst in the nation," noting that:

The typical black family in Minneapolis earns less than half as much as the typical white family in any given year. And homeownership among black people is one-third the rate of white families.

It's not just Minneapolis, of course.  African-American and Latino populations dramatically trail whites in income and wealth across the country.  Those populations have long lagged in employment, and in the current recession are taking the biggest hits.  They're also more likely to be in low wage, essential jobs that can't be done from home, leading them to greater exposure to COVID-19.

Ironically, the very protests about police violence and the underlying inequalities may serve as fertile ground for further spread of COVID-19, and hit minority communities hardest of all.

Still, those are not the main reasons why minority communities are the hardest hit by COVID-19, especially African-Americans.  Dr. Marcella Nunez-Smith, director of Equity Research and Innovation at Yale School of Medicine, told NPR:

I've been at health equity research for a couple of decades now.  Those of us in the field, sadly, expected this.  We know that these racial ethnic disparities in COVID-19 are the result of pre-pandemic realities.  It's a legacy of structural discrimination that has limited success to health and wealth for people of color.  

Greg Millet, director of public policy at amfAR, agrees: "There's a structural issue that's taking place here, it's not a genetic issue for all non-white individuals in the U.S."  

One of those issues, sadly, is our justice system.  Here's a fact: police violence is a leading cause of death for young men in America -- and that is especially true of African-American men.  In research published last year, Edwards, et. alia concluded:

Police violence is a leading cause of death for young men, and young men of color face exceptionally high risk of being killed by police. Inequalities in risk are pronounced throughout the life course. This study reinforces calls to treat police violence as a public health issue . Racially unequal exposure to the risk of state violence has profound consequences for public health, democracy, and racial stratification.

Credit: Edwards, Lee, Esposito/PNAS

The problem goes beyond police violence.  We incarcerate far more people than any other country -- per capita or in absolute numbers -- and those prisoners are much more likely to be minorities (especially men).  Black men have a 1 in 3 lifetime chance of being imprisoned, Latino men 1 in 6, versus white men's 1 in 17.  Most of those imprisoned are there for drug offenses, and here the inequalities matter: whites are, in fact, more likely to use drugs, and about as likely to sell them, but are much less likely to be arrested/imprisoned for drug offenses.

Trevor Noah clarified the underlying problem: when Amy Cooper, the Central Park woman who called the police when a bird-watcher politely asked her to put her dog on a lease, she simply expected that, as a white woman, she'd be believed, and the African-American man wouldn't be.  We're all facing COVID-19, Mr. Noah reminds us, but African-Americans are facing COVID-19 and racism.  

President Trump wants to just lock up the protesters, while seemingly not to mind that COVID-19's disproportionate impact on minorities helps his election chances.  He and other so-called conservatives are happy to continue to allow the wide disparities that resulted in, among other things, George Floyd's death and COVID-19's impact on minority populations.  Even those of us who are offended, even outraged, by these inequalities have, for the most part, been too complicit in them.

The protests and even the pandemic will pass -- somehow, sometime, and with catastrophic damage.  But history will judge us by whether we took the opportunity to address the problems that underlie them.