Blog Archives

Walter's Blog

"But how can you live and have no story to tell?" Fyodor Dostoevsky

Reflections on recent events, plus the occasional fact free rant unfiltered by rational argument.

"If you want to read a blog to get a sense of what is going on in Hong Kong these days or a blog that would tell you what life was like living in colonial Hong Kong, this blog, WALTER'S BLOG, fits the bill." Hong Kong Blog Review

20/2/2021 0 Comments

Happy Anniversary Covid-19

"Do lockdowns cause more virulent and lethal strains of Covid-19 to emerge?"

A couple of weeks back, we reached the anniversary of Covid-19. While we remember the victims, let's celebrate. Over the past 12 months, we've learnt a great deal with the advances made on vaccines, nothing short of remarkable. These innovations place us in a strong position when the next pandemic arrives. But there is much we have yet to understand.

For example, do lockdowns cause more virulent and lethal strains of Covid-19 to emerge? While this may appear an odd question, understanding how evolution works means further examination is needed. Undoubtedly lockdowns curb the spread of all variants you assert. That's not the case. It helps to consider human behaviour as a factor. Dr Paul Ewald, an evolutionary biologist from Massachusetts, believes the lethal strains enjoy a boon due to our actions. Let me try to explain.

We know that the RNA in a virus undergoes constant random mutations. There is no plan at work here, only haphazard processes. What is essential to note is that specific mutations gain an advantage because the environment favours their spread. After all, the virus seeks to do one thing, move from host to host.

Thus, virulent strains that kill the host quick are unlikely to move into the broader population because the transmission chain is cut. To illustrate the point, Ebola doesn't enjoy much contagion because it rapidly turns the victim's insides to a mush. The game is up before the virus can reach lots of people.

During the 1918 flu outbreak, the initial virus was relatively weak and mild in symptoms. Thus soldiers who caught the flu remained on post in the trenches. This gentle form spread without any significant impact.

Then came a second wave with a mutated virus that proved more severe in symptoms and was lethal for many. In particular, this strain hit people of fighting age hard. In response, the military removed the infected from the front-line through clearing stations and into hospitals at the rear. This process gave the virulent strain an advantage that allowed it to move into a much larger population.

As the more virulent strain kept people immobile, unable to care for themselves, others attended them. Stretcher-bearers, orderlies, nurses and doctors all came into contact with the carriers. We thereby provided a route for transmission.

With Covid-19, we've seen some correlation between places that implemented strict lockdowns and the emergence of potent variants. For instance, the United Kingdom. Whereas places like India and Hong Kong have had no virulent strains appear. Only the milder forms of Covid-19 dominated, even though both India and Hong Kong are crowded.

The hypothesis is that by locking down a population, you keep people static in one place, and thus the mild variants cannot move around. In that sense, you achieve your aim. But, when a new, more potent strain emerges, you transport the sick to a hospital and into care. That movement provides the opportunity for the virulent strain to pass into the wider community. Our response gives the nasty mutation an advantage.

It's important to stress that this is a theory. We need a study, using statistical models allied to the tracing of individual strains to verify the idea. Also, it is not that we dismiss the merits of lockdowns. Please don't lose sight of how we are dealing with a complex dynamic system of virus transmission. Lockdowns will keep a role, even if the theory proves correct. Still, we may adjust these to minimise the leg-up we give virulent strains and reduce community-wide deaths.

The obvious conclusion is that there is much to learn and celebrate.

0 Comments

5/2/2021 1 Comment

Stealing the Microphone

"Did Facebook and Twitter overstep the mark by cutting off an elected official?"

The civic-minded folk of the Wimborne Militia, Dorset, England are re-enactors who help keep alive English Civil War history. This merry band of about 50 receive a small stipend from the local council, and for this, they carry out several public functions.

Each year they escort the outgoing mayor to the town hall and welcome the successor. A vital role rewarded afterwards with pints of beer down the local pub. They also maintain a public garden, which is the home to medicinal and culinary plants.

