Virology and Antitrust
So one week into my new project (I am still workshopping a name for it), and we are already going to break for a tangent. Well, it is sort of related. I guess that’s what makes it a tangent and not just a random topic. Anyways…
Two things that I have seen this week are just great examples of how our political system seems to be failing us. I see these issues as a result of our divisive two-party system.
I recently listened to a podcast called This Week in Virology (yes, it is as nerdy/geeky/sciencey as it sounds). They were talking with a scientist from Harvard named Michael Mina. Although much of it was above my head, the overall idea was fascinating and hopeful. The problem, of course, was politics. He explained that we could be much better off with cheaper tests that we could test everyone every day with. While they aren’t as sensitive as the “standard” tests being used now, they are faster (results in minutes), and we could take them at home. The idea here is that even though they are less sensitive, they would show when you have the most virus in your system because that is when you are contagious. It would tell you every morning if you need to stay home or not. These tests cost about one dollar, the current standard tests are around thirty-five dollars. While he has been trying to push this idea, the government basically says they are working with their private partners to see what they come up with. The test itself doesn’t go as far as the FDA wants it to because it isn’t accurate enough. The red tape at the FDA and the adherence to working with the private sector partners really seem to be standing in the way of good ideas that would help. If every kid could have a test in the morning, they would be able to open schools with no issues. The government could start mass-producing these now, and we could have some sense of stability back in a few weeks. It is more important to know if you are contagious than if you have the virus. The paper he wrote about this is here if you want to read it.
The other thing was the recent antitrust hearings in congress with leaders of large tech companies. This hearing seemed to be nothing more than a political grandstand. Each company that attended (Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google) have real issues that need to be looked into, but this is clearly not the appropriate way to look into them. The problems each of these companies have aren’t really related, other than that they fall under the “tech” umbrella. Each of them needs its own hearing. The other issue is that most of these representatives don’t have any idea how many of these technologies work. They ask dumb questions. They ask questions they already know the answers too, that they want to hear the executives admit. They want to look tough, and they want to look like they are taking care of issues that they think their largest group of constituents care about. How does Amazon pushing out their competition by making a cheaper version of its best sellers fit in the same hearing as Apple’s App Store guidelines? All the while, some representatives are just asking why they don’t see what they want as the top result in a Google search. These four companies have a large amount of power in our country and in all of our lives, but is this really the best our government can do to pretend like they care?
Exploring our two-party system’s effects is one of the points I want to explore in this polarization project. I think there is a lot to unpack there, and I know that these things aren’t due solely to that, but it is part of it.
Thanks for reading,
Mike