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.

Geneva, Friday 1 May 2020

A cold damp morning. I cycled into town; lots of people about given the weather. Shops are re-opening. I found myself in Place Bourg de Four; right in the middle of the old town. I had to say hello to “Clementine,” a bronze sculpture by Heinz Schwarz. 

Clementine is exquisite. She is sad, delicate and beautiful in her budding adolescence. She stands fully and unashamedly naked. Schwartz’s masterpiece has become an international symbol of solidarity for women and girls, especially those trafficked or forced into prostitution. Outside the time of lockdown, there would be floral tributes strewn at her feet.

It is a shopping day. I was speaking to a friend by phone. I said that I hoped it wouldn’t be long before we no longer needed to rinse the groceries under a cold shower. He couldn’t believe I’d been doing this throughout the lockdown.

I thought it was kinda normal if one was concerned about a bug doing the rounds. That’s what we used to do “out there” on top of the standard “clean it, boil it or leave it.” I read somewhere that it is not a disinfectant measure (obviously) and may not reduce your chance of picking up the coronavirus; but, given that we talking about droplet spread, it can reduce the viral load ingested and so, theoretically, reduce the impact of the infection if you get it. Maybe one day soon, the stats will be there to tell me whether this is a valid precaution or not. Now, talking of stats….

I am fascinated by the evolution of how pertinent epidemiology stats are presented to the general public. Six weeks ago, the focus was on total cases and deaths per country. There was talk of us climbing to the epidemic peak and the need to “flatten the curve.” Now there are explanations of the R value that indicates how contagious the disease was and is now with lockdown measures. (In the beginning this value was around three meaning for every infected person, the virus would be passed on to three others. Effective lockdown measures aimed to and did pull this number to less than one where it has to stay.) There are also concerted attempts to establish the mortality associated with COVID-19 by comparing countries differing mortality rates. If this is not possible for a given country, it can be estimated by calculating the “excess mortality” within a population over the period in question. From what I can see on-line, we are likely to find that the mortality associated with the disease is between 2% and 4%. This pursuit of such figures is not an academic exercise. The more accurate our understanding of the R values and the factors behind the differing mortality rates, the better equipped governments will be to make the important decisions about loosening lockdown measures. 

I am fascinated also – and horrified in equal measure – by President Trump’s unceasing accusations against China that the pandemic is the result of a leak – accidental or intentional – from a laboratory in Wuhan. He uses increasingly inflammatory language. His own intelligence agencies don’t believe this and have stated that the virus is most likely of natural origin. The UN Secretary General, Antonio Guterres, as politically deft as he is wise, has let us all know with well chosen words just how irresponsible it is to foment this spat at precisely the time that powerful nations should be leading the world in a coordinated response to the pandemic. Go, Toni!

Surgeon: “Well, I’ve got some good news and some bad news.” Patient: OK, Doc! Give me the bad news first.” Surgeon: “We’re going to have to amputate both your legs.” Patient: “Oh no! What’s the good news then?” Surgeon: “You see that gorgeous nurse over there…. I’ve got a date with her on Friday!”