A couple of times a year — under normal circumstances — they'd gather to 'play' battles from the English civil war. This sort of quaint English eccentric behaviour is common the length and breadth of the country.

Unfortunately, super-nerd Mark Zuckerberg wasn't having any of that. His algorithms first banned the group in December 2020 and then allowed them back. Following the January 6th assault on the US Capital, Facebook again ejected the Wimborne Militia as suspected right-wing paramilitary types. Only in recent days, following an appeal, and plenty of media coverage was the group reinstated.

A misunderstanding you might say. Yet, something more sinister is going on here. Facebook, Amazon, Twitter, Google and Apple now control the space for public discourse and our access to information. FATGA, as they've become known, are the de facto gatekeepers on speech, ideas and our freedoms.

They decide who can talk and what prominence individual voices receive in the public Internet square. These private corporations are dominating communication like no other entity since the Catholic Church in the pre-Reformation era. And, as we all know, that went well.

Do a quick audit of how many of FATGA products you use. My score is four. I'll guarantee that most of us score at least three. For the most part, the dominion exercised by the likes of Zuckerberg is unregulated. And, as the Parler case has shown, these companies will use their clout to protect their commercial interests against the competition.

These corporations are now woven into the very fabric of our societies at multiple, intersecting points. For example, Amazon Web Services is the largest cloud computing platform globally, providing hosting for most news outlets, Netflix and Twitter, and the industrial giants General Electric and Unilever.

In 2013, Amazon signed a $600m deal with the US government to host its various intelligence agencies' top-secret workloads, including the CIA and NSA. Please don't assume that Jeff Bezos made his money selling stuff to us; it goes much further than that.

Alarm bells should be ringing that the Overlords of Silicon Valley can cut off a serving US president. Now, to be clear, I don't condone what Trump did in the final days of his presidency. As he scrambled to keep power in a deranged attempt to overturn the election, the man exhibited borderline insanity.

Nevertheless, Trump's actions don't change a critical question. Did Facebook and Twitter overstep the mark by cutting off an elected official? Given the prevalence of cancel culture with corporations scrambling to appease specific agendas, this is all rather unsettling.

Today, as I logged onto the Apple Store to make a purchase, up pops a message. I'm invited to educate myself about the 'black and brown' experience. When did Apple presume I needed such a lecture? This hectoring is all rather tedious and counter-productive.

Besides, it's not gone unnoticed that Apple and Google initially failed to act when an App appeared that allowed violent protesters to track Hong Kong Police vehicles to ambush officers. Likewise, Twitter still hosts various nasties, including virulent anti-Semites, vaccine conspiracists and groups who glorify violence. If these companies only enforce policies against particular political leanings, what does that say about our freedoms?

We should be asking what the correct response to the likes of Trump is? Do we feel comfortable allowing FATGA to call the shots? What if next time they decide you are the target for cancellation?

But it also goes much deeper than that. I hope we all agree a set of protocols that keeps the criminals, terrorists and outright lunatics off the Internet is needed. Though deciding who can exercise that judgement of exclusion is the issue. Existing mechanisms are failing. After all, the courts are too slow, politicians too partisan and FATGA is getting it wrong.

Zuckerberg repeatedly stated he does not favour censorship. But that's what he's doing, while his shotgun approach sweeps up innocent bystanders like the Wimborne Militia. I doubt the nerds imagined they'd be in this position nor do they welcome the role.

Some people are excusing the actions of FATGA by asserting that anyone unhappy with censorship may opt to set up their own platforms. Parler sought to do that. In response, the Big Guys denied access to the Parler App. Amazon even went a step further by rendering Parler unusable on its platforms. In effect, FATGA closed the gates to the market square of public discussion.

As these channels of communication close off, the nut-jobs get driven deeper into the recesses of the Internet. It is risky to assume they've gone away. They're adapting by acquiring encrypted networks and IP address switching. In effect, FATGA has prompted them to go covert, making law enforcement harder. For sure, the potency of unintended consequences is relentless.

