The Ezra Klein Show
Why The Coronavirus Is So Deadly For Black America
Somewhere near the beginning of the pandemic, a meme was going around to the effect of, “y’all needed a white person to tell you coronavirus is killing Black folks at an exponentially higher rate.” And, yes, maybe some folks do. This episode of The Ezra Klein Show is a demonstration of allyship, amplifying the voice of the Black community, illuminating the reasons why Black and brown populations find themselves even more vulnerable at this time. Featured guest David R. Williams, professor of public health and chair of the Department Of Social And Behavioral Sciences at the Harvard T.H. Chan School Of Public Health, lays out the long history of inequities Black and brown communities face in America, and how this inequality adversely affects their health. According to Williams, segregation, income disparity, and micro/macro aggressions correlate with negative changes in health across non-white populations—and COVID-19 has only made the issue more obvious and pressing. Throughout his conversation with Klein, Williams weaves facts, figures, and statistics together with personal anecdotes to dream a healthy future for all. [Morgan McNaught]
The Sporkful
Writer Samantha Irby Is Having Fewer Over-The-Sink Moments
In her work, bestselling author and creator of the blog bitchesgottaeat Samantha Irby manages to find humor in personal tragedy and hardship. As a guest on The Sporkful, a podcast that “obsess[es] about food to learn more about people,” Irby explores with compelling honesty everything from the realities of Crohn’s disease to the socioeconomic implications of what we eat—and shares some pretty fascinating stories about sex and food, too. Entertainingly self-deprecating, Irby nonetheless projects an appreciation for her personal growth that listeners might find aspirational. Sporkful host Dan Pashman is warm and insightful, unafraid to ask the sort of questions that fully engage with Irby’s sex- or health-related stories while never coming across as judgmental. [Jose Nateras]
Werewolf Ambulance
The Evil Dead (1981)
The public perception of 1981’s The Evil Dead has definitely shifted over time, first earning a reputation as a successful independent film, then becoming a cult classic, and now considered an iconic if schlocky B-movie, roughly hewn and dated as hell. Although Werewolf Ambulance hosts Allen and Katie have been friends for the past 10 years, they’re not technically part of the same generation, so fervent Evil Dead fandom, and the “Evil Dead Guys” who exhibited it, looked rather different throughout their respective teenage years. Katie’s mental association is the sort of skater guys who wouldn’t call her back; Allen, the older of the two, thinks of these fanboys more like Pantera devotees. Though she first saw the film at 17, Katie is particularly not fond of it in the current moment, pointing to the infamous tree-assault scene as something that reads more bleak than scary—an opinion at odds with Allen’s, whose sense of nostalgia compels him to rate this a perfect ’80s film. [Jose Nateras]
Wind Of Change
My Friend Michael
It’s well known that the CIA was responsible for the rise of American abstract expressionism, but did the agency also write one of the greatest whistling-centric hair metal ballads of all time? Were German rockers Scorpions in cahoots with the American government to inspire the downfall of the Soviet Union with their 1990 hit “Wind Of Change”? This is the mystery at the center of a new eight-part series from New Yorker journalist Patrick Radden Keefe. In each episode, Keefe delves deep into the paranoia and propaganda of the culture war the United States and the U.S.S.R. raged against each other until the latter’s dissolution in 1991. This is a project that has been on Keefe’s mind since 2011 when he first heard the rumor from a former CIA operative. The fact that this operative will not go on the record about saying any of this, or even admitting he was an operative, underlines just how difficult Keefe’s quest for the truth is going to be. It’s a quest well worth taking, however, as Keefe navigates the byzantine labyrinths of the intelligence community and explores how pop culture defined the Cold War. [Anthony D Herrera]
52 Comments
It’s well known that the CIA was responsible for the rise of American abstract expressionism, but did the agency also write one of the greatest whistling-centric hair metal ballads of all time?Stupid question, but did they ask the members of the Scorpions?
I feel people who actually work at the CIA wishes they were as omnipotent as people think it is. Its probably horribly dull.
I was deployed to Afghanistan a few times during my army career. People who meet me now ask me about my experiences, expecting to hear either exciting or horrifying war stories. Instead, I regale them with thrilling tales of watching pirated DVDs for days at a time, endless card games, convoys that seemed to go on forever, lots and lots of paperwork, and the nightly invasion of the foul smelling demonic presence that lived in the poo pond. I imagine most CIA work is about as thrilling.
I recall an interview with an FBI special agent and the guy was like, is your job like the Bourne movies? Or any serial killer movie? He said bluntly, its like the Office. People typing away for a few hours and a lot of bullshiting with people only broken up by sometimes driving somewhere.
