Getting More Vitamin D May Help You Fight Off the New Coronavirus

The Importance of Vitamin D: Much is not known about COVID-19 and the coronavirus that causes it. One big question is whether the big disparity in mortality between African Americans and other Americans is due simply to poorer preexisting health and worse access to health care, or if there is also something else going on. In the category of “something else going on,” a greater prevalence of Vitamin D deficiency among African Americans has to be considered as a possibility. We know that Vitamin D deficiency was historically a powerful enough evolutionary force that those who have many generations of ancestors who lived nearer the poles than the equator ended up with light skin. So Vitamin D deficiency should not be despised as a demon.

In any case given the shred of evidence we have, taking Vitamin D supplements probably has a good benefit cost ratio right now. In his April 16, 2020 Wall Street Journal article “Vitamin D and Coronavirus Disparities,” Vatsal Thakkar writes this about the importance of Vitamin D for the immune system:

Vitamin D supplementation in African-Americans reduced cancer risk 23%. How? Cancer cells develop regularly in most animals, including humans, as the result of toxic injuries or glitches in DNA replication, but a healthy immune system destroys them. There is evidence that low vitamin D levels make the immune system go blind.

…

A 2009 study examined sun exposure and fatality rates during the 1918-19 Spanish flu pandemic, which killed an estimated 50 million world-wide. Disparities in access to health care were minimal then, since treatment consisted mostly in supportive measures and convalescence. Antivirals, vaccines, intensive-care units and ventilators didn’t exist.

The U.S. erected emergency hospitals—one of which, the Camp Brooks Open Air Hospital in Massachusetts, had the unique distinction of being an outdoor recovery unit. The mortality rate for patients there fell from 40% to 13% when they were moved outside. Sunlight might have proved to be literally the best disinfectant.

How Much Vitamin D to Get: On how much Vitamin D to get, it is important to know that the minimum daily requirement was messed up by a statistical error. See:

Making Sure Your Body Can Make the Active Form of Vitamin D: The Vitamin D we produce with the help of the sun or in food or supplements still needs to be turned into an active form. Contrary to what we have been taught about milk being good for Vitamin D, whatever does in terms of getting the Vitamin D raw materials, it can inhibit the production within the body of the active form of Vitamin D. See:

That doesn’t mean you can ever have milk or dairy. You just need to have a big enough chunk of the day when you don’t have milk or dairy to give your body a chance to make the active form of Vitamin D. That is, if you do consume dairy, don’t consume it all the time.

Caveat: I want to emphasize how little is known. It may turn out that Vitamin D does essentially nothing to reduce risk of a bad case of COVID-19. But if you take an amount of Vitamin D in line with the recommendations in line with “Carola Binder—Why You Should Get More Vitamin D: The Recommended Daily Allowance for Vitamin D Was Underestimated Due to Statistical Illiteracy,” I think the benefit/cost ratio is good. And time-restricted eating in general is a good idea, especially when so many of us are holed up at home near the refrigerator. See “Eating During the Coronavirus Lockdown.”

For annotated links to other posts on diet and health, see:

The Federalist Papers #9 A: There Has Been Technological Progress in Practical Principles of Republican Government—Alexander Hamilton

In his introduction to the 9th number of the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton boldly claims that there has been technological progress in the principles of Republican government. He first reminds readers of how bad things used to be even for cities and nations that had periods of considerable freedom and democracy. Then he very explicitly claims that there has been progress:

The science of politics, however, like most other sciences, has received great improvement. The efficacy of various principles is now well understood, which were either not known at all, or imperfectly known to the ancients.

Finally he lists key principles of republican government that had been discovered. Leaving for a future post his next theme of how larger republic may be more stable, here is his list, with my added bullets:

  • The regular distribution of power into distinct departments;

  • the introduction of legislative balances and checks;

  • the institution of courts composed of judges holding their offices during good behavior;

  • the representation of the people in the legislature by deputies of their own election:

He then again, in this specific context, asserts that there has been progress in understanding of the principles of stable republican government:

… these are wholly new discoveries, or have made their principal progress towards perfection in modern times. They are means, and powerful means, by which the excellences of republican government may be retained and its imperfections lessened or avoided.

Below is all of this in context:

|| Federalist No. 9 || 

The Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection
For the Independent Journal.