After the events in Washington, pundits loved to claim 'I could see this coming'. Well, if you censor angry, paranoid people on the Internet, guess what happens? Next time, we may not see it coming.

Maybe we need an independent Internet ombudsman who can act with speed to remove or shutdown stuff deemed to have breached the rules. Of course, an appeal mechanism and final adjudication by the courts will be necessary. It won't be pretty, although I reckon it is better than the ongoing process leading down a slippery path.

If we continue with the current approach, here is my prediction. Henceforth, all sides in any political debate will clamour for the other to be banished from the Internet, de-platformed and excommunicated.

They'll conjure up claims of 'hate speech' and perceived threats, conflating past violence. The oligarchy of Internet kingpins may yet come to regret that they opened the floodgates by taking out a sitting United States President.

The die is cast.

1 Comment

3/2/2021 1 Comment

When the wind doesn't blow

"You have to recognise that leaving behind the nasty fossil fuels has its consequences"

On a cold night January 2021, as temperatures dropped across the UK, the national grid's controllers made frantic calls. With low-wind conditions, which usually go with a cold snap, Britain's much-trumpeted drive for green power hit reality. As the wind turbines slowed and fell silent, the gas and coal generators scrambled to fire up.

In the process, the owners of these generators were able to command a premium price. On a typical day, a unit megawatt-hour cost £40. That evening the top price reached £4,000. That prize went to the gas-powered West Burton power station in Nottinghamshire. You know, one of those places hated by the eco-warriors that sustain the heat for pensioners and the power for ventilators. Overnight, other gas and coal power stations increased their output thus averting a disaster.

The UK has made commendable strides in tackling greenhouse gases. A couple of times in 2020, the entire country ran on wind power, albeit during low demand periods. Yet, a double whammy of cold weather and high demand is not unforeseeable. And that's the trouble with wind power. No matter how many turbines you build, when the wind stops blowing, no electricity.

Thus, you have to recognise that leaving behind the nasty fossil fuels has its consequences. Plus, traditional power stations take decades to plan and construct.

At least the national grid foresaw this situation, announcing as winter began that supplies would be tight. Moreover, they forecast the cost of power would inflate. Then they helpfully noted: "It does not signal that blackouts are imminent".

Experts struck a different tone asserting "the UK is at much greater risk of blackouts". And already this winter the national grip issued three warnings as cold weather stretched capacity. For now, the system worked although the ability to respond to demand surges this winter will face a severe test.

France is facing a similar dilemma. They plan a dramatic downsizing in their nuclear capacity, shifting to renewables like wind and solar. The planning for this involves building 6,500 new wind turbines adding to an existing 8,100 already in service.

Here's the issue. France is already 90 per cent carbon-free in electricity production thanks to nuclear power. The trouble is nuclear power is verboten with the eco-warriors, and these plants must go. Instead, France will keep its fossil fuel stations on standby for when the wind drops. All this is costing £110 billion in the initial stages, to solve a problem France doesn't have while producing more CO2 emissions.

None of this would be an issue if we could store electricity efficiently; the power created on the windy and sunny days held for when the demand arises. Pumping water uphill on the good days, then releasing it to run downhill and turn turbines on bad days is an option. Except that both the UK and France will need hundreds of hydroelectricity plants blighting upland areas with massive reservoirs. Also, the battery storage option looks someway off.

It's easy to spot that something is out of kilter. Is incoherent policy-thinking exacerbated by activist agendas that see wind and solar as the only solutions? Trying to push back against these concepts is a struggle in a post-rational world. Practical issues, like those discussed above, appear to allude the Greta-cult. We may retort with: "How dare you!".

You can monitor the real-time demand and production of the UK's electricity here, updated every five minutes.

For a long-term stable electricity supply at an affordable price, we need a mix of nuclear and fossil fuels backing up renewables. I can only hope that rational adults work on this to ensure the lights and heat stay on.