The guy in Homecoming just sorting through papers half the time. I don’t think he was CIA, but there’s probably a ton of paperwork and dull research in cracking these cases.
I have a theory that the CIA’s worst activities were motivated by boredom rather than malice.“Bill, how long have we been stationed in Chile now?”“Judging by that pile of shredded reports, about four years.”“Christ, let’s foment a coup.”
Play any videogames?
Yes. He has a pretty fascinating interview with Klaus Meine in the final episode.It’s a very interesting podcast that moves quickly.
‘The public perception of 1981’s The Evil Dead has definitely shifted over time, first earning a reputation as a successful independent film, then becoming a cult classic, and now considered an iconic if schlocky B-movie, roughly hewn and dated as hell’How is this a perception that shifted over time? It seems pretty consistent to me…
I first watched it in the early ‘90s and it was scholcky, roughly hewn and dated as hell already.That’s part of the charm.Though to be fair I’m more of an Army of Darkness fan. I liked Stan Against Evil better than Ash vs. Evil Dead.
Yeah, I mean isn’t it pretty much considered all of the above? I remember watching it for the first time and not being sure whether to laugh, cringe or scream. I wouldn’t call it bleak so much as deeply unsettling.
Gotta make it a story somehow. But yes, all of those descriptions (except maybe “iconic” which requires time) were accurate from the start.
High Definition overly bright 4k scans have not done “The Evil Dead” any favors. This is a film that demands to be seen in a print as scratchy, grainy and dark as can be found. A copy of the roughly used Thorn-EMI video-tape that I originally viewed the film with would be a welcome addition to the inevitable 40th anniversary re-release.
The tree assault scene was somewhat troubling, but it was the 80s, I guess?Anyway, Sam Raimi has definitely made amends for any faults of the original via the Ash vs. Evil Dead series. One of the smartest casting/artistic moves he made was to Archie Bunker-ize Ash, and then pair him with diverse companions, one latinx, and one strong female (also Jewish….my sunday school heart aflutters). It was a nice way to craft a narrative that’s true to the films roots, while playfully acknowledging some of the problematic shit that was all too common at the time.Anyway, it’s a great tv show. And who knew the Evil Dead would provide such fertile ground for universe building. I fucking love the Ghost Beaters and I fucking love AvED
‘The tree assault scene was somewhat troubling, but it was the 80s, I guess?’Right, but the tree assault scene was somewhat troubling in the 80s too. It’s not like the film had to be re-evaluated for people to realize that.
I’m not sure how the tree rape scene should be viewed any differently today than it was when released. It’s meant to be horrific under any circumstances. It most assuredly was NOT played for laughs the first time around. Is the suggestion that violence against women is now off limits for horror films and so we should change our opinion of the movie? Because lord knows the first Evil Dead was not meant to be horror comedy.
I think alot is being read into my comment. My only point was that Ash vs Evil Dead is awesome; and Raimi figured out a creative way to incorporate most of the Evil Dead universe (let’s not get into Army of Darkness licensing issues), warts and all, while updating it for modern sensibilities. That was my point. That’s it. AvED=awesomeness.
Even if it wasn’t meant to be a horror comedy, it still plays that way. Lots of stuff in the first Evil Dead is at least a little bit funny: Bruce Campbell getting repeatedly thrown into bookcases, all those wiggly severed limbs, the claymation face-melting scene. (That’s leaving aside the intentional sight gags and the Three Stooges reference in the credits, which suggest that Raimi wasn’t playing it 100% straight.) The sequels double down on the silliness, but that just highlights how silly the original is.The tree-rape scene doesn’t fit the movie’s tone. It’s disturbing and a little hard to watch, and the juxtaposition of something genuinely upsetting and something deeply silly leaves a bad taste. Also, for fuck’s sake. Nobody needs to change their opinion of the movie, and using the royal “we” in that context is bullshit. You can continue enjoying the Evil Dead, just like I can continue enjoying the Evil Dead. And I can enjoy the Evil Dead without pretending it pulls off using rape as a plot device.
It’s a long-winded way of saying that the Evil Dead was one of many independent horror movies in the early 80s, but it’s had a lot more cultural impact than, say, Mortuary. And even compared to the 90 or early 2000s, there’s a lot more Evil Dead merchandise (plus a remake and TV series) to extend the visibility of the series. Evil Dead was never “obscure” (I got a vhs copy at Best Buy in 2001), but its level of cultural penetration has changed over the years.