Author: Alexander Hamilton

To the People of the State of New York:

A FIRM Union will be of the utmost moment to the peace and liberty of the States, as a barrier against domestic faction and insurrection. It is impossible to read the history of the petty republics of Greece and Italy without feeling sensations of horror and disgust at the distractions with which they were continually agitated, and at the rapid succession of revolutions by which they were kept in a state of perpetual vibration between the extremes of tyranny and anarchy. If they exhibit occasional calms, these only serve as short-lived contrast to the furious storms that are to succeed. If now and then intervals of felicity open to view, we behold them with a mixture of regret, arising from the reflection that the pleasing scenes before us are soon to be overwhelmed by the tempestuous waves of sedition and party rage. If momentary rays of glory break forth from the gloom, while they dazzle us with a transient and fleeting brilliancy, they at the same time admonish us to lament that the vices of government should pervert the direction and tarnish the lustre of those bright talents and exalted endowments for which the favored soils that produced them have been so justly celebrated.

From the disorders that disfigure the annals of those republics the advocates of despotism have drawn arguments, not only against the forms of republican government, but against the very principles of civil liberty. They have decried all free government as inconsistent with the order of society, and have indulged themselves in malicious exultation over its friends and partisans. Happily for mankind, stupendous fabrics reared on the basis of liberty, which have flourished for ages, have, in a few glorious instances, refuted their gloomy sophisms. And, I trust, America will be the broad and solid foundation of other edifices, not less magnificent, which will be equally permanent monuments of their errors.

But it is not to be denied that the portraits they have sketched of republican government were too just copies of the originals from which they were taken. If it had been found impracticable to have devised models of a more perfect structure, the enlightened friends to liberty would have been obliged to abandon the cause of that species of government as indefensible. The science of politics, however, like most other sciences, has received great improvement. The efficacy of various principles is now well understood, which were either not known at all, or imperfectly known to the ancients. The regular distribution of power into distinct departments; the introduction of legislative balances and checks; the institution of courts composed of judges holding their offices during good behavior; the representation of the people in the legislature by deputies of their own election: these are wholly new discoveries, or have made their principal progress towards perfection in modern times. They are means, and powerful means, by which the excellences of republican government may be retained and its imperfections lessened or avoided.

Seconding Paul Romer's Proposal of Universal, Frequent Testing as a Way Out

Link to Paul Romer’s blog post “Simulating Covid-19: Part 2,” which is the source of the video above.

Link to Paul Romer’s Twitter thread on his proposal for universal, frequent testing

Paul Romer has proposed testing everyone for COVID-19 every two weeks and frontline workers as much as every day. Simulations like the one illustrated in his brief video above indicate that testing everyone frequently and totally isolating those who test positive could be effective at keeping the novel coronavirus in check. I think this is a very promising way to get out of the pandemic earlier than the deployment of a vaccine without having to keep a big chunk of the economy shut down. Let me share some specific thoughts I have about Paul Romer’s proposal:

  1. This should be obvious, but this is not something we can do right now. We need to massively scale up the materials for doing tests for having the novel coronavirus and the number of people trained to perform the test. This will take some time. But given a few months to scale things up, it seems to me we ought to be able to do any number of the tests at a roughly constant marginal cost.

  2. Relative to the large fraction of a trillion dollars per month that it costs the economy to be on COVID-19 lockdown, universal testing is quite affordable. Approximate the US population as 1/3 of a billion people. (We have to test children too, because they could be quite important transmitters of the disease.) To make the calculations easy, but quite conservative, suppose the test costs $90. Then it costs $30 billion every time we test everyone once. Again, conservatively, suppose we need to test people on average 4 times per month. That then comes to $120 billion per month. I would be shocked if that isn’t a lot less than the economic cost of lockdowns. And with different assumptions, the cost of the testing regime could be an order of magnitude less than this $120 billion per month.

  3. The Federal government doesn’t have to be totally on board for this for it to show its worth in states willing to try it. Block grants to states to try various things are well within the range of political possibility. (Much less likely, some states might be able to pass constitutional amendments loosening their budget balance rules for this emergency. Some states may already have loopholes in their balanced budget rules.) Here is how a state could do the job:

    • Get some of the funds by mandating that health insurance cover these tests. However, many people will need to have the tests paid for directly or indirectly by the state or federal government.

    • Require that to get a paycheck from an employer in the state, someone must have been tested recently (whatever the result).

    • Require that children can only attend school and only receive paid childcare if they have been tested recently.

    • Have a fine for those who don’t get tested.

    • Require that anyone buying anything in person in the state have a certificate that they tested negative recently. This is key for avoiding transmission from other states.

  4. Paul Romer’s basic idea is not an either-or choice. There is a continuum of possibilities. Most people are now comfortable with the idea of “test-and-trace.” But in any test-and-trace regime, it matters a lot what one does with borderline cases. Doing test-and-trace with a policy of “When in doubt, test; when the test leaves doubt, isolate” is a good part of the way toward Paul Romer’s proposal. The more tests we as a nation produce, the more conservative we can be with our test-and-trace policy, with universal testing as simply a very conservative test-and-trace policy. So you don’t have to sell a universal testing program to begin with. You just gradually make test-and-trace more and more conservative as the number of tests available increases. People have time to get used to widespread testing.

