Uncertainty of the Coronavirus Pandemic: Humility Before Nature

William Goldman, the talented Hollywood screenwriter (1931-2018), summed up the impossibility of predicting which movie will be a hit and which not, with this pithy perspective: “Nobody knows anything.” (He qualified his statement with “Not one person in the entire motion picture field knows for a certainty what's going to work. Every time out it's a guess and, if you're lucky, an educated one.” But no one quotes the long qualifier when three words do a far better job than thirty.)

William Goldman - "Nobody knows anything"

Goldman’s 3-word phrase springs to mind when we hear all the punditry and stupidity (the latter emanating mostly from the clueless, ignorant liar-in-chief narcissist in the White House) surrounding the coronavirus pandemic. Nobody knows anything. Well, some experts in the field, mostly researchers who have studied pandemics all their lives in the field or in the lab, probably know something but what they do not know - and they will be the first one to tell you - is so much more than what they do that, even for them, the ratio of the known to the unknown is practically zero.

What is worth reflecting on is the rate at which the killer virus is leaving death in its wake. One word that sums it up is “exponential,” a mathematical concept many of us are familiar with from such media phrases as “CEO compensations are increasing exponentially” or “Many species of the world are decaying exponentially.”

If the coronavirus infects 1 person today, who in turn infects 2 tomorrow, each of whom infects 2 the following day to make it 4, and so on, it is an exponentially increasing (doubling) function. It is base 2 raised to d, the number of days since the 1^st infection, that is, 2^d. What if the 1^st person infects 3 rather than 2, and those 3 each infect 3 the following day, and so on. In that case, it is 3^d, the base being 3 (tripling) rather than 2.

You can see what we need to do to make the infection rate decay: Make the base less than 1, until the number of infections “asymptotically” (that is, very close to but not exactly equal to) approach 0.

But that decay rate is nowhere in sight.

For example, on Tuesday, March 17, it was reported that there were just more than 5,700 confirmed coronavirus cases in the United States. That number climbed above 11,500 on Thursday, March 19, and officials indicated the number will continue to rise sharply as more test results become available.

The number doubled in 2 days. The exponentially increasing function is now (5700)2^d/2, where 5,700 is the initial count and d is the number of days since the initial count.

If somehow we could replace that base 2 (doubling) with say, 0.7, then (5700)(0.7)^d/2 will rapidly “approach” 0.

One way to understand the numbers is to take this paragraph from a recent opinion piece by the NY Times columnist Tom Friedman:

“One of the hardest things for the human mind to grasp is the power of an exponential, something that just keeps relentlessly doubling and doubling, like a pandemic. The brain just can’t appreciate how quickly 5,000 cases of confirmed coronavirus infection in America can explode into one million if we don’t lock down now. Here’s a simple way to explain the exponential threat we face, in a way an oft-bankrupt real estate developer like Donald Trump might understand. It was also offered by Bill Joy: ‘The virus is like a loan shark who charges 25 percent a day interest. We borrowed $1 (the first coronavirus to appear here). We then fiddled for 40 days. Now we owe $7,500. If we wait three more weeks to pay, we’ll owe almost $1 million.’”

Let’s do the math.

A loan shark charges me $0.25 per day compounded on a $1 I borrowed from him (I am not aware that there has ever been a woman loan shark. It's always men!) So, at the end of the first day, I, the borrower, owe the shark $1.25. At the end of the 2nd day, I owe the shark interest on interest, which amounts to (1.25)² (1.25 raised to the power of 2.) So, at the end of 40 days, I will owe him (1.25)⁴⁰ = $7,523.16, which rounds off to $7,500. After 3 more weeks, that is, 61 days later, I owe the shark (1.25)⁶¹ = 815,663.05, which is close to 1 Million Dollars!

The way to win this battle, and also the war, is to make that 1.25 LESS than 1, say, 0.8, so we experience exponential decay. In that case, after 40 days of decay, the number reduces to (0.8)⁴⁰ = 0.0001329, which is one-hundredth of 1%! It's in the math. We need to make that number in the parenthesis less than 1 before we can resume normal life.

So how do we make the base of the exponential function less than 1? That’s the trillion-dollar question facing us today. Social distancing, better-equipped health workers and hospitals, proper hygiene, and a combination of many more yet unknown factors can perhaps force the killer virus to be on the decaying curve. But again, we just don’t know! No matter how much fancy statistics and solutions we weave and spin, we just don’t know!

While the mathematics of increasing and decaying exponential models are known with certainty, the nature and the destructive power of the coronoavirus pathogen is unknown. We only know that unchecked, it grows exponentially, but if somehow checked, will decay and eventually, for all practical purposes, disappear.

