The Pandemic Paradox: How MORE Time Became LESS Time

When I made my New Year Resolutions for 2020, I obviously did not incorporate the impacts of the upcoming pandemic into them. My resolutions weren’t  even that fancy to begin with. It had all the usual suspects in them – eat healthy, work out more, write more, read more, travel more, etc. Those were all things I had attempted and succeeded (and failed) to various degrees on many many previous occasions.  But the fact is I was about 1-2 months into working towards my ‘resolutions’ – in a manner of speaking – by the time 2020 rolled around.  I was already quite set in my workout routines and was completing a book every 2-3 weeks. My diet was the easy part that didn’t even need a resolution as such. But I figured it was the beginning of a new year, and I decided to formalize these goals or processes into resolutions anyway. 

The first 2 months went great. I kept up with my workout routine, had lost more than 15 lbs, and had developed good strength in my muscles. I had completed 4-5 books and had even written reviews on them. My Reading List on GoodReads was growing and I was pretty confident of completing most of them that year. All in all, I was feeling great. 

Then the pandemic hit, Toronto went into its first lockdown, and both the wife and I began to work from home. The immediate consequence of this was that our new routine – one without the commute – gave us an additional 2-3 hours overall everyday for ourselves. I was obviously overjoyed when I considered what those 2 extra hours could do towards my goals each day. I presumed it would give me the flexibility to move around my activities and still have all the time available to do what I needed to. Plus, if I couldn’t do something on time, I always had some extra time available later in the day to squeeze it in. To make use of this time, I even purchased some home weight equipment as the gyms were all closed. All in all, I was excited about what this new lifestyle was able to offer to help me achieve my 2020 resolutions. 

But what actually happened was the complete opposite. My workout routine practically evaporated within a few weeks. I probably read a grand total of 1-2 new books for the rest of the year. And I think I maybe wrote about 4-6 posts in here at most. I was obviously very disappointed with what I initially perceived to be a lack of discipline on my part. To an extent, that initial perception was indeed correct. But over the past several months, I have also understood something about the nature of time, my own perception of it, and how this impacted how I make use of it.

The paradox at the heart of this was that I was making significantly more use of my time when I had LESSER time available as compared to what I did when I had MORE time available. If I had only 3 hours of time available for myself each day, I made a bigger effort to use that time than those days when I had, say, 5 or more hours free time available. It definitely appeared counter-intuitive. If I have more time, I SHOULD be able to accomplish MORE, not LESS. But there I was – having accomplished A LOT when I had far lesser time on my hands, as compared to achieving practically NOTHING when I actually had MORE time. 

I could attribute this to a combination of procrastination, lack of discipline, and absence of motivation arising out of staying home for extended periods of time. But that would not paint the complete picture. At a more fundamental level, I have realized that just being aware of the availability of more time can lead to a general attitude of “It’s OK. I have more time to complete these tasks or goals.” This ultimately leads to not doing anything in the present with the expectation that there is enough time to do it in the future. But when there is no extra time available, I do not have the ability or option of ‘doing it later’ – inevitably leading me to utilize the available time in a much better way. 

Perhaps it is like Supply-Demand-Price-Value. The lesser I have of anything, the more valuable it is – leading me to put in more effort to utilize it. If the same thing is available in excess, it is not that valuable and I am more prone to simply waste it. The extra time I got during the pandemic, in essence, made the time already available to me seem LESS valuable, leading me to waste ALL my available time – existing and new. So what in theory should have allowed me to achieve more of my goals was actually what made sure I did not achieve ANY of my goals. More available time does not mean an increased ability to do what you really want in life. On the contrary, it leads to the dilution of the value of the time you already had. This will then ultimately make you believe that it is OK to waste that previously available time AND the newly available time. 

And so going forward, the biggest lesson is that I have to be acutely aware of how much time I have available and my own perception of how valuable I consider it. 

And as far as setting any resolutions for 2021, I just made sure I didn’t jinx myself by making fun of others and their own resolutions – like I did in early 2020. 

I've been a regular at the apartment gym & know the other regulars. Curious to see how many more start showing up starting today since it is New Year and all. And curious to see how long they will last!

— Akshay N R (@akshaynr) January 1, 2020

The Arrogance of The Elite

Back in 2016, prior to the US elections, I listened to a US radio show where a truck driver had called in to share his confidence that Trump would win based on how many more Trump yard signs he saw across America compared to Clinton. I remember laughing at his ‘insights’ and conclusions – being pretty smug myself on all the probabilistic election forecasting & commentary that I was following on Nate Silver’s fivethirtyeight.com. At that time, I considered myself ‘well-informed’ and took pride in having some knowledge about the many issues being faced by Americans – mostly by reading the newspapers and watching cable news. Suffice to say, I had to re-examine my own standing in short order. 

Four years on, what we have seen is an unprecedented and shocking amount of negative reporting, criticism and hate – a lot of it justified, some not – on Trump the person, on the people in his administration, and maybe some on their policies. But, during the same time, what we have seen very little of commentary or reporting on, are the perspectives of everyday people from different backgrounds – emphasis on ‘different backgrounds’. 

The media’s dedication has always been to Trump (positive or negative) – never the people who voted him in. The only times they do cover the people who voted Trump in are while associating him with far-right extremists – usually of the white supremacists kind. 

Actually, we have to go one step further, so let’s try this again. 

The media’s dedication is to Trump – never the people who voted (or not). Period. 

The people who control the news and make editorial decisions are increasingly far removed from the everyday, regular people in the country – especially those they do not personally see or interact with regularly. These media elites are typically based in big cities, have an office in the downtown area, and work/hang out with other media elites. They discuss the issues in the country with other media elites and develop an opinion about it  – without ever actually having personally interacted with the people impacted. They decide that their own perspectives are the ones that the people of the country need to hear and proceed to publish or broadcast those news stories or opinion pieces. Other media elites read it and the cycle continues.

And somehow, amidst all this, no one seems to ask if the opinions of these elites are actually representative of the people on the ground. The answer to that is ‘very rarely’. But never underestimate the everyday person, because they DO see their problems not reflected – or worse, actively dismissed – in what the media elites have to say. And these people do vote – especially to a candidate who is giving voice to their problems, however rhetorical it may seem.

This ever-increasing gulf between what regular, everyday people ask for, and what is actually covered in the media is one of the reasons why Trump got elected in the first place. The media did do a brief introspection on that aspect – but never really acted on them. On the contrary, they doubled down and went on a rampage against one man – while completely ignoring the realities and issues of the people on the ground.

And that is why the media’s obsession with Trump is toxic. It is because what matters is not just what they choose to focus on – but also who they ignore, and who they (incorrectly) claim to speak for. The former is what we all SEE, the latter are only seen when their ABSENCE is highlighted. 

There are a thousand different reasons why Trump doesn’t deserve to be President, and almost none of them have to do with the media’s hit jobs on him. Joe Biden may well make an infinitely better President than Trump. But then, the elites in the media would still only be talking about Trump and Biden – and no one would be discussing the issues of the everyday American.

The arrogance of the elite and their categorical conviction of knowing what is right for the masses may well be what dooms America to 4 more years of someone clearly unfit to hold the office of the President of the US. This makes me almost – almost – WANT to see Trump being re-elected, just so I can witness the media elites implode and self-destruct once and for all. 

On Gujarati Food: The Dhokla Family of Dishes

This is the Third post On Gujarati Food. Find the rest of the posts here.

Perhaps the first thing most native Bangaloreans will mention when asked about Gujarati food would be the Dhokla. It was literally the ONLY thing I knew about Gujarati food until I met my wife. Gujarati Food = Dhokla. Period. It was almost like people in Gujarat never made anything else at all and ate Dhoklas for breakfast, lunch and dinner. A lot of this, of course, boiled down to my own lack of exposure to the cuisine. But in a way, it also speaks to the popularity of the Dhokla as a tasty, convenient, and easy to make side. 

Dhokla: The only Gujarati dish I knew growing up

The way I see it, the Dhokla belongs to a certain family of dishes that involve the use of soaked/ground lentil, rice, some spices and vegetables. This mixture is then baked, steamed or pan fried in some manner resulting in different dishes with different tastes, consistency and texture. So while the Dhokla is the most popular dish in this family, the Khaman and Handvo are close relatives that are equally common in Gujarat. I can certainly add Karnataka’s own (and one of my personal all time favorites) Nuchinunde to this family of dishes too.

It is hard for the lay person to spot the difference between the Khaman and the Dhokla, but once you are familiar with it, you WILL know the difference. A lot of times, the Khaman masquerades as the Dhokla but never the other way round. For what it’s worth, I like the Khaman more than the Dhokla, but will eat either anytime. Regardless, all the dishes in this family are infinitely made better with a good dose of seasoning (oil, mustard seeds, curry leaves), and the presence of a green chutney.

Ultimately, the Dhokla and Khaman serve as a very good tea time snack/side. I personally do not prefer to eat it as part of a bigger meal in itself. I mean, make no mistake. If you offer it, I WILL eat it. But my preference is to eat it over tea in the afternoons.

Handvo: My personal favorite in this family of dishes

But perhaps my personal favorite of this family of dishes is the Handvo. The Handvo is relatively more stiff when compared to the Dhokla or Khaman as it is most commonly baked (and sometimes pan fried too) instead of just steamed like the latter two. The resulting product is more cake-like and packs a denser flavor punch than the Dhokla or Khaman. So it is also a lot more filling and feels like I am eating something substantial rather than something that is filled half with air. 

There is, however, one more reason why I like the Handvo. During the baking/pan frying, the edges and corners of the Handvo get additionally stiff and crispy giving that extra bite to that piece. The first time Devanshi made Handvo, I promptly went to the kitchen by myself, cut out all the corner pieces and ate them without saying a word (and certainly without sharing any of it). Apparently, these corner pieces of the Handvo are completely appropriate things to initiate fights over. So when the wife found the corner pieces (and literally just that) conspicuously missing, she went livid. I got to hear stories on how she would have fights with her brother over them and how, in the end, her dad would trick them into eating it himself.

These stories were recited not without veiled threats of similar ‘incidents’ taking place in our own home in the future. Suffice to say that I got the message and we have had a healthy program of sharing the corner pieces whenever the Handvo is made. And when we have guests over, the general plan is to eat the corner pieces ourselves beforehand, and cut the rest of the Handvo into squares so nobody suspects the missing corner pieces. 

On Gujarati Food: The Two Simplest Dishes

This is the Second post On Gujarati Food. Find the rest of the posts here.

The only place I can think of to start with Gujarati food is the Thepla. This simple bread made of whole wheat flour, besan and methi leaves shouldn’t fool you with its innocuous looks. It is packed with an unbelievable amount of flavor, and it is quite filling – leading to its versatility as a perfectly fine breakfast, lunch, tea time snack, or even dinner. The use of chickpea (besan) flour is what perhaps gives this the distinct flavor and texture that separates it from the regular Roti or Chapathi – even the flavored ones.

It also stays good for a LONG time which makes it a mandatory accompaniment among travelling Gujjus. The variations are endless too, with the use of bajra/jawar/millet flour, zucchini, bottle gourd, drum stick leaves, beet root and so many more items. This way, it is hard to actually get bored of this dish.

The Simple Methi Thepla with Pickle

The Thepla is apparently meant to be eaten by itself (perhaps with some pickle on the side). But try telling that to my south Indian brain which initially treated the Thepla as just another form of Roti and promptly demanded some vegetable or chole side to go with it. (And try imagining the absolute shock on my wife’s face at that moment). It was only after several months that I realized the Thepla had so much flavor by itself, and now primarily enjoy eating it with tea. 

Close relatives of the Thepla include the Rotla and the Bhakri – breads generally reminiscent of JoLada Rotti from North Karnataka, but made with different ingredients and styles. They are generally on the drier side, so need to be eaten with sufficiently gravy vegetables. 

The other equally simple Gujarati dish that is perhaps not as ‘new’ to me is the Kichdi & Kadhi. The Kichdi of course was known to me growing up as Pongal – the one dish I absolutely DID NOT look forward to during Makara Sankranti festival meals. Growing up, it was one of the few dishes I just simply refused to eat (exactly why, I do not remember) and I had not eaten it for almost two decades till recently. I was skeptical about it till I actually ate it at home a couple of years ago – made by the wife of course.

Khichdi and Kadhi

Fact is that there is nothing that will ever blow someone away when they eat the simple Kichdi with Kadhi – it is after all just a mash of rice, lentil, and some basic spices. The Kadhi is really just slightly flavored yogurt/curd. The key, I have realized, is in getting the right texture of the rice and dal by preventing the Kichdi from being overcooked. Its combination with the Kadhi probably adds that extra punch to the taste as well.

This dish maybe extremely simple to make, but it delivers a disproportionate amount of flavor and satisfaction to me nowadays. It and its different masala variations have become a common go-to food for me in situations where we generally lack time to make something substantial. This is also the point where I declare that the best Khichdi & Kadhi made in our home is by ME (used to be the wife, but clearly my Khichdi making skills have surpassed hers).

On Gujarati Food: Discovering a New Cuisine

This is the First post On Gujarati Food. Find the rest of the posts here.

A very welcome consequence of being married to a non-Karnataka person is the constant exposure to a completely different cuisine – one that I only had a passing knowledge of prior to meeting my wife. To be honest, growing up, I did not have a high opinion of north Indian cuisine in general. Punjabi cuisine – which is what is generally found in restaurants (chole, saags, paneer based dishes, etc.) – was fine when the spice levels were good, but my very limited exposure to Gujarati, Rajasthani, and Bengali cuisines did not get me excited back in the day. In fact, the inevitable sweet taste of literally everything I ate led me to develop a bad preconception of the entire cuisine. That was until Devanshi started making Gujarati food the way she ate it growing up, and today I feel so fortunate to have discovered and fallen in love with an entire cuisine.

Navigating the Gujarati vegetarian cuisine can be quite complex – especially as (much like in Karnataka) there are several regional specialties within the state, or the same dish can have several regional variations. And I certainly cannot claim to have tasted them all. But having a Gujarati wife and a bunch of friends from different parts of Gujarat has definitely helped in that regard. My biggest preconception that all Gujarati food is sweet and bland was thankfully disproved early on when my wife vehemently voiced her disagreement with those Gujjus who do make it unnecessarily sweet. The simple truth is that the sweetness index varies from region to region and household to household due to a number of factors. Sometimes your opinion on the cuisine can be based on just dumb luck – like where one ends up eating their first meal of that cuisine. And I was clearly a victim of that. Thankfully, I got a second look. 

Gujarati Thali from Vatan in New York City

In spite of being a Kannadiga who is very proud of all the various cuisines of Karnataka, it has never even crossed my mind to somehow ‘compare’ Karnataka cuisine to Gujarati cuisine – or worse, to try and ‘grade’ the different dishes across the different cuisines. As far as I am concerned, discovering a new cuisine is really just like discovering a new band – it is always a positive thing. Yes it can be subjective, but if you like it, it only adds to the things you already like and never comes at their cost. I personally do not subscribe to the idea that “X cuisine is the best!”, much the same way I do not believe there is any ‘best music band’ in the world. There is some music that I know of, and more that I don’t. Same with food.

In the next few posts, I will briefly cover the different common Gujarati dishes that I have discovered and why I like them. Some maybe familiar, and maybe some are new to those non-Gujjus reading this. 

Remembering SPB and the Art of Playback Singing

Hosa Jeevana (New Life) is a 1990 Kannada movie (a remake of Tamil movie Pudhea Paadhai) starring the late Shankar Nag. It follows the story (and ultimate transformation) of an outcast who has been shunned and ignored by society all his life – including his parents who left him in a dumpster at birth. He grows up fostering a great contempt for everyone around him, actively rejecting the morals and values of the society that pushed him down through its cracks. A grown man now, he lives his life in a rundown ‘house’ and makes money by extorting people on the streets on a whim – in addition to the contract killings and kidnappings he carries out for the local politician (whom he only half-mockingly calls ‘Chairman’). Almost nihilistic in his outlook, his belief in his own world view is absolute: I care about myself, and the world can, and probably should, go to hell.

How do you introduce such a character – in a way that perfectly captures the rage, crass attitude, disregard for society, and absolute contempt for anyone other than himself?

When you have an actor of Shankar Nag’s caliber and a composer/lyricist such as Hamsalekha, you do so by opening the movie with a song consisting of some real in-your-face lyrics and music. I mean, the chorus of this opening song literally translates to this:

The knife, and the chain are

My left hand, my right hand

My bastard body

The blade, and the bottle are

My two younger brothers

Let the hooch flow

To die and to kill

I am ever ready

Needless to say, the translation does zero justice to the impact the words have when spoken in colloquial Kannada, but you get the idea.

So you have one of the best actors of the time playing the outcast, and the best music director composing the music and the lyrics. That combination in itself is quite potent. But you still need that one magical ingredient that makes the song transcend into the art form that conveys all one needs to know about the outcast.

Enter SP Balasubrahmanyam.

Playback singing is not an easy art form. The artist has to completely internalize the character and/or the circumstances of the movie he/she is singing for – to fully capture the soul of the song. And here, SPB practically becomes the outcast. His voice conveys everything you need to know about Shankar Nag’s character – the rage, contempt and his nihilistic world view.

The intimidating punch with which he delivers the first words of the song – “Ei! NinnaaLe Ei!”* – is equivalent to being slapped awake to take notice. In fact, Shankar Nag does as much to every other character around him – slapping or abusing them in various forms and demanding their undivided attention to his presence.

To me, perhaps, the moment in the song that perfectly encapsulates SPB’s talent and absolute commitment to playback singing is, in fact, not when he is singing at all. It comes towards the end of the song after Shankar Nag has made his statement to the world, and it takes the form of a wicked, wicked laugh (at 3:48 in the video) that should send chills down yours spine if you are ever at the receiving end of such a character. (Listen to the song once without the video – just focusing on his voice, and you will know what I am talking about).

Ultimately, SPB channels that rage, nihilism, and contempt so well in his singing, and Shankar Nag portrays the outcast with an uncharacteristic grace (that swagger in his walk!), that at the end of the song you will already be rooting for the outcast – without regard to his sins and vices.

And THAT, to me, is what SPB stood for – a true artist who made you feel emotions that you were likely never even aware of – just with his voice. There are hundreds of his songs that are probably infinitely more melodious and famous than this one with such crass lyrics. But no matter what the character, circumstances, story line or language, SPB took it all to a higher plane like only few others have. And the impressions he has left along the way on more than a billion people can never truly be characterized.

Fact is, I will never know exactly how big of an influence he was on my growing up. All I know is that he was the hook that carried so many of my cultural reference points during my childhood and adult life.

And he will be sorely missed.

*******************************

*I truly have no idea how to translate the crass slang of “NinnaaLe” into English. But just know that this song would have never made it to radio or TV back in the 90’s (and I would have likely been kicked out of my home if I was caught using that phrase). And the way SPB delivers those lines, he practically made sure of that.

Bemoaning the Leadership Void at Chelsea FC

Back when I first became a football fan – and subsequently a Chelsea supporter – in the early 2000’s, I was spoilt with the presence of all the massive personalities in the club who constantly showed immense leadership on the field – especially when Chelsea needed it most. These are players who would constantly motivate other fellow players, never stop trying till the final whistle, never accept defeat, never give up, and never let others around them give up. They were also players who would sometimes win games just by the fear their daunting personalities instilled in the opposition.

To me personally, Didier Drogba was the man who embodied all the qualities I love in a footballer – the technical ability, athleticism, ability to shepherd his fellow players when the going gets tough, and the ability to intimidate and bully the opponent defense into complete submission. Just ask Arsene Wenger and he will personally attest to all of that. And then you had the likes of Essien and Ballack who were completely in their element tackling, shoving, and generally bullying the opponents – especially in the mid-field. Do you remember anyone ever picking a fight with Essien or Ballack AND WINNING it?!!? And then you had the calm presence of Lampard and Terry – two guys who formed the core of the team and whom you could almost always count on. And then you still had Ashley Cole and Ivanovic – two players who displayed their own sense of leadership to the team and the opponents.

Regardless of what each player’s qualities were, the team almost always played with a “Fuck you, we will find a way to win this game!” kind of attitude. That confidence may have bordered on arrogance at times. But for the fans, that gave a sense of belief in the team that no matter what the scoreline was, there was always hope and that it was never over till the final whistle. (Cue 2012 Champions League campaign).

And that is what I miss the most now – and have missed for a good few years. Ever since the departures of Terry, Lampard, Drogba and company, there has been a massive massive leadership void within Chelsea that has not come anywhere near to being filled. There has been almost nobody who has taken over the role of the team motivator. Cesar Azpilecueta has done an acceptable job as the Captain but has inevitably been far below the standards set by John Terry and Frank Lampard. The club has definitely had its share of stars – Hazard, Fabregas, Costa – but I don’t recollect anyone stepping up to shepherd the players when the scoreline is not in their favor. But the personalities I miss the most are those who took up the role of the team bully. Chelsea has sorely missed someone on the pitch who instilled a sense of fear and intimidation in the opponents just by their mere presence. Perhaps a case can be made for Diego “I go to battle” Costa for the role of the team bully – but that was just a temporary stint.

So as much as I am super excited to see this generation of super young Chelsea players grow and play together for the next several years, I still do not know who will grow up to become the next leaders of the team – someone who will yell at their own teammates to not give up, someone who will set the team’s standards by their own work, someone who instills a sense of belief in the teammates that it is not over till its over, and someone who will intimidate and bully the opponents into self doubt and submission. My money is on Andreas Christenssen, Christian Pulisic, Reece James, and – get this – Billy Gilmour. I don’t expect to see any significant transformation in any of them for at least 2-4 years, but I do have a sense that this young crop of Chelsea players will eventually grow on to take up the mantle vacated by the likes of Drogba, Terry, Lampard, Essien, Ballack and others.

As a side note, I do have to acknowledge this lack of ‘leaders’ being an issue with most of the other top clubs in England. Nobody has taken up the roles vacated by Giggs, Scholes, Neville, Ferdinand, Vidic (Man Utd); or Kompany, Yaya Toure (Man City); Henry, Bergkamp, Viera, Pires (Arsenal); or Gerrard, Carragher (Liverpool). I wonder who the ones would be stepping up in those clubs.

Rediscovering the Joy of Coffee

A few months ago, the wife and I purchased a Nespresso Vertuo coffee machine and a variety of coffee capsules to go with it. (Nespresso is a Nestle-owned company that creates and sells a variety of coffee and espresso ‘capsules’ and the coffee machines that extract the coffee/espresso from these capsules). We spent a good amount of money on that purchase too – something we later calculated would have covered 2-3 months of our Starbucks expenses.

But within a couple of days of receiving our Nespresso machine, I had buyer’s remorse. Was this even necessary? Why did I get this when I was already happy with the awesome coffee beans my mom would ship to me from Bangalore? How much will this increase my ‘per cup’ cost at home? What else could I have used my money on? Will I even like any of these coffees? Did I really need all these different varieties of coffees when I was happy drinking just one kind?

I seriously considered returning the product but decided to give it a shot with an open mind. 2 weeks later, I had a very different outlook about it. The first and foremost was that these coffees tasted wonderful. I tried about a dozen different types of coffee and espresso, and without exception, their quality exceeded my expectations. It had been a long time since I had simply just enjoyed a coffee for its taste.

For someone who grew up on the best filter coffee Karnataka could offer, I found myself being delighted in the coffee coming out of a packaged capsule! I will freely admit I have always been a bit uptight in my opinion of coffee that is not of the ‘filter coffee’ variety (even leading to arguments with the wife who grew up in Ahmedabad with Nescafe as the idea of coffee. It’s a mortal sin, I know!). I have tried many different varieties of ‘regular’ coffee from the stores – everything from “Freeze-dried Taster’s Choice” to the “Serious Gourmet shit”! But I had never found as much raw delight with any of them as I did with these Nespresso capsules.

The other major value addition was the convenience. Instead of going through all the different steps of making filter coffee – or ever brewing the regular coffee – at home, now all I had to do was pop a capsule in the machine, press a button and the coffee is in the cup in less than a minute. The accompanying Aeroccino machine steams/froths milk (I use oat milk) in the same time. I add that to the coffee as needed and I have my morning concoction ready to go without much effort at all. This might sound like a legit first world problem (it probably is) but there is significant value addition in it for me.

The other value additions to me are the coffee and espresso varieties, and the ability to only brew one serving at a time. I have enjoyed exploring and making different recipes of coffee while not having to brew an entire pot every time. This latter aspect was of particular appeal to me as I didn’t have to worry about wasting a lot of coffee every time. I was also very impressed with Nespresso’s commitment to recycling their capsules. I ship them the used capsules in a pre-paid container where they recycle the capsule and compost the coffee – all free of cost.

Simply put, Nespresso has brought back the joy of drinking great coffee – how it tastes, how it makes me feel, and how it has become a positive part of my morning routine. Ultimately, I realized that while we are certainly paying a lot more for our morning cups of coffee, it is for a better experience that we are both enjoying significantly – excellent taste, convenience, and variety. I now look at it as an investment that is going to pay great dividends for a long time to come.

***********************

PS: My personal favorites are Odacio, Aflorazio, Cookies and Caramel, Voltesso, Mexico & Scuro.

Which COVID-19 Curve Should We Flatten – New Cases, Total Cases, or Active Cases?

The most common talking point on the Covid-19 pandemic has been the idea of ‘flattening the curve’. It generally refers to the idea of taking measures to reduce the number of cases in any given geographical area over time. The ultimate objective is to ‘spread’ the infections (pardon the pun) over a period of time while simultaneously reducing the number of people who are getting infected. This is expected to have the desired effect of lessening the burden on the healthcare systems and to also reduce the overall number of people who would get infected over the lifetime of the pandemic.

Flatten The Curve – But What is on the Y-Axis?

We have all seen the standard ‘Bell Curve’ as an illustration of this idea. A steeper and higher bell curve (albeit over a shorter duration) is what is to be avoided  as this would indicate a large fraction of the population getting infected over a short time. Instead, the objective is to achieve a flatter and lower bell curve that lasts longer as this would mean a lower fraction of the people infected, but over a longer time. The X-axis (horizontal) in these charts is obviously Time. But where the discrepancies and confusion sets in, is what exactly is plotted on the Y-axis. To be specific, is it ‘Daily New Cases’, ‘Total Cumulative Cases’ or ‘Active Cases’? Is there anything that is correct and incorrect, or is it just a matter of interpreting data differently?

To be clear, it is completely acceptable to simply plot any of the three data sets on the Y-axis and show the resulting chart as a general attempt to provide information. But when one uses the phrase ‘flatten the curve’, the question then is which one should be plotted on the Y-axis?

Daily New Cases vs Total Cumulative Cases

My personal preference is to plot Daily New Cases to get a proper picture of the scenario. I also believe this is what the original ‘flatten the curve’ referred to. The information in this chart and its interpretation is pretty straightforward. Over time, the number of Daily New Cases goes up, maxes out, then slowly decreases until it reaches zero – at which point the virus is eradicated. At a given point in time, the chart shows where a country stands in this overall trajectory. If it is going up, we know the rate of infections is increasing, and vice versa. If you want the total number of cases at any point in time, all you have to do is add the Daily New Cases for each day till that point – or as the basic definition of an INTEGRAL goes, you simply calculate the area under the curve. So the use of the phrase ‘flatten the curve’ and all its implications (as outlined earlier in this post) perfectly correlate with the Daily New Cases on the Y-axis.

Now how about the Total Cumulative Cases?  By Total Cumulative Cases, I simply mean the total number of infections from the time the first case was reported. Very importantly, it DOES NOT take into account the number of recoveries or the number of deaths. So what this means is that the curve of the TOTAL Cumulative Cases, by definition, only increases till the time there are no new cases at all – at which point, it becomes a horizontal line with the final Y-axis value equal to the TOTAL number of people who were infected at one time or the other. (See above chart)

So is it correct to use the phrase ‘flatten the curve’ while referring to this chart? The short answer is NO, this is incorrect. Firstly, this curve will never ever go down. After an initial increase in steepness (slope increases), it will simply become lesser and lesser steep over time (slope decreases) until it becomes horizontal (slope of zero). But this will never ever go down (slope never becomes negative). So it is completely incorrect to use the phrase ‘flatten the curve’ while plotting the Total Cumulative Cases on the Y-axis. Yes you can still technically state that the curve as such is ‘flattening’ but that would only imply a reduction in the slope of the curve but with a lower bound of zero.

And finally, we come to Active cases. I have not actually come across any article which shows a chart with Active Cases plotted on the Y-axis to illustrate the phrase ‘flattening the curve’. But this is actually a legitimate chart that can illustrate the idea of flattening the curve in a different manner. By Active cases, I am counting the total number of people at any given point in time who have been diagnosed with COVID-19 and WHO ARE STILL DEEMED TO CARRY THE VIRUS. So this is essentially the Total Cumulative Cases reduced by the number of people who have ‘recovered’ and number of people who have died. At any point, the number of Active Cases will always lie BETWEEN the Total Cumulative Cases and the Daily New Cases.

It will never reach as high as the Total Cumulative Cases and it will always stay above the Daily New Cases. It will reach its peak before the Total Cumulative Cases curve becomes horizontal, but definitely AFTER the peak of the Daily New Cases. (By the way, the peak here refers to the point the number of daily recoveries and deaths exceed the number of daily new cases). It will ultimately go to zero long after the Daily New Cases has gone to Zero. So in a way, this Active Cases curve also shows the same properties of the Daily New Cases curve. It can also track the rate at which patients are recovering and/or dying. As a result, all the implications and messaging from the usage of the phrase ‘flattening the curve’ correctly applies to the Active Cases curve as well.

To summarize, it is completely acceptable to use any of the three data sets to plot over time to provide general information. But the phrase ‘flatten the curve’ should only be used when plotting either Daily New Cases or Active Cases. It should NEVER EVER be used when showing a chart that plots Total Cumulative Cases over time. If you find anyone doing so, please feel free to point it out.

The Idiocy of the “Proportional Restrictions” Approach to Fighting the Pandemic

In the previous post,I described briefly the 4 different stages of increased restrictions that Governments appear to be taking to contain the COVID virus in their countries. But what this approach amounts to is what I call as the “Proportional Restrictions Approach” – and that is what most Governments are taking up. In this approach, the restrictions imposed on the country’s population evolves directly proportional to the extent of the spread of the virus – number of infected cases and deaths.

So essentially, it is Virus Spreads first,  Restrictions come in later. With the exceptions of countries like Italy, where the outbreak happened very quickly before any meaningful measures could even be implemented, most countries are taking a ‘step by step’ approach wherein the restrictions are a direct and proportional REACTION to the increasing infected cases. So it means the Governments start by advising and suggesting people to stay indoors, then move on to declaring symbolic emergencies with no real action items, followed by restricting movement to only ‘essential’ services, but then inevitably ending with a complete lockdown of the entire country.

Simple fact is that every country all over the world which is taking this ‘proportional restrictions’ approach will inevitably reach the complete lockdown phase of restrictions in 2-4 weeks. Why? Because it is simply not possible to make humans stay home.

We humans are simply not wired to take things that we can’t see seriously. If we see a pack of rabid street dogs (or a horde of zombies) roaming the streets, we stay home. But we are completely OK heading out as long as we don’t actually see the virus or its direct impacts (a.k.a lots of sick and dead people).

So no amount of ‘suggesting’, ‘advice doling’, ‘pleading’, ‘educating’ will make mankind simply change some of the most fundamentally hardwired habits and activities within us, and make us stay at home. All over the world, there are instances where people willfully go outside for reasons that are not essential. And they will continue to do so until the Government tells them (and even demonstrates by example) that it is illegal to do so.

Which is why this ‘step by step’ or ‘proportional restrictions’ approach actually MAKES SURE that every one of those countries WILL reach a stage where the virus is completely out of control, at which point the ONLY option available is to put the country in a complete lockdown and FORCE the population to stay home. So my basic question is this:

If a country is going to a complete lockdown anyway, then why won’t they just enforce it upfront – when the number of cases are low and manageable, and when the healthcare systems actually have the resources to take care of these people?

Or put in other words, there are two options: Impose complete lockdown when you only have a small number of cases and contain the spread completely. Or impose a complete lockdown only AFTER the virus has spread sufficiently that it is no longer possible to control it with lesser measures.

As an example, here is a timeline of how New York City responded (or has still yet to respond) to the pandemic sweeping it now. Fair warning: it is a scary collection of statements and (lack of) actions from every side over the past one month. But it perfectly illustrates how the restrictions in place evolved in direct REACTION to the spread of the virus. As it stands today (March 28), the city’s parks and playgrounds are still open to the general public with the City only ‘advising’ and ‘suggesting’ that social distance be maintained. Who wants to place a bet that they will close in the coming days? Does anyone expect this to NOT be inevitable? The only difference between shutting down parks and playgrounds in early March vs early April is over 30,000 sick people and over 500 dead (with more heading that way).

So if anything, the Governments have a MORAL responsibility to shut down the country and place them in complete lockdown for 2-3 weeks with no travel into, out of or within the country. But who actually has the balls to do that?