Don’t miss these other posts on the coronavirus pandemic:

Interactions between COVID-19 and Chronic Diseases

With all the attention on COVID-19, it is important to remember that chronic diseases such as diabetes and heart disease and other diseases affected by diet and exercise such as cancer and strokes lop off many more total human years of life than COVID-19 is every likely to. While sheltering at home from the coronavirus, it is dangerous to increase consumption of processed food if there is any way at all to avoid doing so. According to Julie Creswell’s April 17, 2020 New York Times article “‘I Just Need the Comfort’: Processed Foods Make a Pandemic Comeback,” many people are doing just that. However, people are eating less restaurant food, which means the net effect on healthfulness of food eaten is unclear: it depends on how unhealthy restaurant food is compared to processed food from the grocery story. Julie writes:

As the coronavirus shutdowns continue across the United States, two growing trends involving how people eat — the rising amount of money spent on meals outside the home and the increased purchase of fresh or organic foods in grocery stores — have been reversed. Many restaurants have closed, and shoppers are reaching for frozen pizza and boxes of cereal instead of organic greens and whole grains.

I write about why processed food is a problem in “The Problem with Processed Food.”

I can report that my wife and I are still able to get plenty of produce even from the limited range of things available for pickup from the local grocery store, though we have had to substitute heads of cabbage that we chop up in place of the spinach we would usually buy, for example.

In addition to bad health consequences 10, 20, 30 or 40 years in the future, the chronic diseases to which bad diet contributes so much are taking a toll now when people get the coronavirus. In her April 12, 2020 Wall Street Journal article “Heart Conditions Prove Especially Dangerous for Covid-19 Patients,” Betsy McKay writes:

People with cardiovascular disease face more life-threatening complications and a substantially higher risk of death from the new coronavirus …

Among the complications are conditions that put these patients’ already strained hearts under additional stress. While Covid-19 is a respiratory disease, doctors increasingly report that some patients develop cardiovascular complications such as heart-rhythm disorders, blood clots and inflammation causing chest pain that mimics a heart attack.

…

Cardiovascular disease is the most common and deadliest so far of several underlying conditions that make some people more vulnerable to the ravages of Covid-19, a disease that causes barely an ache or pain for some who are infected but sends others to ICUs for weeks. People with diabetes, chronic lung disease and cancer are also at risk, according to several studies.

…

The mortality rate of Covid-19 patients who have cardiovascular disease is more than four times higher than the rate for patients overall with the illness, according to data from the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention. It is nearly three times higher for Covid-19 patients with high blood pressure alone, the Chinese agency found.

Nearly two-thirds of Covid-19 patients who died in intensive care in Lombardy, Italy, had hypertension, according to a study of 1,591 cases in JAMA Cardiology. Nearly half of U.S. hospitalized Covid-19 patients in a study by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention had hypertension, and 27.8% had cardiovascular disease.

I added bold italics to one sentence in the middle of this passage to emphasize the other chronic diseases and diseases affected by diet and exercise that also make COVID-19 more dangerous besides the heart disease advertised in the headline of the article.

One of the mysteries of COVID-19 is why children are endangered by at as little as they are. Influenza has a different pattern of being deadliest for the very young as well as the very old. Interactions with chronic diseases and diseases fostered by a lifetime of bad diet could be part of the explanation: young children have these chronic diseases at a much lower rate than old folks. Sumathi Reddy’s March 10, 2020 Wall Street Journal article “How Vulnerable Are Children to the New Coronavirus?” does point to two other speculative explanations:

… some experts speculate that children may not have the same density of the receptors to the virus that adults have. There has also been speculation that children may have more protection due to exposure to other coronaviruses. But Vanessa Raabe, an infectious disease specialist at NYU Langone Health, says there’s not enough data to say that’s the case.

You might think that it is already to late to affect your danger from COVID-19 if you have a chronic disease except by reducing your chance of getting the virus. But if diabetes is a risk factor, I’ll bet prediabetes—which a large fraction of Americans have, whether they realize it or not—is also a risk factor. And I’ll also bet that if you go off sugar for the next three weeks you can materially reduce any prediabetes that you have. On tips to help with doing that, see:

There is a lot more to still figure out about the interactions between chronic diseases and COVID-19, but what evidence we have suggests that by changing your diet—and hopefully also increasing your exercise—to fight chronic diseases, you can make yourself tougher in relation to COVID-19. And remember that COVID-19 is far from the only health danger that you face. Just because deaths from chronic diseases are better spread out doesn’t mean they are pleasant deaths. And all of us who are lucky enough to have those who love us cause grief to those who love us when we die, whatever disease we die from.