“The passage of time has caused this 40-year-old film to seem dated.”You don’t say. God, this place used to be cool.
Yes it still holds up. Its no Evil Dead 2 but it still holds up.
Good. Now I don’t have to listen to the podcast.
You should. “Werewolf Ambulance” is a lot of fun. (And this write-up completely mischaracterizes the tone of the show.)
It is fun! The guy sounds enough like Jason Snell that I want to hear him and the Incomparable crew to talk about Evil Dead though.
I thought everyone was in agreement that Evil Dead 2 is the better movie, anyway.
It is. The first has its charm and I think Ellen Sandweiss is a fun lady. But 2 is just better in every way.
“…. schlocky B-movie, roughly hewn and dated as hell.”Get fucked, Werewolf Ambulance.
“…. schlocky B-movie, roughly hewn and dated as hell.” is not what Werewolf Ambulance said about it. That’s what AV Club is saying about it in the text for the podcast description.
Agreed on this.
Uncalled for. That description was written by the A.V. Club.
Evil Dead movies are comedy at this point.
No, they became comedy films in the second one…
I didn’t think so when I was a kid.
The first Evil Dead has moments of in-comedy, that is, references for horror fans rather than outright jokes. The second Evil Dead is an unmistakable horror comedy. Do you remember the book Ash uses to weigh down his possessed amputated hand?
Good to see Ezra Klein is finally getting some attention.
Does The Evil Dead hold up in 2020?Yes. You should have asked me earlier; I could have saved you precious time investigating thatuncrackable case.
As a long-time listener of “Werewolf Ambulance,” I can tell you that the headline is garbage. Katie and Allen would be the first to say that they’re not “investigating” jack or shit. They’re just two friends who joke around about horror flicks. The topic “Does Evil Dead Hold Up in 2020?” is entirely an invention of the headline writer; it has nothing to do with the episode in question or the series as a whole.
That’s alright…my outrage was probably an invention of this comment weiter.
Does The Evil Dead hold up in 2020?…now considered an iconic if schlocky B-movie, roughly hewn and dated as hell.
Here’s an argument that vitamin D may partly explain differences in coronavirus mortality across groups. If true, that suggests we could reduce mortality by supplementing vitamin D (and perhaps encouraging people to go outside to get sunlight).
Please don’t quote right-wing dickheads on Medium (which openly admits it exerts no editorial influence on contributions) who are just looking for any reason to distract from the impact of race and poverty on illness. No need to fix social inequities, just give people vitamin D!
What are the odds that long existing social inequities will be reduced, thereby reducing deaths during the pandemic, vs the odds of reducing them via sunlight (particularly since outdoor transmission seems very rare)?
Sorry about the delayed reply. Sorry for the length. And just to be clear: I am disappointed with the blog author, not you. My three points:1. I’m more unhappy about the source of the information than the information itself. This was based on independent medical research, but the Medium blog you referred to is a write-up by right-wing asshole who holds many wrong, horrible beliefs. On the odd occasion when a right-wing asshole has a genuine point, there will always be a better source for it. (Note for completeness: this is also true of left-wing assholes.)2. With regards vitamin D, there is no evidence in that paper that supplements will reduce COVID infections or deaths. The paper did not show that vit D protects against COVID. It didn’t even show that vit D was correlated with COVID protection. It couldn’t because it never looked at any measurements of vit D at all. All it showed was that a particular statistical approach suggests that there are factors other than race and poverty at work (reasonable conclusion) and maybe this was vit D deficiency (reasonable, but no positive evidence in the paper to support it). In other words, it’s conjecture. There are plenty of statistical counter-arguments that are not mentioned. For instance the US state with the highest risk of vit D deficiency is Alaska. It happens to be the US state with the lowest COVID mortality rate per capita, which really doesn’t fit the vit D hypothesis. And it’s not just because Alaska has few blacks. Alaska’s black population is almost exactly the same as Arizona’s by proportion — and yet Arizona has a whopping 10x the per-capita COVID mortality rate despite being a southern state with lots more sun exposure. It’s not worth talking about vit D as a public health measure until there’s at least one decent study of actual measured vit D levels and COVID risk.3. Yes, vitamin D is pretty cheap by medical intervention standards. But we are in the middle of a pandemic being so badly handled by the US government that even a seemingly innocuous strategy like “let’s give this cheap, safe supplement to everyone in case it helps” ignores several important principles (sorry, I’m about to go into sub-topics!). Firstly, as above, even this “cheap” strategy would cost hundreds of millions of dollars for a treatment that has no evidentiary support. Secondly, the health system is in crisis now. Adding a new workload is NOT helpful unless you have STRONG evidence of benefit. (If I wanted to make broad generalisations, I could argue that black americans are at risk from their lower intake of mayo. Maybe we should be shipping mayo to everyone! On the statistical evidence provided, this is just as plausible a hypothesis as vit D, and even cheaper to implement.) Third, the US health system can’t even manage to supply paper face masks to frontline health workers. Masks are even cheaper and easier to manufacture than vitamin D and don’t need to be distributed as widely. If we can’t supply basic PPE, we shouldn’t be diverting resources into unproven measures.Fourth, if the current administration were to implement population-wide vitamin D supplementation, we could be certain that the the entire program would be an exercise in diverting public dollars to a Trump sycophant or a company he has shares in, and there is a very good chance that the vitamin D would never be delivered (like this $69M order for ventilators) or would be sourced from an unsafe manufacturer to increase profitability. Fifth (and you’ll be glad to know last), like the other stupid “cheap cure” hydroxychloroquine, the vitamin D supply chain is not infinitely flexible. There are people who need vitamin D for existing medical conditions (mainly osteoporosis and ostemalacia), and if the US government suddenly snaps up all the available vit D to send to their preferred demographics (hint, it won’t be black neighborhoods), then people who need vitamin D will suddenly not be able to get it. This is not as bad as hydroxycholoroquine because missing a few weeks of vit D supplementation is not as bad as someone with lupus not getting their HCQ — and we can see how much our psychopathic leaders cared about people with autoimmune conditions; why would they give a flying f*** about people with bone diseases?So sure, if you personally want to take some vitamin D tablets and you won’t be taking it from the Webster packs of people who need it, go for it. It’s cheap. It’s safe unless you take stupid industrial quantities. But as a public health promotion it needs a hell of a lot more evidence and it needs to address the supply chain as well. And this vit D conjecture is being used to divert energy from crucial improvements to social inequality and availability of health services.Sorry, that’s the short answer.
Adding the additional task of distributing vitamin D supplements would indeed be something the government could still fail at. But people can also get it from… sunshine.The Medium article was focused on the UK (which might have a government more competent in terms of providing PPE & supplements for all I know) rather than the US, and thus didn’t note things like Alaska vs Arizona. But it did discuss a number of factors which could possibly contribute to differences in corona and as I noted in another reply, the biggest effect seen of any of the controls was region (urban vs rural). That could have an effect through vitamin D, but it could also have a direct effect since cities have long been known to more effectively spread pathogens than less dense areas. The population density in Alaska is quite low, which seems like a reasonable explanation of their low rates.
There’s no particular basis for the argument presented in that article. Two-thirds of it uses a single retrospective study to argue that socioeconomic factors don’t “fully explain” (which is a very high bar to clear) ethnic disparities in mortality. The last third talks about vitamin D but contains no actual data, just opinion. Beyond bone density, the impact of vitamin D deficiency on long-term health is debatable, and its impact on the response to acute infection is unestablished. More importantly, the article is explicit in linking demographic groups, skin pigmentation, and disease – it uses claims about vitamin D to argue that brown people are getting sick because they’re brown. It’s certainly within the realm of possibility that vitamin D supplementation is helpful against covid (though, again, that’s entirely unknown without actual research), but the real point of the article isn’t to promote vitamin D. It’s to present health disparities as a biological deficiency of minority groups, rather than a large-scale failing of society.
Failing to fully explain after controls is indeed a high bar. But if the age-adjusted risk of death is 2.6 times higher for Indians in the U.K compared to the general population even though they were less likely to live in the most impoverished neighborhoods than whites, that suggests something other than “a large-scale failing of society” (depending on how you think of their disproportionate representation in the medical field). Within the U.S, Indians are one of the highest earning ethnic groups. Their socio-economic condition is unlike that of African-Americans, hispanics and native Americans. But if they are at increased risk due to vitamin D deficiency (and you didn’t argue against his claim that it’s an established fact that South Asians are more likely to be deficient), particularly now that people are staying indoors more, that’s really important to point out!You’re right that he doesn’t present “data” on the association of vitamin D with health. Instead he links to multiple papers on the topic which say things like “The evaluated studies show an important immunomodulatory role of vitamin
D, which reduces the incidence and risk of [upper respiratory tract infections], both in children and
in adults” and “Multiple epidemiological studies in adults and children have
demonstrated that vitamin D deficiency is associated with increased risk
and greater severity of infection, particularly of the respiratory
tract.”
it uses claims about vitamin D to argue that brown people are getting sick because they’re brown
I would think of it slightly differently: the U.K is a place which gets less sunlight than other parts of the world. People there tend to have paler skin for a reason. It’s an established fact that Afro-Britons and South Asians in the U.K are more likely to be vitamin D deficient. It’s unlikely that they would be if they lived in a sunnier place, but a place with deficient sunlight causes problems EVEN IF THEY ARE HIGHLY PAID PROFESSIONALS. Health care research tends to focus on the racial/ethnic majority in the country where it’s conducted, which means things distinctive to minority groups (and we know such things exist in health) get neglected. So a lot of people (disproportionately minorities) could needlessly die because the government is pushing people inside and neglecting to tell the vulnerable of a particular risk that could be ameliorated with sunlight.The U.S is geographically different in that much of it gets a whole lot more sun. I don’t know how the mortality rate compares for Indian-Americans, but if his argument is right they could be at particular risk (particularly in the less sunny states) despite having one of the highest SES among U.S ethnic groups. It’s my understanding that the virus has not yet become as much of a problem in South Asia compared to Europe (even though poverty is much higher there). However, I’ve also heard that in India people for working outdoors. If people are pushed indoors, that could reduce a natural defense against the virus.
I don’t take issue with the idea that vitamin D could help, though that is purely speculative. I take serious issue with the logic deployed by that specific article, which speculates about vitamin D deficiency to link covid outcomes with ethnicity (and specifically skin color). In the US vitamin D deficiency is also very common and correlates with both demographic group and socioeconomic status (it looks like that’s true in the UK as well). Covid deaths are also lining up with those factors. Does that mean covid is exacerbated by vitamin D deficiency? I don’t know. People are allowed outdoors in this country, and we’re seeing outbreaks in Los Angeles and Florida, which is quite sunny. So it’s a stretch but certainly plausible. Based on where the article devotes most of its time, I’d say it’s more invested in diminishing the socioeconomic determinants of covid outcomes, and it simply uses vitamin D as a tool to that end. Along the same lines it presents vitamin D see deficiency is a matter of complexion rather than diet, education, occupation, and other factors that influence sun exposure and vitamin D intake (it’s entirely possible that vitamin D deficiency is concentrated among Indian restaurant workers rather than Indian doctors, for example). Giving that author the benefit of the doubt, he’s clueless about the nuances of health disparity and the fraught way that ethnicity intersects with disease.
I can definitely buy diet playing a factor in vitamin D, as it’s my understanding that the indigenous people near the north pole ate foods rich in it (and that changes in diet to processed foods due to westernization/modernization have caused serious harms).I don’t know if a concentration of deficiency among restaurant workers could explain things, but this paper on the association of vitamin D deficiency, illness (though not focusing on respiratory illness) and class does complicate things a bit. It documents more deficiency among the lower classes in Europe (especially places like Scotland at the extreme end of a low-sunlight gradient), but a “paradox” where the class relation is reversed in India. It postulates that there are behavioral factors determining ethnic differences (rather than the skin itself processing differently), and if this carried over it could explain high SES Indians not getting as much benefit from their class as others in the UK. However, that paper also tries to explain worse outcomes in Hindus compared to Muslims based on diet, but Indians in the UK seem to be faring better vs coronavirus compared to Pakistanis/Bangladeshis.
Looking at the graphs from the Medium post again, the adjustment for region (urban vs rural) seems to have the largest effect of all the controls. Controlling for individual SES doesn’t look like it adds much (Chinese and Mixed were the only two that even looked like they explained a positive amount for males), but “indices of deprivation” for an area did seem to have a more consistent (if modest) effect. Borrowing the logic (even though I just questioned it) of the paper I’ve linked here, even a real vitamin D effect could be “social” in terms of being caused by place of residence.
There’s also the fact that people can just take vitamin D supplements or a multivitamin if they’re concerned about it. Sunshine is optional. I’d have to reread the article, but I don’t recall that being mentioned, which is a bizarre exclusion.
The Medium article concludes with saying such supplements should be “a top priority for Western governments” while the QJM paper notes that supplements have been effective for some things and that more research is needed for the effect on other conditions the paper suggests are linked to vitamin D deficiency. On the other hand, I have recently read that supplements are an imperfect substitute for sunlight because sunlight produces more than just vitamin D, but unfortunately I can’t remember where I read that.
It’s true that you don’t get skin cancer from prolonged exposure to vitamin supplements, but that’s more a feature than a bug.
Didn’t Raimi say something like “in retrospect, the tree-rape was unnecessarily gratuitous…”.
(which, if nothing else, is proof that redundancy isn’t always redundant)