Unfortunately, it may take a blackout or two to cause the majority to sit up and take notice.

1 Comment

1/2/2021 0 Comments

A Prison for Dolphins?

"Ocean Park can't hide the fact they've taken captured wild-dolphins, and put them on display"

Has Ocean Park had its day? Should we be throwing billions at a failing theme park when people are festering in tiny ramshackle apartments? Is the taxpayer funding a prison for dolphins masquerading as a conservation initiative?

Well, it looks like our officials see no problem with pouring more money into the place. The generosity is staggering. For starters, a one-off grant of HK1.67 billion, followed by HK1.1 billion over four years for conservation and education programmes. Then waving interest on a loan of HK5.4 billion and pushing back the repayment date until 2028.

As a sop to public criticism, we get free entry to the park and then pay per ride or venue visited. How is that a concession? It's not.

Ocean Park once enjoyed a commendable position in Hong Kong's collective memory. Opening in 1977, many of us enjoyed wonderful days of fun there. At one time, I held a season pass, as I'd take the kids almost monthly. Burned into our family folklore is the tale of a Japanese tourist projectile vomiting from the roller coaster. With each telling, the volume of spew increases, the splatter area growing to cover vast crowds of onlookers.

Straddling Brick Hill, with Deep Water Bay on one side, and the South China Sea as the backdrop, the setting is breathtaking. A visit was a must for overseas visitors, especially riding the cable car to the Headland. Then as Mainland tourism to Hong Kong increased exponentially, Ocean Park lost its lustre with locals.

Over-crowding, rude behaviour, stories of ill-disciplined queuing and cigarette smoke filling the air, all degraded its reputation. In many ways, Ocean Park proved a microcosm of the Hong Kong/Mainland culture-clash that shaped aspects of our politics in recent decades.

Adding to that is a change in attitude toward animal conservation placing Ocean Park in a difficult spot. Is it a fairground or conservation-themed venue? The operators managed to conflate or fudge the two. Still, many people feel that having dolphins performing for our entertainment is no longer acceptable. Besides, Ocean Park's conservation efforts looked like tokenism. Despite a slick PR machine, they couldn't hide that they took captured wild dolphins and put them on display.

In 2017, Ocean Park lost HK236.5 million, marking the third straight year in the red. The protests of 2019 didn't help matters. Then Covid hit.

But, the cause of Ocean Park's underperformance is a bit more complicated than first appears. When Hong Kong Disneyland opened in 2005, many people wrote off Ocean Park as doomed. But the place prospered. Why? In 2003, Allan Zeman, Lan Kwai Fong's founder, came in to run the venture. Zeman immediately hired an experienced overseas theme park management team.

They set about introducing a series of special events, such as the Halloween Fest to lure people to the park. And it worked. Ocean Park thrived under Zeman's management. Forbes even went as far to call Zeman the "Mouse Killer".

Yet, there is a suggestion Zeman fell out of favour when he backed Henry Tang against rival candidate CY Leung in 2012 CE election. CY won, and Zeman moved on from Ocean Park in 2014. Some believe the new and less able management led to a steady decline, made worse by recent events. Either way, year after year, Ocean Park lost money.

So here we are today, with the government proposing to spend billions on Ocean Park. With other voices demanding we cut our losses and put Ocean Park out of its misery, you can see that sentiment is hardening. Yet, a closure could see 2000 plus staff out of work, besides hitting the many support companies that supply the park.

Weighing all this up, for now, I see no alternative. We have to keep the place going, although the management team must account for future performance or face the chop.

Moving towards a water-themed amusement park seems a better idea than seeing animals forced to live in small enclosures. After all, having humans reside in pokey flats is terrible enough; let's treat the animals better.

0 Comments

YOUR CART

Walter's Blog

Happy Anniversary Covid-19

Stealing the Microphone

When the wind doesn't blow

A Prison for Dolphins?

Author

Archives

Home

Introduction

Contact Walter