For annotated links to other posts on diet and health, see:

'The Four Agreements' by Don Miguel Ruiz (with Janet Mills) and `The Fifth Agreement' by Don Miguel Ruiz and Don Jose Ruiz (with Janet Mills)

Easter is a time to think about the Resurrection of Jesus. I write about that in “What If Jesus Was Really Resurrected?” This time, let me stick closer to my nonsupernaturalist commitment by thinking of Jesus as a great wisdom teacher. I wish I were in possession of videos of the historical Jesus to see the powerful presence that I expect he must have been to have the historical impact he had.

In order to help picture what Jesus might have been like as a wisdom teacher, let me consider a currently living wisdom teacher: Don Miguel Ruiz. I assume that if we did have videos of the historical Jesus, Jesus would be an order of magnitude more impressive. But perhaps they could be considered as in the same category.

Jesus as represented in the Gospel of Thomas has the kind of elusive and allusive sayings that one finds in many of the pages of Don Miguel’s books The Four Agreements and The Fifth Agreement. (Both use the writing assistance of Janet Mills; The Fifth Agreement is coauthored with Don Miguel’s son Don Jose Ruiz. The translation of the Gospel of Thomas I am linking to is by my college Biblical Hebrew professor, Thomas Lambdin.) But even in the canonical gospels, Jesus has many sayings that try to heal our inner worlds as opposed to dealing with the outer world. For example,

  • Can any one of you by worrying add a single hour to your life? … Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own. (Matthew 6:27,34)

  • The eye is the lamp of the body. If your eyes are healthy, your whole body will be full of light. But if your eyes are unhealthy, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light within you is darkness, how great is that darkness! (Matthew 6:22,23)

  •  Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? (Matthew 7:1-4)

Now, let’s turn to bestselling wisdom teacher Don Miguel Ruiz. (And let me be understood to include his coauthors, Don Jose Ruiz and Janet Miller, who join him in his teaching.) There is much in The Four Agreements and The Fifth Agreement that is hard to understand, perhaps reflecting the gnomic nature of the “Toltec” wisdom tradition Don Miguel draws from.

Most of what I do understand in The Four Agreements and The Fifth Agreement can be explained in terms of this wonderful metaphor from The Fifth Agreement:

Imagine that you are in a gigantic mall where there are hundreds of movie theaters. You look around to see what’s playing, and you notice a movie that has your name. Amazing! You go inside the theater, and it’s empty except for one person. Very quietly, trying not to interrupt, you sit behind that person, who doesn’t even notice you; all that person’s attention is on the movie.

You look at the screen, and what a big surprise! You recognize every character in the movie — your mother, your father, your brothers and sisters, your beloved, your children, your friends. Then you see the main character of the movie, and it’s you! You are the star of the movie and it’s the story of you. And that person in front of you, well, it’s also you, watching yourself act in the movie. Of course, the main character is just the way you believe you are, and so are all the secondary characters because you know the story of you. After a while, you feel a little overwhelmed by everything you just witnessed, and you decide to go to another theater.

In this theater there is also just one person watching a movie, and she doesn’t even notice when you sit beside her. You start watching the movie, and you recognize all the characters, but now you’re just a secondary character. This is the story of your mother’s life, and she is the one who is watching the movie with all her attention. Then you realize that your mother is not the same person who was in your movie. The way she projects herself is completely different in her movie. It’s the way your mother wants everyone to perceive her. You know that it’s not authentic. She’s just acting. But then you begin to realize that it’s the way she perceives herself, and it’s kind of a shock.

Then you notice that the character who has your face is not the same person who was in your movie. You say to yourself, “Ah, this isn’t me,” but now you can see how your mother perceives you, what she believes about you, and it’s far from what you believe about yourself. Then you see the character of your father, the way your mother perceives him, and it’s not at all the way you perceive him. It’s completely distorted, and so is her perception of all the other characters. You see the way your mother perceives your beloved, and you even get a little upset with your mom. “How dare she!” You stand up and get out of there.

You go to the next theater, and it’s the story of your beloved. Now you can see the way your beloved perceives you, and the character is completely different from the one who was in your movie and the one who was in your mother’s movie. You can see the way your beloved perceives your children, your family, your friends. You can see the way your beloved wants to project him- or herself, and it’s not the way you perceive your beloved at all. Then you decide to leave that movie, and go to your children’s movie. You see the way your children see you, the way they see Grandpa, Grandma, and you can hardly believe it. Then you watch the movies of your brothers and sisters, of your friends, and you find out that everybody is distorting all the characters in their movie.

