I have had a bad month. I have not written, and even today, I’m going to take the easy way out. I’m working a lot, with classes moving to an online delivery environment. I’m actually spending more time in class now than I did when I was traveling.

I am going to copy in a couple of other links, though, and the stories. I need to get a word count up to get to my goal, and that’s about the only way I’m going to get there. Like I said, I’ve had a bad month for writing.

Right now, the White House is focused on who to blame… or, more correctly, who to defer the blame to someone other than Trump. To that end, here’s an article from Thoughtco on the origins of the term, “scapegoat”.
______________________________________________________________________________

Definition of Scapegoat, Scapegoating, and Scapegoat Theory

The Origins of the Term and Overview of Its Use According to Sociology

By Ashley CrossmanUpdated August 02, 2019

Scapegoating refers to a process by which a person or group is unfairly blamed for something that they didn’t do and, as a result, the real source of the problem is either never seen or purposefully ignored. Sociologists have documented that scapegoating often occurs between groups when a society is plagued by long-term economic problems or when resources are scarce. Scapegoat theory is used in sociology and psychology as one way to intercept conflict and prejudice between individuals and groups.

Origins of the Term

The term scapegoat has Biblical origins, coming from the Book of Leviticus. In the book, a goat was sent into the desert carrying the sins of the community. So, a scapegoat was originally understood as a person or animal that symbolically absorbed the sins of others and carried them away from those who committed them.

Scapegoats and Scapegoating in Sociology

Sociologists recognize four different ways in which scapegoating takes place and scapegoats are created.

1. Scapegoating can be a one-on-one phenomenon, in which one person blames another for something he/she or someone else did. This form of scapegoating is common among children, who blame a sibling or a friend for something they did, to avoid the shame of disappointing their parents and the punishment that might follow a misdeed.
2. Scapegoating also occurs in a one-on-group manner, when one person blames a group for a problem they did not cause: wars, deaths, financial losses of one kind or another, and other personal struggles. This form of scapegoating may sometimes be unfairly blamed on racial, ethnic, religious, class, or anti-immigrant biases.
3. Sometimes scapegoating takes a group-on-one form, when a group of people singles out and blames one person for a problem. For example, when the members of a sports team blame a player who made a mistake for the loss of a match, though other aspects of play also affected the outcome. Or, when someone who alleges an assault is then scapegoated by members of the community for “causing trouble” or “ruining” the life of the attacker.
4. Finally, and of most interest to sociologists, is the form of scapegoating that is “group-on-group.” This occurs when one group blames another for problems that the groups collectively experience, which might be economic or political in nature—like blaming a particular party for the Great Depression (1929-1939) or the Great Recession (2007-2009). This form of scapegoating often manifests across lines of race, ethnicity, religion, or national origin.

The Scapegoat Theory of Intergroup Conflict

Scapegoating of one group by another has been used throughout history, and still today, as a way to incorrectly explain why certain social, economic, or political problems exist and harm the group doing the scapegoating. Some sociologists say that their research shows that groups that scapegoat occupy a low socio-economic status in society and have little access to wealth and power. They say these people are often experiencing prolonged economic insecurity or poverty, and come to adopt shared outlooks and beliefs that have been documented to lead to prejudice and violence.

Sociologists who embrace socialism as a political and economic theory argue that those in a low socioeconomic status are naturally inclined to scapegoat due to the unequal distribution of resources within the society. These sociologists place blame on capitalism as an economic model and exploitation of workers by a wealthy minority. However, these are not the viewpoints of all sociologists. As with any science involving theories, study, research, and conclusions—it’s not an exact science, and therefore there will be a variety of viewpoints.

______________________________________________________________________________

That’s nice…

The other thing I wanted to bring up for historical purposes is the status of the coronavirus outbreak on the planet.

I follow the Johns Hopkins coronavirus dashboard. As of today, worldwide, there have been 3,247,648 known cases. There have been 229,447 fatalities recorded worldwide.

No country can match the level of death in the United States. We’re 61,547 lost lives in, and I don’t see where this will stop. We have yet to plateau.

And some idiot governors are opening up for business… I thijnk it’s way too soon. I get it, though. People want to get back to work. Millionaires and billionaires need people to get to work – you don’t accrue that sort of wealth just doing things on your own. There are other cogs in the machine, and the way it works is that those people work, a portion goes to the company, and a portion of it turns up in the workers paycheck.

OK… getting closer.