Consider Hemingway’s insight in this dialogue from his 1926 novel “The Sun Also Rises”: “How did you go bankrupt?" Bill asked. “Two ways,” Mike said. “Gradually and then suddenly.”

The initial increase from 1 to 2 to 4 seems gradual when suddenly, before we know it, the virus has infected over 65,000 and then more, and yet more, with its limitless, voracious appetite.

People who spout certainty when life is fundamentally uncertain are the real ignoramuses, no matter how powerful or wealthy or apparently smart they may appear be. In contrast, those with real knowledge are humble when confronted with the unknown. They know that nature’s imagination is superior to human imagination. To glimpse into the inner workings of nature, whether of physical laws or of pathogens, they know that first they must acknowledge, “I don’t know.” This is also true from a theodicy perspective. Priests, Rabbis and Imams afflicted with religious chauvinism who think they know how God’s mind works with certainty are as guilty as arrogant scientists and political leaders in misleading us.

“Doubt is an uncomfortable condition,” said Voltaire, “but certainty is a ridiculous one.”

In the next year or two, brilliant but humble researchers will undoubtedly have made slow but significant progress in deciphering the working of the killer coronavirus and ways of neutralizing it. The rate of their progress will be anything but exponential. Yet they offer us hope that one day this virus will have met its match in their ingenuity. If you were to ask one of them what the catalyst was for her breakthrough, she will unhesitatingly tell you, “I began by acknowledging that I didn’t know.”

Malcolm X, the Hajj and White Supremacy

This is the season of the pilgrimage for Muslims around the world. Over 2 million Muslims - about 15,000 of them Muslim-Americans - have gathered in Makkah, Saudi Arabia, to perform the Hajj, the once-in-a-lifetime religious obligation for believers who can afford to do so physically, mentally and financially.

In April of 1964, Malcolm X, who had recently embraced Islam and taken the name Malik
El-Shabazz, performed the Hajj. It was a cathartic experience for him, one that has relevance to the events in Charlottesville earlier this month and our response to the violence and racism of the neo-Nazis, the Ku Klux Klansmen and the White Supremacists.

Because of his traumatic, near-deadly childhood experiences, Malcolm X came to regard the entire white race as exclusively evil and black separatism the only answer to white oppression.

But the Hajj changed all that. In powerful, heartfelt words - as told to Alex Haley, the author of Roots - he summarized his feelings: “Never have I witnessed such sincere hospitality and such overwhelming spirit of true brotherhood as is practiced by people of all colors and races here in this Ancient Holy Land, the home of Abraham and all the other Prophets of Holy scriptures … There were tens of thousands of pilgrims from all over the world. They were of all colors, from blue-eyed blonds to black skinned Africans. But we were all practicing the same rituals, displaying a spirit of unity and brotherhood that my experiences in America had led me to believe never could exist between the white and the non-white.”

With the flexing of power by white supremacists in Charlottesville and their tacit endorsement by President Trump through his policies and toxic Tweets, it has become easy for some of us to speak of whites in monolithic terms. As a Muslim-American, I am particularly sensitive to this because we too are often painted with a broad brush for the terrorist acts of a few. As I see it, there is no difference between James Alex Fields, Jr., the 20-year-old neo-Nazi who drove his car into the counter-rally protesters in Charlottesville, killing 1 person and injuring 19, and Younes Abouyyaqoub, the 22-year-old ISIS-inspired terrorist who drove his van into a crowd in Barcelona, Spain, killing 15 people and injuring dozens more.

Their ideology is the same: homicidal hatred for the Other.

Most whites disapprove of white supremacists and are at the forefront in the fight against racism and bigotry. In the many protest rallies I attended against president Trump’s policies, over 90% were whites. It was a reflection of their genuine conviction that treating others badly because of faith and color and race was morally wrong.

To make progress, it is instructive to ask what contributes to the feeling of supremacy, or a superiority complex, and how we can curb it. It may surprise us to learn that a superiority complex afflicts many of us even as we condemn its most visible practitioners, like the ones we saw in Charlottesville.

In its most extreme and visible form, a superiority complex arises from the color of one’s skin, the fanatical conviction in one’s faith, or the race one belongs to. But in its insidious forms, it can also arise from wealth, power, beauty, lineage, social status, knowledge and education. I know of religious chauvinism that afflicts some of my fellow Muslim Americans (“my religion is superior to yours;” “I have a monopoly on Truth that you can never have,” etc.) but I have also come across Americans of all persuasions who look down on others because of the expertise they have in a certain field or the power they possess to dominate other lives. They demand respect but are incapable of respecting others and are unable to deal with anything other than their version of the truth.

They have many laudatory characteristics but humility is not one of them.