After seeing all these movies, you decide to return to the first theater to see your own movie once again. You look at yourself acting in your movie, but you no longer believe anything you’re watching; you no longer believe your own story because you can see that it’s just a story. Now you know that all the acting you did your whole life was really for nothing because nobody perceives you the way you want to be perceived. You can see that all the drama that happens in your movie isn’t really noticed by anybody around you. It’s obvious that everybody’s attention is focused on their own movie. They don’t even notice when you’re sitting right beside them in their theater! The actors have all their attention on their story, and that is the only reality they live in. Their attention is so hooked by their own creation that they don’t even notice their own presence — the one who is observing their movie.

Let me explain the five agreements according to my own understanding using this metaphor. One key feature of this metaphor that is clear in the rest of these two books is that each person is scriptwriter and director for her or his own movie. Here are the five agreements.

  1. Be Impeccable With Your Word. This sounds like it is about honesty, integrity and authenticity. I have no doubt Don Miguel is in favor of honesty, integrity and authenticity. But that is not what this agreement is about. Going back to the movie analogy, it is saying that if you are going to tell a story about your life, tell a nice story instead of a nasty one. Here is a key passage from The Fifth Agreement: “You’re telling yourself a story, but is it the truth? If you’re using the word to create a story with self-judgment and self-rejection, then you’re using the word against yourself, and you’re not being impeccable.”

  2. Don't Take Anything Personally. Other people’s movies are funhouse-mirror versions of reality (as is yours). The character in someone else’s movie that has your name typically bears little resemblance either to the character in your movie with your name or to the real you. So take with many grains of salt anything other people think or say about you. Don’t take it personally.

  3. Don't Make Assumptions. Don’t assume that your movie has a solid grasp on reality. Most people’s movies don’t. And don’t assume you know what is going on in someone else’s move: the real world differs from the metaphor above in that you can’t really go into someone else’s movie theater. The best you can do to avoid fooling yourself is to ask good questions of yourself and of other people to try to figure out the lay of the land.

  4. Always Do Your Best. Unlike some big-screen movie characters, you don’t have superhuman abilities. You will often fail. Be kind to yourself as you try to redirect your personal movie in a two-steps-forward-one-step-back pattern.

  5. Be Skeptical, But Learn to Listen. With few exceptions, everyone’s movie is a very distorted version of reality, including yours. So be skeptical. But as pieces of art, each individual’s movie reveals a lot about where they are coming from and what kind of mental box they have put themselves in. So it pays to listen in order to understand.

The Bottom Line: As I have learned from the experience of being a co-active life coach for a dozen people, most people have a lot of mental chatter that leans toward self-criticism. The typical volume of negative mental chatter is a recipe for an unpleasant—often even hellish—internal daily experience. Internal self-flagellation, while very common, is optional. I’ll write a future post about the book Positive Intelligence, by Shirzad Chamine (which is as clear as The Four Agreements and The Fifth Agreement are enigmatic) in explaining how to weaken your inner judge and make you internal world a little more like heaven than like hell.

Don’t miss these posts on co-active life coaching:

Also, don’t miss the Unitarian-Universalist sermons that I have posted:

Why We are Likely to Need Strong Aggregate Demand Stimulus after Tight Social Distancing Restrictions are Over

There are three reasons we are likely to need strong aggregate demand stimulus after tight social distancing restrictions are over.

1. First, despite efforts to compensate people for economic losses from social distancing, many households and firms are likely to reduce their spending because of increased debt they bear—and for many, from being bankrupt.

Intermezzo. The second and third reasons stem from the likelihood that the tight social distancing restrictions will not end cleanly and be over for good. Even if nationwide or nearly nationwide lockdowns are over, there is likely to be a rolling set of regional lockdowns and the coronavirus resurges in particular areas. The fear of such regional lockdowns is likely to make both investment in factories and equipment and in hiring workers seem risky.

(It is less clear that residential construction will seem risky. Lockdowns make people spend more time at home, and so may make them more eager to get just the right home, if they have the means. But it is also very possible that potential lockdowns may make people scared to build homes.)

2. Reluctance to make the at-least-partially-irreversible decision to buy equipment or build a new factory due to uncertainty about how the pandemic will evolve has a direct drag on the investment component of aggregate demand. (At-least-partially-irreversible means simply that there are costs to reversing the decision.)

3. Reluctance to make the at-least-partially-irreversible decision to hire workers could have an even more interesting consequence. It could cause a shift in the Okun’s Law relationship between output and employment, making employment lower for any given level of GDP as firms accommodate any given level of sales with fewer workers by making the workers they have work more intensely. This extra effort-per-hour is not sustainable in the long run, but can be kept up for a while. In any case, the bottom line is that aggregate demand may need to target an especially high level of GDP to get a reasonable level of employment. There would be a sense in which the potential or natural level of output has temporarily increased and the target level of aggregate demand needs to rise to meet it.

