Articles Written for the web
No Human Being in the World Has Immunity to Coronavirus
Robert Safir
March 20, 2020
No human being in the world has immunity to the coronavirus.
Let that sink in.
No matter what the President says, no matter what the experts tell you, we are truly in uncharted territory. By slowing it or flattening it, we're not going to decrease that actual number of cases. We're simply postponing cases until we find a working vaccine, which may happen in 12 to 18 months.
Yes, it's scary. But the only way to confront this pandemic is to try and understand it as much as possible. The leadership in this country has been soft-peddling the problem. The medical experts have been understating it.
But as you can see by its rapid spread, its aggressive strength, and it unlimited persistence, COVID-19 is here to stay - for a while.
Every second counts
The reason so many experts are unsatisfied with the way the pandemic has been handled up to now, is because we got a late start. "It's fake." "It's a Democratic hoax." "It will simply go away when the weather gets warmer." Saying these things was completely irresponsible.
Larry Brilliant is an epidemiologist who helped to eradicate smallpox. He has known for a long time that the next pandemic would be so horrific that the numbers are inconceivable – over 100 million people dying from a virus infecting a billion people. He knew for the last ten to fifteen years that it wasn’t a question of whether or not we were going to have a pandemic; it was simply a matter of when.
President Donald Trump kicked out the only person and his staff responsible for pandemic. The last few weeks have been a circus with Trump trying to get ahead of this crisis. He finally brought in experts such as Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and Dr. Nancy Messonnier, the director of the C.D.C.’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases. These two experts have had to walk on egg shells by providing as much valuable information as possible on this crisis while showing admiration and allegiance to President Trump.
Testing One-Two-Three
The other part of the magic formula to conquer this virus is testing. Not only do we need to know who tests positive or negative, we need to analyze enough data to know where the hot spots are. We also need to take steps to “flatten the curve” so that we can slow it down. That’s why self-isolating, cancelling events, closing schools, theaters, and museums do make sense. But their overall effectiveness should be put into perspective. Right now we are being spoon-fed the reality of how huge this really is. Starting out, it was “social distancing for two weeks – then it was three – then four – then nobody really knows.”Another key to getting control over this is to develop antivirals that are preventative and can be used in addition to vaccines. But the weak spot right now is still in the testing. Other countries have done hundreds of thousand or more tests. The United States is still testing in the four-figure range.
PANIC BUYING IS NOT GOOD FOR YOUR HEALTH
You might have heard early on that N95 masks offered some protection from air-borne spread. So thousands of people went out and bought them up. Then we were told that they weren’t that effective. The truth is that medical professionals, who desperately need to use them, were unable to get them because panic buying dried up the supply. Knowing this out front might have made people more compassionate about buying up the entire supply. Then again, there’s a similar problem with the supply of toilet paper. Panic buying is not good for your health.
Hospitals are low on ventilators. Another hospital is reusing their masks. When it was made known that a malaria drug, Hydoxychloroquine, might be able to protect against the virus, pharmacies across the nation were completely sold out of their supply the next day. According to some in the pharmaceutical industry, it will take at least three months before there’s even a possibility of replenishing the supply.
In the meantime, people with malaria and other sickness where this medication is effective, will just have to wait. And those who have bought them up should know that there have been no clinical trials and it’s uncertain whether the drug will do any good.
Panic buying is not good for your health.
Why Don’t More New Stations Broadcast More Good News?
Robert Safir
March 30, 2020
John Krasinski’s Good News show has upbeat, positive stories, not too much murder, mayhem, and general violence. The first few include an upbeat story about health care workers, a delivery driver who leaves gifts on a person’s porch, and more.
It’s clear that part of his motivation was to put out something positive during the COVID-19 crisis we are currently undergoing. It makes one wonder what will happen when the virus is finally under control. Will John continue his YouTube broadcast after things get back to “normal,” whatever that is?
Is it the Viewers' Fault?
Why don’t major stations focus more on good news rather than news filled with disaster, incompetence, and corruption? Would it be so hard? This is a question posed by many people, including psychologist Tom Stafford. His answer is similar to many I have come across in the past. Mr. Stafford says “It may be because we’re drawn to depressing stories without realizing it.”
He also puts out ideas such as the possibility that journalists are drawn to reporting bad news because “sudden disaster is more compelling than slow improvements.” He also suggests newsmen (or newswomen) believe that cynical reports of corrupt politicians or negative events make for simpler stories.
But his last idea is that we, the readers or viewers, have trained journalists to focus on these things. Many people often they they’d prefer good news – but is that actually true?
"If it Bleeds, it Leads"
We’ve seen this argument before. “If it bleeds, it leads.” You can give people good news, but what they’re really attracted to is bad news. A Russian news publication tried an experiment and brought to the front page only good stories. Then they claimed that they lost two-thirds of their readership that day. (This is an unlikely claim. A publication would not lose that much in just one day, no matter what they published. Plus, you cannot reliably measure a trend by looking at just one instance.)
There is no shortage of psychology studies that explain why we are attracted to bad news. Negative events are supposedly more memorable and impactful than good one. But the biggest claim – which really is more of an excuse – is that the media only give people what they want.
Some argue that reading and spreading bad news is ultimately good, because the awareness can affect positive change. Writing about racism and corruption can – and should – promote action to improve those causes. In other words, the optimistic view is that it’s all about “making the world a better place.”
Others make the case that we respond faster to negative words. These claims always cite lab studies in which words are flashed on a screen. The “average” result is that more people recall the negative words, not the positive ones. Likewise, when given stories to read, the subject would recall the negative ones more easily than the positive ones.
Experimentation Bias
There is another theory and I will put it forth. As in many, many studies, the results are skewed toward the result that the researcher wants to reach. You could call it “experimentation bias.” The questions might be written – even if unconsciously – to influence the result that is ultimately reached.
But that’s not the only theory to consider. As broadcasting major at Los Angeles City College, and later at California State University, Los Angeles, I created radio documentaries that were upbeat and positive with hopeful endings. They were the ones that won awards. It the same classes, the typical “bad news of the day” stuff never surfaced to the top. Yes, this is anecdotal, but nevertheless interesting to consider.
People Want Good News
Finally, and on a larger scale, the major stations are focused – solely – I repeat – solely – on ratings. To re-conceive their material in a new way, with more emphasis on the positive, would require a lot of work and a lot of time, things they don’t have. It’s as if you were going to open a restaurant, and needed dependable cash flow right away. You wouldn’t open up a Red Lobster – you’d open up a McDonalds. Stations prefer quick and easy – and high ratings. Eyballs. Viewers. Results. Ratings.
A more cynical view would state that major corporations control the major networks who dictate what news to cover. Keep the viewers in line – somewhat fearful, and then sell them the dish soap – they’ll feel better then. Keep the commercials coming and keep the negative news stories flowing so quickly, the viewer can’t even absorb a story before the next one is half way through.
However, ending on a positive note, let’s look at this. ABC’s Nightly News with David Muir – as just one example – it ends with a “Person of the Week.” The stories are positive, human interest stories, and they are heavily watched. If they didn’t work, they would have been discontinued a long time ago.
If John Krasinski is successful with his show, it might serve as another example that people want, and like, Good News.
Will Going to the Movies Ever Be the Same?
Robert Safir
April 1, 2020
The coronavirus pandemic has hurled the planet into controlled chaos. The types of thing people are experiencing now range from new and interesting to scary and unpredictable. A pandemic of any kind is stressful. This one, especially because of the high contagion factor and rapid spread, has people on the edge of their seats.
Will we ever be on the edge of our seats at movie theaters again? What kind of effect is this crisis having on movie making, movie viewing, and the theater business? Will going to the movies ever be the same?
New Realities
When looking at the crystal ball to try and divine what will happen to the motion picture industry, you first have to sort through the questions that this pandemic has presented to the world.
On the most basic level, look at the emergence of a new reality – social distancing. Social distancing affects many businesses, but the theater business immediately has to consider how to incorporate social distancing into its business model. Have people sit six feet apart? Going in both horizontal and vertical directions? If so, how many people can fill a theater this way?
Do the math but use a tape measure
The first movie theater chain to react to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic is AMC. Their plans are to reduce theater attendance by 50 percent of regular levels, in order to promote social distancing.
The chain will sell only half the number of seats per theater than it usually does. Also, any theater with more than 500 seats will be capped at a maximum of 250 people. Their viewpoint is “We are facilitating the ‘social distance’ between guests.”
But are they really? In theory, if you cut the regular amount of attendees by half, that would mean seating everyone at every other seat. Does that constitute a separation of six feet? And would there be six feet of separation from row to row? It may be that this is a knee-jerk response to a problem that hasn’t been thought through in detail. Nevertheless, following AMC’s announcement, Regal Cinemas said the it will essentially do the same thing
Hurry up and wait
On the other end of the flow chart you have the production companies, studios, and distributors, facing their own set of challenges. Shortly after the coronavirus first hit it became apparent that the movie business was changing. There were delays on the releases of new films. The first two big ones were “Disney’s Mulan” and “No Time to Die,” the new James Bond thriller. A big drop in attendance for tent pole releases would be bad news for box office stats.
The announcement of delays has continued, but some of it has meant the shutdown of projects that are in the middle of production. So you have finished, big budget films trying to re-schedule calendars (without bumping into dates of other major releases), and you have projects that were about to get off the ground but then stalled.
Direct-to-Consumer
So is this the point in history in which on-demand and streaming services take off big-time? Everyone is at home and everyone needs entertainment, so it only seems natural. Movie studios have been toying with the idea of direct-to-on-demand business models and are beginning to look at these more seriously.
But so far the strategy seems somewhat flawed. Universal Pictures, for example, is planning to release some of its newest films that were still in the middle of theatrical runs. “The Invisible Man,” “Emma,” and “The Hunt,” are renting on digital platforms for $20 a shot. That is about five times as much as the average $3.99 on iTunes, Amazon, Netflix, and other streaming services.
Charge what the market will bear
Universal’s motivation for this pricing seems logical at first. Movies make far more money in theaters than they do through sales or rentals, which only represent a fraction of overall movie revenue. The studios need to make money, right? Yes, that’s perfectly understandable.
The only problem is that this business model ignores one of the basic tenets of marketing – you should price things according to what the market will bear. Apparently, the C-level execs put their calculators away before considering that this price point is way beyond what customers are used to. Not only that, they might have avoided reading the daily news. People have lost jobs, some have no health insurance, income has been cut off, there’s a global pandemic spreading fast, and the future is very uncertain.
Movies may never be the same – regardless of where they’re shown. It’s up to the industry to figure out how to make the new movie business work successfully.