Geneva, Monday 4 May 2020

The clapping yesterday evening was definitely muted and brief. I’m not sure why we are clapping now. Switzerland has reduced the number of COVID-19 cases to the point that the health services are no longer under strain. There’s a general feeling that, very soon, we’ll be going about our business as before.

If there was a ranking on how different countries had performed in responding to the pandemic, somewhere mid-range we would find the USA and China pointlessly slugging and slagging it out. Perhaps Italy, France, Spain, Germany and the UK would be a bit higher. Above them maybe Norway, South Korea and Vietnam. Near the top, we’d find Australia whilst currently holding top spot is good ol’ lil New Zealand. No new cases! All under control. With this one, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has stepped into and held the international limelight. 

One year ago, Ms Ardern’s government put out a national budget where spending is dictated by what best encourages the “well-being” of citizens, rather than focussing on traditional bottom-line measures like productivity and economic growth. To my non-economist knowledge, a world leader not rating economic growth as a, if not the, priority for their country is unheard of. New Zealand’s priorities from 2019 are: improving mental health, reducing child poverty, addressing the inequalities faced by indigenous Maori and Pacific islands people, thriving in a digital age, and transitioning to a low-emission, sustainable economy. Admirable stuff! Sustainable now? Writing at the time in The London Economic, Jack Peat thought that Jacinda’s policies were fab but pointed out that as long as other major economies prioritise economic growth over wellbeing, New Zealand “may become a lone wolf trapped in an increasingly hungry bear pit.” Tourism is the biggest industry in New Zealand and employs 8.5% of the population. Four million international visitors, of whom 1.5 million are Australian, 500,000 are Chinese and 500,000 American, bring in close to $20 billion per annum. This is all dependant on air travel. What now with the pandemic? The New Zealand economy will surely take a massive hit. Will Jacinda’s lone wolf be able to survive? For sure, the circling bears are getting hungrier and more desperate by the day. 

To score at the bottom of the pandemic response league, we have to find a country fulfilling three criteria: first, millions of urban poor living in very close proximity; second, public health infrastructure that is hopelessly underdeveloped – and now inevitably overloaded – to the point that it can carry out no testing for suspected COVID-19 cases; third, a leader who continually downplays the importance of any preventive measures. Yes…. Brazil! As one observer has already pointed out: the magnitude of Brazil’s problem risks being unrecognised simply because it is not being recorded.

I had another shot at painting some fruit on a plate. A different approach today.

The putting competition…. The first sunny day since last week meant the putting mat was unfurled on the balcony. I won 2 and 1. Running total me – 20, she – 10.

Geneva, Sunday 3 May 2020

I was fishing in the New Zealand back country last year with a doctor friend. He is also a devout christian. We were stuck in camp for a rainy day or two and so our discussions ranged far and wide. I asked him how he reconciled his belief in anatomy, biology and chemistry – necessary for medical practice – with his belief in God as the creator of all things. He said “Robin, I have thought about this a great deal over the years. I’ve concluded that it’s him, the BIG man!” Nobody actually knows what belief is in neurological terms. On top, to believe that one plus one equals two rather than three is clearly a very different kind of belief to what religious people refer to as faith. My doctor-fishing-christian friend seems able to go along with one belief system i.e., science whilst letting such objective evidence be trumped by his belief in God. Fascinating! (FYI… I’m a scientist!)

Much of medical science and practice evolved in contradiction to existing beliefs. We owe a great deal to the inquisitive genius of Leonardo da Vinci. Anatomy is the basis of medical practice and his mind-bogglingly accomplished and exquisite anatomical drawings from 1485-90 paved the way to a greater understanding of how the human body works. To put this scientific line of enquiry into the time perspective, these drawings required dissection of human bodies; a totally ungodly and illegal activity then. On top, the bodies had to be obtained through the services of grave-robbers. Our Leo risked prison or even death for his efforts.

Surprisingly, even Leonardo da Vinci could not banish current belief in the face of his own evidence. Nothing like this hemi-sected couple having sex would have ever been drawn before. One could be forgiven for thinking that it is based on what he saw on the dissection table. But we’re in the domain of passion and baby-making that was then, and remains now, a whole rattle bag of the most firmly held and bizarre beliefs. At the time, two such beliefs were prominent with respect to reproductive anatomy: first, that semen was made in the spinal cord and reached the base of the penis via small tubes; second that a vein from the about-to-be pregnant uterus carried the blood from retained menstruation to make milk. Both seminal tubes and uterus-to-breast vein – though non-existent in reality – are clearly shown in this “anatomical” drawing. 

The COVID-19 pandemic – coming in the era of social media – has inevitably thrown up and in our faces many and complex issues about what we believe in. Do we believe evidence if it runs counter to what we already believe? Do we believe what scientists say over what politicians say? If the scientists or doctors can’t agree, should we believe in what any scientist or doctor says? Some may well believe that us humans “deserve” this pandemic (which has a bit of a biblical smack to it.) Some, like me, believe in the science that said that the pandemic was entirely predictable; it was just a case of when. So whatever you believe in, whether God, Trump or voodoo, here’s my advice. Go with the science. It may not always be correct. The evidence may change. How we interpret that evidence may change. The evidence may not always be well presented. The evidence may be manipulated for political gain or media hoo-ha. But… at a time like this, we have no choice but to depend on it. In brief, science is not a perfect basis of belief; but as a school of thought underpinning “what we understand,” it is by far the best thing we have. 

On Day 32 of the Lockdown Diary, I included – to the amusement of some – a picture of my childhood home, Calthorphe House. Here it is deconstructed and reconstructed. Some readers of this Diary might remember the wild teenage parties that nearly took that old roof off.

Note: The anatomical drawings by Leonardo da Vinci are taken from a catalogue of the Royal Collection. Yes, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II owns no less than 600!

Geneva, Saturday 2 May 2020

There is a park between us and downtown Geneva. I must have cycled through it a thousand times. In one corner by the main gate is an area dedicated to big outdoor public chess. Normally, on a Saturday morning, it would be heaving with enthusiasts locking intellectual horns. This morning, here it is in lockdown. 

One thing I have noticed over the years is how very rare it is to see women playing chess here. I often wondered why this might be. I’ve had a look around on-line. Women represent less than 5% of registered tournament players worldwide and only 1% of the world’s grand masters. There are several theories behind why chess attracts so many more men than women. 1) Women always rank higher than men on an “agreeableness” factor. This means that when confronted by another person, women – unlike men – tend not to try immediately to outsmart the other person. 2) Testosterone… yes, the T-dog!! That hormone that drives, among other things, competition – both physical and non-physical – and aggression. Normal testosterone levels in men lie between 280 and 1,100 ng/dL and for women between 15 and 70 ng/dL. Men tend to have and enjoy a rush of testosterone before an important chess tournament. 3) Gender stereotyping leads to boys starting chess earlier in life and girls being less welcome in chess clubs at school. 4) Young women who play chess at a high level tend to stop competing when they have children. As with so many other aspects of human behaviour, the correct answer will comprise genetic components and social / environmental components. 

My on-line research led me to some other fascinating gender-related chess issues. A study by Dreber, Gerdes and Gransmark reported in a 2013 edition of the Journal of Economic Behaviour and Organisation found that “attractiveness” of the opponent influenced game strategy. The 626 participants in a tournament had been rated for attractiveness as part of  a large marketing survey. The researchers found that male players choose riskier strategies when playing against attractive female opponents. Their riskier play did not improve performance. Women’s strategies and performance were unaffected by the attractiveness of their opponent. In another study reported in a 2007 edition of the European Journal of Social Psychology, Maass, D’Ettloe and Cadinu found that gender stereotyping is a factor behind women’s underperformance in chess. They pitched 42 men and 42 women in an on-line chess tournament. When players were unaware of the sex of their opponent (the control), females played as well as males. In the experiment, when women knowingly played against men, they showed a dramatic drop in performance. When they played against men but were made to believe they were against women, they performed as well as their male opponents.

While we’re on gender differences, a report in Science News on 23 April, reported different COVID-19 mortality rates for men (around 60%) and women (around 40%.) This also has yet to be fully explained and there are certainly genetic and environmental factors at play. Purportedly, women mount a stronger immune response than males and so are likely to be less susceptible to viral infections. This is thought to be due to the immune response being driven by a gene or genes on the X chromosome of which women have two copies while men have one. Extrinsic factors will include the higher rate of heart disease and hypertension in men that, in turn, is associated with their higher levels of obesity and smoking. 

I have been wondering when to stop writing the Lockdown Diary; probably on 11 May. This is the date on which we should be able to play golf; a pastime not really compatible with the notion of lockdown. However, need I remind you, dear reader, that on a global scale this pandemic is far from over. Many countries are still booming. Here’s the hard truth.

Wishing you a peaceful weekend and hoping you are safe and well.