Conclusion. There are many things that aggregate demand alone cannot fix. However, to the extent aggregate demand is helpful, it is fortunate that there is no limit to how much aggregate demand stimulus the Fed and other central banks can provide by cutting interest rates, because there is no lower bound on interest rates except the lower bounds central banks choose to impose. (See “How and Why to Eliminate the Zero Lower Bound: A Reader’s Guide.”)

Don’t miss these other posts on the coronavirus pandemic:

Eating During the Coronavirus Lockdown

Hilary Potkewitz’s March 23, 2020 Wall Street Journal article “How to Avoid Eating All Day While Coronavirus Keeps Us Working From Home” has at least two important points about how to eat during this COVID-19 lockdown.

First, set time limits on eating. Nutrition director Elisabetta Politi, whom Hilary interviewed, gives the weak—but still very helpful—version of this. She says:

Make mealtimes very clear, so everybody knows there is a time to eat and time to not eat

Dietition Kristin Kirkpatrick gives a stronger version. Hilary gives this account of that part of the interview:

“Now is a great time to try out some periodic fasting techniques,” she says. Also called time-restricted eating, the practice involves limiting food consumption to an eight- to 12-hour daytime window. Ms. Kirkpatrick doesn’t eat breakfast until 11 a.m., and finishes family dinner by 7 p.m., she says. Someone else may feel more comfortable with a 10-hour food window, from 9 a.m. to 7 p.m.

Such changes can lower the appetite, she says, and studies show that people tend to consume fewer calories when they have fewer eating hours in the day. She cautions that periodic fasting should only be considered by healthy adults, and isn’t appropriate for anyone who is diabetic, pregnant or has a history of disordered eating.

In relation to that last paragraph, I should say that fasting is exactly the treatment for Type II Diabetes that my hero Jason Fung uses for his patients. (On Jason Fung, see my post “Obesity Is Always and Everywhere an Insulin Phenomenon.”) Note however that as a treatment for diabetes, fasting needs close supervision by a doctor because the appropriate level of insulin and other medications can be dramatically different when one is fasting. (More generally, anyone taking medications needs to be aware of the big danger that fasting can seriously change the appropriate dosage of a wide variety of medications—a reason to let your doctor know about your plans to try fasting.)

Note that, in addition to time limits on eating helping you to avoid weight gain while cooped up at home near the refrigerator, substantial periods of eating nothing are when your body does its renewal processes. In particular, fasting is when substandard cells of your body are disassembled for their parts and replaced by new cells. If you have to face the novel coronavirus, you are probably better off doing so with new high quality cells rather than old substandard cells.

Second, think about adding spices that might have antiviral properties. I don’t want to exaggerate how big a difference this will make, but there is so little downside to eating some extra spices over the next few months, it is worth a try. Hilary writes this based on her interview with Mark Hyman, medical director of the UltraWellness Center:

 “People tend to forget about spices, and many of them have antimicrobial, anti-inflammatory and anti-viral qualities,” Dr. Hyman says, putting garlic, onions, turmeric, ginger and oregano on his must-have list.

Since I read that, I have been taking a turmeric capsule every day, just in case, and thinking about dishes with garlic, onions, ginger, oregano and turmeric.

Googling “antiviral spices” yields many other lists of things to eat that just might help. Here is the top hit:

Its list of antiviral herbs is:

  1. Oregano

  2. Sage

  3. Basil

  4. Fennel

  5. Garlic

  6. Lemon Balm

  7. Peppermint

  8. Rosemary

  9. Echinacea

  10. Sambucus

  11. Licorice

  12. Astragalus

  13. Ginger

  14. Ginseng

  15. Dandelion

There are many more hits for “antiviral spices” that you can explore! Again, I don’t want to exaggerate how big an effect any of these will have, but in the current situation, the benefit/cost ratio seems favorable. And the list of candidates is long enough, you probably have some in your possession already.

Beyond these two tips, I’m willing to bet that most things that improve your chances of avoiding heart disease, strokes and cancer are likely to be helpful in giving you more resistant so the novel coronavirus as well. Chronic diseases often result from a derangement from how our bodies were designed to function. On average, bodily derangements probably make us less resistant to infectious diseases as well. So it is worth making a special effort during this pandemic to eat in a way that you would generally consider healthy anyway.

For annotated links to other posts on diet and health, see:


The Federalist Papers #8: Without Union, the States Would Either Be Subject to Devastating Wars with Each Other or Would Have Liberty Endangered by their Own Standing Armies—Alexander Hamilton

Faced with an argument that the proposed Constitution would allow a standing army, Alexander Hamilton parried with the argument that, without the Constitution, the states would end up with standing armies to defend against one another. Moreover, he argued that the transitional period to these standing armies,

War, therefore, would be desultory and predatory. PLUNDER and devastation ever march in the train of irregulars.