Oh, it looks like there might be some good news, with at least one treatment drawing some positive results…

From USA Today…

Here’s what we know about remdesivir, the drug being tested as a coronavirus treatment

N’dea Yancey-BraggElizabeth WeiseUSA TODAY

A drug being developed to treat COVID-19, the disease caused by new coronavirus, is reportedly showing some promise but there’s no guarantee initial reports will lead to a commercially available treatment. 

Experts have been racing to find a treatment for the illness that’s killed more than 60,000 Americans and sickened more than 1 million. The experimental drug remdesivir has emerged as the first possible scientifically proven treatment.

Early data from a global study released Wednesday found patients given remdesivir recovered faster and may be less likely to die. However, another study published the same day in the British medical journal The Lancet found no clinical benefits to the drug. 

Here’s what we know about the drug:

What is remdesivir?

Remdesivir is an experimental antiviral drug from the American biotech firm Gilead Sciences. It was originally tested as a treatment for Ebola and other coronaviruses including SARS and is now being tested as a possible COVID-19 treatment. 

The drug impairs the ability of the virus to replicate, according to John Scott, chair of the department of pharmacology at the University of Washington School of Medicine.

“You’re decreasing the degree of infection so the immune system can fight. It’s like taking fuel away from the fire,” he said.

Dr. Aneesh Mehta, lead investigator for the portion of the remdesivir trial at Emory University in Atlanta, stressed the drug and other antivirals are not “silver bullets” that immediately get rid of an infection and the damage doesn’t just “all go away” when the virus is gone.

Are coronavirus patients being treated with remdesivir?

Remdesivir has not been approved anywhere for any use, according to Gilead, but is being given to patients in six clinical trials to determine if it is an effective and safe treatment for coronavirus.

Outside of clinical trials, Gilead also has implemented programs that provide emergency treatment access for children and pregnant women with severe symptoms of COVID-19 and is trying to expand emergency access beyond these two groups. 

Fauci said a U.S. federal trial showed ‘proof of concept’

Early results released Wednesday from the global study conducted by the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases found patients who received remdesivir had a 31% faster recovery time than those who received a placebo.

While not a “knock out,” NIAID director Dr. Anthony Fauci said at an Oval Office meeting Wednesday the study results were “a very important proof of concept.”Get the Coronavirus Watch newsletter in your inbox.

Stay safe and informed with updates on the spread of the coronavirusDelivery: VariesYour Email

Study: Remdesivir appears to speed recovery times in hospitalized COVID-19 patients

The NIAID study involved 1,063 hospitalized COVID-19 patients whose lungs were affected. A subset of about half those patients who got remdesivir had a median recovery time of 11 days while patients who got a placebo had a median recovery time of 15 days. Recovery was defined as being well enough to be discharged from the hospital or able to return to normal levels of activity.

The patients given remdesivir also had a lower mortality rate – 8% of them died compared with 11.6% of the placebo group. But researchers said we don’t have enough data to know if that number is statistically significant.

Study out of China was less positive

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial at 10 hospitals in Wuhan, China, found no statistically significant difference in how quickly patients improved, according to the study published in The Lancet.

Though a higher number of patients receiving remdesivir showed a faster time to clinical improvement the numbers weren’t enough to be more than chance.

The race to stop COVID-19:Remdesivir shows some promise but there’s still no proven treatment

‘Drawing any conclusions at this point is premature’

Last week, early data from a Chinese study was prematurely posted then removed from a World Health Organization website. It did not appear to show any difference in outcomes between patients who got the drug and patients who didn’t.

Another study not yet been peer-reviewed found patients on a 10-day remdesivir treatment plan and a five-day treatment plan showed “similar improvement.” Gilead said.

A study published April 10 in the New England Journal of Medicine found the majority of people who got the drug improved, but there was no control group.

This month, medical news site STAT reported early and incomplete results from a remdesivir study being conducted in Chicago. The University of Chicago issued a statement saying that “drawing any conclusions at this point is premature and scientifically unsound.” 

What is remdesivir?Gilead Sciences drug reportedly shows promise treating coronavirus

Treatment options the U.S. is considering

Remdesivir is one of several drugs touted recently as possible coronavirus treatments.

Hydroxychloroquine, convalescent plasma and immuno-modulators like tocilizumab have been given to patients with COVID-19 in clinical trials, but remdesivir is the only treatment that has been shown to have even a potential effect on the disease.

Follow N’dea Yancey-Bragg on Twitter: @NdeaYanceyBragg

______________________________________________________________________________

And that’s what I’ve got for April… best laid plans of mice and men and all that.

I’ll try to be a bit more mindful, on this project.

Peace y’all.