If this seems uncomfortably familiar, it is because many of us carry one form of superiority complex or another, however much we may deny it. In that sense, Malcolm X was among the lucky ones. The scales fell from his eyes only when he was performing something as momentous as the Hajj. He realized that a blanket denunciation of whites was a form of superiority complex, the very thing he had spent most of his life condemning.

But what about the rest of us? This is where the tragic spectacle we saw in Charlottesville comes in. While unequivocally condemning the neo-Nazis and the White supremacists, we can also use their tiki-torch terror to look within ourselves to see if we harbor similar, albeit latent, habits. We cannot fight racism and bigotry if we practice them ourselves in subtler forms.

In his farewell sermon 1400 years ago delivered during the Hajj, Prophet Muhammad said: “All mankind is from Adam and Eve. An Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab. Also, a white has no superiority over a black and a black has any superiority over white, except by piety and good action.”

In his own way, Malcolm X was saying the same thing when he experienced his pilgrimage epiphany. By cleansing ourselves of any trace of superiority, we can turn the ugliness of Charlottesville into something beneficial for America.

Nelson Mandela and the Power of Forgiveness

On 12 June 1964, Nelson Mandela, age 46, was sentenced to life for sabotage and conspiracy to overthrow South Africa’s apartheid government. On February 11, 1990, prisoner number 46664, who would not let despair dictate his soul, walked out from the Victor Verster Prison into the bright sunshine of freedom.

Mandela was first imprisoned in Pretoria and later taken to Robben Island, an infamous penitentiary near Cape Town that had previously been a leper colony. He stayed there for a few weeks, then taken back to Pretoria where he was charged in the Rivonia trial, from which he was sent to Robben Island for life. He spent a total of 27 years behind bars.

The world has paused to remember this iconic figure who breathed his last at age 95 in Johannesburg, South Africa. Mandela’s timeline is etched in the memory of multitudes but even those not aware of the milestones of his life saw in him a revolutionary and a visionary the likes of whom we are unlikely to see again.

His ‘I am Prepared to Die’ speech, delivered from the dock during the Rivonia Trial, Pretoria Supreme Court, on 20 April, 1964, will always serve as an inspiration to freedom fighters everywhere.

Of all the traits that defined Mandela, perhaps the two most remarkable were his humility and his willingness to forgive.

“I am not a saint,” Mandela often told his admirers, “unless you think of a saint as a sinner who keeps on trying.”

Here was a man who had attained the moral high ground through superhuman courage and patience in the face of evil, yet who could resist the seductive pull of arrogance. He was aware of his flaws and frailties, some of which his countrymen were to witness during the five years (1994-1999) he was the President of South Africa, such as charges of cronyism and selling out the liberation struggle to white interests.

But Mandela’s rare gift was that he never lost sight of his goal: democracy, equality and the rule of law for blacks, whites, Afrikaners and every other race in his tormented country. He could do it because he had the humility to know that it was not about him but about South Africa and its people. The source of his humility sprang from a combination of high purpose, generosity of spirit, strength of character, grace and daring, a combination tragically absent in any of today’s leaders anywhere.

Mandela’s inclination for reconciliation over revenge marked him even more as the definitive moral leader of our time. Half-a-century of inhuman apartheid had stoked the flames of revenge among his dispossessed, nameless, faceless, vote-less people. A blood-bath between blacks and whites in South Africa seemed inevitable. But Mandela would have none of it. "Great anger and violence can never build a nation,” he declared. “We are striving to proceed in a manner and towards a result, which will ensure that all our people, both black and white, emerge as victors.”  And, "Reconciliation means working together to correct the legacy of past injustice.” And again, (from his autobiography Long Walk to Freedom, 1995), "If you want to make peace with your enemy, you have to work with your enemy. Then he becomes your partner."

This, from a man who was forced to toil day after day in a limestone quarry without sunglasses under a merciless sun that destroyed his tear ducts and, for years, robbed him even of his ability to cry!

Freed after 27 years, only a Mandela could say with conviction that he bore no ill will toward his white Afrikaner jailers.

Ever the humble man, Mandela pointed out during an interview that “I am not the only one who did not want revenge. Almost all my colleagues in prison did not want revenge, because there is no time to do anything else except to try and save your people.”

For many, Nelson Mandela became a revered and iconic figure only after his story of sacrifice and magnanimity became widely known. For decades during the cold war, however, American presidents backed apartheid as a vital front in the war against communism. In 1981, President Reagan went so far as to call South Africa’s diabolical regime “essential to the free world.” Both Reagan and Margaret Thatcher labeled Mandela’s African National Congress Party a terrorist group. In 1985, then-Congressman Dick Cheney voted against a resolution urging that Mandela be released from jail. When, in 2004, Mandela criticized George Bush for launching the Iraq War, (just as Martin Luther King had criticized Lyndon Johnson for the Vietnam War in 1965), he was denounced by some in the mainstream media for his “vicious anti-Americanism” and for his “longstanding support for terrorists.”

But when President Clinton visited South Africa in March of 1998, he told Mandela in a joint session of parliament in Cape Town that "For millions of Americans, South Africa's story is embodied by your heroic sacrifice and breathtaking walk out of the darkness and into the glorious light."

Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela (Madiba) went for the stars. Not for him petty fights and small dreams. “There is no passion to be found playing small,” he said, “in settling for a life that is less than the one you are capable of living.” His definition of a life of purpose: “What counts in life is not the mere fact that we have lived. It is what difference we have made to the lives of others that will determine the significance of the life we lead.” As viewers saw in the 2009 movie “Invictus,” he had the courage to surprise his adversaries with restraint and generosity.

This fierce yet gentle freedom fighter has now made his final walk to eternal freedom. And we are the poorer for it.

Tiger Woods's Unexpected Opportunity

Americans give celebrities a wide berth.

No celebrity got a wider berth in recent years than Tiger Woods. His preternatural golfing ability trumped everything: his disdain, bordering on contempt, for spectators, his lack of humility, his arrogance, his obsession with privacy.

His infidelities, and the blatant and reckless way he went about them, were his way of telling the world that he was above norms of civilized behavior. He was untouchable. We should simply exult in the fact that he deigns to share this earth with us, the unwashed masses in swooning awe every time he picks up a club. Whenever he lost, he rarely congratulated the winner, going on about how he made unexpected mistakes that cost him the game. If only he played a little better, it would have been a no-contest.

I am sure many golfers were ticked off by Tiger’s boorish behavior on and off the course but were afraid of making waves. After all, Woods was the most prized athlete in the world. Who dares to take on an icon?

One who has spoken candidly (finally!) is Tom Watson, a golf great himself. “Tiger’s actions have been bad for our game,” he said. "His golf is really secondary at this point. From his standpoint and his family's standpoint, it's something he needs to get control of ... and make some amends and show some humility to the public when he comes back."

Watson also criticized Woods’ swearing, foul language and club-throwing. “That's not part of what we want to project as far as the professional golf tour is concerned."

"I'll let the cat out of the bag," Watson continued. "Tiger has to take ownership of what he has done. He must get his personal life in order. I think that's what he's trying to do. And when he comes back, he has to show some humility to the public.

"I would come out and I would do an interview with somebody and say, 'You know what? I screwed up. And I admit it. I am going to try to change. I am trying to change. I want my wife and family back.'"

"I feel that he has not carried the same stature that other great players that have come along like Jack (Nicklaus), Arnold (Palmer), Byron Nelson, the Hogans, in the sense that there was language and club throwing on the golf course," Watson said. "You can grant that of a young person that has not been out here for a while. But I think he needs to clean up his act and show the respect for the game that other people before him have shown."

These are bracing words, words that Woods urgently needs to heed. There are reports that Woods has left the sex rehab in Mississippi and is now with his wife and two children to work on his marriage.

Here’s hoping that Woods succeeds. The golfer must recognize that fate has presented him with a monumental teachable moment. If he can redeem himself through fidelity and humility, chances are that his game will return too. A Tiger Woods who is devoted and loyal to his family, who appreciates the adulation of his fans, and who is humble and grateful for the gift he has been blessed with, can positively influence millions of impressionable minds and change the world for the better.

Tiger's Need for Humility

In the firmament of golf, no star shines brighter than that of Tiger Woods. He is not only one of the greatest golfers ever, it is likely that he will be regarded as the greatest to have played the game, a cut above even Jack Nicklaus. In terms of brilliance, concentration and the sheer will to win, Woods is nonpareil.

Which is why, as a fan, I flinch everytime he predicts that he will win this or that tournament. Given his recent string of wins, Woods predicted the Grand Slam in 2008 as within his reach. Surely he is the favorite everytime he plays but as a fan I wish Woods wouldn't make such predictions. Why tempt fate? There is a difference between quiet confidence and arrogance, between the resolve to do one's best and implying that others are footnotes to a foregone conclusion.

That Woods wasn't able to win the Masters this year in no way undermines his status as the preeminent golfer of his time. As a fan, however, I feel that Woods makes it hard on himself unnecessarily by predicting victory when he would be better off not speculating about the outcome. There are far too many variables in golf - a change in wind direction, a drop in temperature, a mysterious 'x' factor that prevents one from clicking - to predict victory even by the best. I hope Woods will display more humility in the future. If a reporter asks him whether he can win the Masters or the U.S. Open or even the Grand Slam, he should say something like this: "All I can tell you is that I will give each game my best. The rest? We'll see."