This also, is bad.

John Jay in Federalist Papers #5 and Alexander Hamilton in Federalist Papers #6 and #7 had prepared the stage by making the argument that, if not united, the states would be at each others throats. See:

I have to say that, reading his numbers among the Federalist Papers, I am in awe of Alexander Hamilton as a writer and a thinker. The Federalist Papers #8 is a good example of that. Here is Alexander Hamilton:

Author: Alexander Hamilton

To the People of the State of New York:

ASSUMING it therefore as an established truth that the several States, in case of disunion, or such combinations of them as might happen to be formed out of the wreck of the general Confederacy, would be subject to those vicissitudes of peace and war, of friendship and enmity, with each other, which have fallen to the lot of all neighboring nations not united under one government, let us enter into a concise detail of some of the consequences that would attend such a situation.

War between the States, in the first period of their separate existence, would be accompanied with much greater distresses than it commonly is in those countries where regular military establishments have long obtained. The disciplined armies always kept on foot on the continent of Europe, though they bear a malignant aspect to liberty and economy, have, notwithstanding, been productive of the signal advantage of rendering sudden conquests impracticable, and of preventing that rapid desolation which used to mark the progress of war prior to their introduction. The art of fortification has contributed to the same ends. The nations of Europe are encircled with chains of fortified places, which mutually obstruct invasion. Campaigns are wasted in reducing two or three frontier garrisons, to gain admittance into an enemy's country. Similar impediments occur at every step, to exhaust the strength and delay the progress of an invader. Formerly, an invading army would penetrate into the heart of a neighboring country almost as soon as intelligence of its approach could be received; but now a comparatively small force of disciplined troops, acting on the defensive, with the aid of posts, is able to impede, and finally to frustrate, the enterprises of one much more considerable. The history of war, in that quarter of the globe, is no longer a history of nations subdued and empires overturned, but of towns taken and retaken; of battles that decide nothing; of retreats more beneficial than victories; of much effort and little acquisition.

In this country the scene would be altogether reversed. The jealousy of military establishments would postpone them as long as possible. The want of fortifications, leaving the frontiers of one state open to another, would facilitate inroads. The populous States would, with little difficulty, overrun their less populous neighbors. Conquests would be as easy to be made as difficult to be retained. War, therefore, would be desultory and predatory. PLUNDER and devastation ever march in the train of irregulars. The calamities of individuals would make the principal figure in the events which would characterize our military exploits.

This picture is not too highly wrought; though, I confess, it would not long remain a just one. Safety from external danger is the most powerful director of national conduct. Even the ardent love of liberty will, after a time, give way to its dictates. The violent destruction of life and property incident to war, the continual effort and alarm attendant on a state of continual danger, will compel nations the most attached to liberty to resort for repose and security to institutions which have a tendency to destroy their civil and political rights. To be more safe, they at length become willing to run the risk of being less free.

The institutions chiefly alluded to are STANDING ARMIES and the correspondent appendages of military establishments. Standing armies, it is said, are not provided against in the new Constitution; and it is therefore inferred that they may exist under it. [This objection will be fully examined in its proper place, and it will be shown that the only natural precaution which could have been taken on this subject has been taken; and a much better one than is to be found in any constitution that has been heretofore framed in America, most of which contain no guard at all on this subject.] Their existence, however, from the very terms of the proposition, is, at most, problematical and uncertain. But standing armies, it may be replied, must inevitably result from a dissolution of the Confederacy. Frequent war and constant apprehension, which require a state of as constant preparation, will infallibly produce them. The weaker States or confederacies would first have recourse to them, to put themselves upon an equality with their more potent neighbors. They would endeavor to supply the inferiority of population and resources by a more regular and effective system of defense, by disciplined troops, and by fortifications. They would, at the same time, be necessitated to strengthen the executive arm of government, in doing which their constitutions would acquire a progressive direction toward monarchy. It is of the nature of war to increase the executive at the expense of the legislative authority.

The expedients which have been mentioned would soon give the States or confederacies that made use of them a superiority over their neighbors. Small states, or states of less natural strength, under vigorous governments, and with the assistance of disciplined armies, have often triumphed over large states, or states of greater natural strength, which have been destitute of these advantages. Neither the pride nor the safety of the more important States or confederacies would permit them long to submit to this mortifying and adventitious superiority. They would quickly resort to means similar to those by which it had been effected, to reinstate themselves in their lost pre-eminence. Thus, we should, in a little time, see established in every part of this country the same engines of despotism which have been the scourge of the Old World. This, at least, would be the natural course of things; and our reasonings will be the more likely to be just, in proportion as they are accommodated to this standard.

These are not vague inferences drawn from supposed or speculative defects in a Constitution, the whole power of which is lodged in the hands of a people, or their representatives and delegates, but they are solid conclusions, drawn from the natural and necessary progress of human affairs.

It may, perhaps, be asked, by way of objection to this, why did not standing armies spring up out of the contentions which so often distracted the ancient republics of Greece? Different answers, equally satisfactory, may be given to this question. The industrious habits of the people of the present day, absorbed in the pursuits of gain, and devoted to the improvements of agriculture and commerce, are incompatible with the condition of a nation of soldiers, which was the true condition of the people of those republics. The means of revenue, which have been so greatly multiplied by the increase of gold and silver and of the arts of industry, and the science of finance, which is the offspring of modern times, concurring with the habits of nations, have produced an entire revolution in the system of war, and have rendered disciplined armies, distinct from the body of the citizens, the inseparable companions of frequent hostility.

There is a wide difference, also, between military establishments in a country seldom exposed by its situation to internal invasions, and in one which is often subject to them, and always apprehensive of them. The rulers of the former can have a good pretext, if they are even so inclined, to keep on foot armies so numerous as must of necessity be maintained in the latter. These armies being, in the first case, rarely, if at all, called into activity for interior defense, the people are in no danger of being broken to military subordination. The laws are not accustomed to relaxations, in favor of military exigencies; the civil state remains in full vigor, neither corrupted, nor confounded with the principles or propensities of the other state. The smallness of the army renders the natural strength of the community an over-match for it; and the citizens, not habituated to look up to the military power for protection, or to submit to its oppressions, neither love nor fear the soldiery; they view them with a spirit of jealous acquiescence in a necessary evil, and stand ready to resist a power which they suppose may be exerted to the prejudice of their rights. The army under such circumstances may usefully aid the magistrate to suppress a small faction, or an occasional mob, or insurrection; but it will be unable to enforce encroachments against the united efforts of the great body of the people.

In a country in the predicament last described, the contrary of all this happens. The perpetual menacings of danger oblige the government to be always prepared to repel it; its armies must be numerous enough for instant defense. The continual necessity for their services enhances the importance of the soldier, and proportionably degrades the condition of the citizen. The military state becomes elevated above the civil. The inhabitants of territories, often the theatre of war, are unavoidably subjected to frequent infringements on their rights, which serve to weaken their sense of those rights; and by degrees the people are brought to consider the soldiery not only as their protectors, but as their superiors. The transition from this disposition to that of considering them masters, is neither remote nor difficult; but it is very difficult to prevail upon a people under such impressions, to make a bold or effectual resistance to usurpations supported by the military power.

The kingdom of Great Britain falls within the first description. An insular situation, and a powerful marine, guarding it in a great measure against the possibility of foreign invasion, supersede the necessity of a numerous army within the kingdom. A sufficient force to make head against a sudden descent, till the militia could have time to rally and embody, is all that has been deemed requisite. No motive of national policy has demanded, nor would public opinion have tolerated, a larger number of troops upon its domestic establishment. There has been, for a long time past, little room for the operation of the other causes, which have been enumerated as the consequences of internal war. This peculiar felicity of situation has, in a great degree, contributed to preserve the liberty which that country to this day enjoys, in spite of the prevalent venality and corruption. If, on the contrary, Britain had been situated on the continent, and had been compelled, as she would have been, by that situation, to make her military establishments at home coextensive with those of the other great powers of Europe, she, like them, would in all probability be, at this day, a victim to the absolute power of a single man. 'T is possible, though not easy, that the people of that island may be enslaved from other causes; but it cannot be by the prowess of an army so inconsiderable as that which has been usually kept up within the kingdom.

If we are wise enough to preserve the Union we may for ages enjoy an advantage similar to that of an insulated situation. Europe is at a great distance from us. Her colonies in our vicinity will be likely to continue too much disproportioned in strength to be able to give us any dangerous annoyance. Extensive military establishments cannot, in this position, be necessary to our security. But if we should be disunited, and the integral parts should either remain separated, or, which is most probable, should be thrown together into two or three confederacies, we should be, in a short course of time, in the predicament of the continental powers of Europe --our liberties would be a prey to the means of defending ourselves against the ambition and jealousy of each other.

This is an idea not superficial or futile, but solid and weighty. It deserves the most serious and mature consideration of every prudent and honest man of whatever party. If such men will make a firm and solemn pause, and meditate dispassionately on the importance of this interesting idea; if they will contemplate it in all its attitudes, and trace it to all its consequences, they will not hesitate to part with trivial objections to a Constitution, the rejection of which would in all probability put a final period to the Union. The airy phantoms that flit before the distempered imaginations of some of its adversaries would quickly give place to the more substantial forms of dangers, real, certain, and formidable.

PUBLIUS


Here are links to my other posts on The Federalist Papers so far: