The Wonderful World of ’50s School Movies… by Steve Safran

I have come across one of those finds that makes the internet a not-horrible place, but a delightful and nostalgic oasis. The Internet Archive has several films directed at a teenage audience– teenagers from the 1940s and ‘50s. They are wonderful. And by wonderful, I mean enjoyable-and-cringeworthy-at-the-same-time.  These are Coronet Films. A bit about this company:

“Coronet Instructional Films were shown in American schools starting in about 1941. The company… was owned by Esquire, Inc. Owner David Smart (who) was deeply interested in visual education and the power of the film to teach and convince, and (he) built a full studio on his estate in Glenview, Illinois.”

Let’s appreciate for a moment that these films were the product of the owner of Esquire Magazine, who must have thought “I’m making enough money on the girlie mag. Maybe I should do something for the kids.”

Watching these films through a 2022 lens, bad advice abounds. A narrator tells a young man to avoid “girls who can get a reputation.” One wonders what a girl had to endure to obtain one in that era. The archive has about 150 of the thousands of films that were made and are like a time capsule of conventional wisdom of the times. To save you a few hundred hours down a rabbit hole of teenage advice from a bygone era, I watched them for you.

Some highlights, along with my grades:

Dating: Do’s and Don’ts (1949): A rare color production. A young man named Woody gets an unexpected ticket (!) to a party. So the screen asks “How Do You Choose A Date?” Off the top the narrator says: 

“One thing you can consider is looks. Woody thought of Janet and how good-looking she was…. Yes, he really would enjoy that except Janet always acts so superior and forward.” 

Holy crap. Wonderful. Who wants a girl that’s – gasp – “forward?” Onward… 

NARRATOR: “What about Ann? (They show her eating cotton candy.) She knows how to have a good time. And how to make the fellow that’s with her feel relaxed. That’s fun, too. Yes, that’s what a boy likes.” (Your correspondent seconds the motion.) 

The rest is actually rather sweet. Woody’s parents are supportive of the young lad going on a date and tell him to be respectful. And the film even shows Woody how to say a polite goodnight to the fetching young Ann. I have hope for these crazy young kids. B+, Woody is a sweet little nerd.

Communism” (1952):  They pretty much nailed this one, especially for the time. I expected something campy, but it’s very straightforward, and downright timely right now. It even defends taxes to pay for our defense which, agree or not, is the best way to pay for defense. No talk here of deficit spending. A-, only because they use some incorrect file footage.

What About Juvenile Deinquency? (1955): One knew the phrase “What’s the matter – you chicken?” was going to pop up eventually, but it is only a minute and 10 seconds into this one. This film is exactly what you expect. Four “punks” dressed in matching letterman sweaters drive a convertible Genericmobile with the top down, talking in the language of “American Graffiti.” The punks have greased, barbershop haircuts. They bump a car ahead of them in traffic, and attack a 40-something businessman. This being the ‘50s, the businessman sustains a cut to the head. Of course, his wife tends to him, the poor businessman.

SURPRISE TURN: The businessman’s kid is in the gang. Even though his son wasn’t there, turns out he has the same sweater and his poor choice of friends is revealed. Don’t join a gang, kids. Not one with matching outfits, anyway.

SPECIAL OVER-REACTION: High school kids in hallway the next day shrieking: “Have you heard about the special session of the city council is having this morning? All the things they’re considering doing like doing a curfew and upping the age of a driver’s licenses, cancelling football games, the parties, the dances and everything else!”   A+, for foreseeing every terrible ‘50s movie and “Footloose.”

Getting Ready Morally (1951) They brought in the National Catholic Education Association on this one. And FINALLY, a movie that starts with a white guy in a suit, leaning on a desk, talking directly to the camera! 

This is about preparing yourself to go into the Navy. And the overwhelming theme is “You’re gonna meet non-Christians who will mess up your moral ways.” It warns you against the guys who want to visit bars, pool halls, and hookers rather than staying in the bunks doing drills. Every ensign loves drills.

As with most/all of these films, “Getting Ready Morally” does not show a single ethnic person, even though it strongly hints at their influence; “He was thrown in with men who had different ideas and ideals.” Oh, just say “Jews and Black guys who want to bring you to prostitutes” already. Our hero Breaks Bad, starts playing slots, drinking, playing pool… you know – being in the Navy. 

ACTUAL GOOD ADVICE: “’The Test of Common Sense.’ If you have the ability to do something worthwhile, doesn’t it make common sense to live up to the best that’s in you?” Yes. That’s good advice.

MORE GOOD ADVICE, JUST A LITTLE DATED: “Some men may scoff at taking your troubles to the chaplain. Let them.” Include with “chaplain” a rabbi, an Imam, or even a psychiatrist, and it’s solid advice.  

Entertaining, but B-for leaving out the Jews.

I can’t emphasize enough what a great site and total time suck this is. The Internet Archive is the home to a great many resources. These movies are brilliant in their artlessness, lovable in their amateurish direction, and outstanding in their stilted acting.

If all else fails, remember to Duck and Cover.


A few years back I had a very strange interview. There were many details that made it so, but the most telling was the lack of respect the interviewers had for me. I was applying for a job I previously held, a job I knew how to do, a job already listed on my resume. Still, I was asked repeatedly, “How would you feel working for someone who had your job?” Well, I would be fine as long as he was skilled and I could learn from him. And indeed, he seemed very smart. 

But the interviews all had something in common: they were conducted by much younger employees, and they were disrespectful both in their thinly veiled attitudes and their unwillingness to hide them. I was asked about social media with smirking assurances my Facebook account included only family member followers. They insisted that “breaking news has changed since you were last in a newsroom.” (Really? We no longer drop everything to cover it?) HR kept circling around my “experience” and whether I might feel “overqualified” for the job. Overqualified is not a compliment. I don’t apply to jobs that don’t challenge me. I got the hint.

Suddenly I’m too old. Sometime in the calendar of years, I’ve crossed over from “young and energetic” to “old guy who probably wants my job and who will tell me how to do mine.” I was told “We’re going in a different direction.” Guess which direction.

I don’t bring up this anecdote to grouse. OK, maybe just a little. I mean, I’m only partially into my 50s. I’ve given talks to companies about how to use Twitter, I follow my kid’s band on YouTube, I have a TikTok account. I’ve witnessed intergenerational conversations that span the mommy wars to the great Gen Z/millenial rift over jean and hair styles. Today, I have great job tutoring young writers of the future where it would be impossible to ignore current trends and interests. I’m not exactly pulling up to these interviews with a Filofax and an inability to turn off the flashlight on my iPhone.

I bring it up because it’s my generation’s turn to experience ageism, and it’s a huge mistake. I came across a post on LinkedIn that summarized the situation beautifully. It is by Brigette Hyacinth, author of “Leading the Workforce of the Future”:

I HIRED a person over 50. You can’t imagine the resistance I had to overcome. The HR manager was not impressed. She said he “won’t fit into our culture,” “he is overqualified.” etc. I had to put my foot down to get him hired.

Everyone is looking for that 18 year old with 20 years experience.

He was one of the best hires I ever made. He made a huge difference for the company. You can’t Google Experience.

“You can’t Google ‘experience.’” Isn’t that perfect?

Companies want to look young and hip, but they also want experience and the ideas that go with it. Generation X is experienced, hard-working, and… totally discriminated against. We’re the ones who helped developed the modern web and the mobile web, but we’re put in the same bucket as buggy-whip salesmen. We have 15 to 20 good work years left. And unlike that 25 year-old in their first job, we’re going to stick around because we appreciate the power of loyalty. We’re not looking at the job as the first of the next dozen companies that will employ us. 

So follow Brigette’s lead. Hire someone over 50. If (when) your company fights you– fight back. Ask exactly how someone can be “overqualified” for a job they might already know how to do well? If I go to the supermarket and want a job bagging groceries, they will hire me on the spot. I am overqualified for this job, save for a bad back. So how can someone be overqualified for a job in the same field they’ve worked in for 25 years? Let’s lose the “O” word from our lexicon. Ageism is wrong and it’s also illegal. The trouble is, it’s really hard to prove. All I can do is encourage employers to look at veteran employees as an asset, not a liability.

Experience matters.


GOD’S EDITOR, JERRY… by Steve Safran

Lord Almighty,

We are in receipt of the next draft of your exciting new work. We see this going multi-platform, and are already working on the movie rights. Picture Charlton Heston as Moses! For that matter, create Charlton Heston! You are God, after all.

As your editor, it’s my job to help you write the best Old Testament you can write. I should tell you I’m Jewish, so I’m a HUGE fan. I love what you’ve done with the place. Not particularly crazy about all the Egyptians walking around, but I’m sure you have your Reasons. I’m here for you.

With that in mind, some notes about the Testament:

GENESIS: Wow. Boffo! Had no idea you created everything in six days. I can’t even get the copy machine guy to come in a week. But, question: You’re GOD. Why did you need to rest? Flesh out that part. Let us know what it’s like to feel tired as a deity. How does God chill? I’m picturing Heaven’s largest Slurpee machine. It has crossover appeal.

ADAM AND EVE: This one’s a little tougher. I buy the Garden of Eden, and I suppose we had to start with two people at some point. But why kick them out for eating fruit? Shouldn’t we be encouraging healthy eating habits? Maybe give that a rethink. Just a thought: Kick them out for eating at Olive Garden.

THE BIG FLOOD: This has the potential to be a spinoff. I see this as a 10-part Netflix special. Noah is the first action hero! But– two of every creature? Not on this budget. How about two of every cute creature? Or just two creatures that are magical and can turn into other creatures? I don’t want to tell you how to do your job, just pitching…

EXODUS: I’m starting to sense a pattern about your attitude toward the Jews, and I have to say… what gives? For a Chosen People, you’re making some brutal choices. As God, your brand should be marketable. Suffering is love? I don’t see that testing well. Still, Moses is main character material. Totally believable and relatable to today’s pious and non-pious alike. Who doesn’t want to part water with a staff? I can’t even get a plumber on the weekends.

LEVITICUS: Wow. A lot to unpack here. So … many … rules. Good thing you had Moses to remind them, or nobody could keep them straight. And I don’t think word of mouth will “play telephone” with Your words at all. Still– a lot of good advice here about cleanliness. You might want to add in something about masks. In a few thousand years, people are gonna get all huffy about them, so Your Word might help clarify. Also, we’re confused by this part: “You shall not lie with a male as a woman.” Sounds off brand. Did a disgruntled intern slip that in? Also, your idea for a Day of Atonement is outstanding and will lead to many bagel dinners.

NUMBERS: Oddly few numbers here, for a book called “Numbers,” but we’ll take it. It’s the first title the audience will understand. Quick anecdote: I’m reading “Numbers,” and I’m thinking “Good thing the Jews have escaped the Egyptians. Should be smooth sailing now.” And then WHAM– 15,000 Jews slain for bitching about Moses and Aaron. I did NOT see that coming. (Although now that I think about it, maybe “NUMBERS” was the foreshadowing. Nice one, Holy of Holies.) Heavy story turn. I can see the scene going black right there, like a “Sopranos” ending. Which You will also develop. 

DEUTERONOMY: A bit of a mouthful, that title. Why not just “DUDE?” Give that the ol’ Godthink. This is a good wrap-up: forty years of wandering, the laws of Moses, the teachings– the whole shebang. The Jews make it to Canaan… roll credits, amirite? NO. Moses snuffs it before entering The Promised Land? I know what you’re going for, but we’re trying to sell books here. What if… and just stick with me for a second… what if Moses doesn’t die, but instead sets up a Canaan deli?

Overall, a very promising draft, O Mighty One. And I appreciated your response to my last set of notes. The wife looks just fine as a pillar of salt.

– Jerry.

Jerry better hope these editorial notes are received well…

Back To The Dungeon, Happily… by Steve Safran

We were any group of nerds playing Dungeons and Dragons in the ‘80s: four or five of us at a time, notebooks full of character and quest information, and two-liter bottles of orange Shasta. In the early ’80s, if you were a young teen, “D&D” was a revelation. The games we had played until then were conventional, predictable, and fit inside primary colored boxes in the den closet. You started at GO with a generic plastic pawn, and you moved your piece around the board. First person to the finish, wins. (Unless, I maintain, you were playing the game of LIFE, in which case I now recognize the real goal is to finish as slowly as possible with a car full of pin-sized children.)

Most of the cliches about D&D players were earned. Many (but not all) of us were socially awkward. We didn’t have any other plans for weekend nights, but in our defense, we also didn’t have driver’s licenses or access to mom’s station wagon. We were original nerds; we were awkward and goofy before that became mainstream, if not occasionally cool. I’m happy to see everyone embrace today’s Golden Era of Nerdiness, but let’s not forget how many of us heard this grand advice: “So don’t provoke him.” Our mere existence was often “provoking,” and carrying around velveteen bags of dice and pretending to be wizards didn’t help.

But we had D&D. It was imaginative. Part of its appeal to us what that you couldn’t really explain it to someone who hadn’t been initiated into a group. 20-sided dice? Hit points? A “Dungeon Master?” That would have sounded kinky, if we knew what “kinky” meant. (We did not.)

D&D games were card nights for the (mostly) boys of the under-18 set. We didn’t have the cash to make poker interesting, but we were an imaginative bunch, and this was an interesting game that tapped into our fascination with sci-fi fantasy worlds we found in beloved books and movies. But as the years went on, our group waned. We left for college, we acquired friends who didn’t attach a velveteen pouch to a belt loop… some of us started dating. The game stopped as our nascent adult lives began. But memories of epic 1984 games recently popped up in a Facebook Group Chat and the reminiscing began.

Scattered across the country and over time zones in the midst of a lingering pandemic, getting together for a game would be impossible. But, thank you Internet, we can assemble together virtually now. Remember– nerds founded the Internet, so D&D is practically baked in. It’s not hard to find sites that are the equivalent of Zoom D&D. However, though all of us were enthusiastic about setting up a game, nobody was volunteering to be the Dungeon Master. Simply put, it’s a hard job, and in the digital world none of us quite knew how to do it.

Enter Izak Safran.

My son, (bragging Jewish father here) who is about to graduate from Rensselaer and really has better and less nerdy things to do during his Senior Spring, answered my entreaties to be our Dungeon Master, and did so with good humor. Izak is a longtime D&D player and has “DM-ed” some great games. He was patient enough to take our wandering tribe through the three-hour trouble-shooting process that plagues most Zoom meetings in our demographic. “Can you hear me? Do you see my screen? YOU ARE ON MUTE.” He was patient with this bunch of old guys, and set up each of our characters– hit points and all. Whatever that means.

So, nearly 40 years later, we’re back. Our first quest is stolen straight out of the movies. We’re an old team of mercenaries called back into action because of our uniquely compatible powers. And that feels true to us. We are back together. We’re brothers. We’ve fought together in those shag-carpeted, wood-paneled ‘80s basements. We’ve argued passionately about a course of action, celebrated a completed quest as heroes, and together battled and endured evils both imagined and real (“don’t provoke him”). And somewhere lurking under the facade of these 53 year-old men are boys, pretending we’re mystical beings of our own making, working on clever names for our characters. I’m Botwulf of Thorney who you may know as St. Botolph, for whom Boston is named. And– Britt will like this especially– Botwulf is very religious. (Ed. note, Britt does like this.)

That’s the power of fantasy made sweeter with the tinge of nostalgia. Grab your Shastas, boys. It’s time to defeat the monsters. Together.

Unpopular Opinions

Teddy has an effective and inspiring English teacher this year. Dr. Wilson (emphasis on doctor) has already made him a better writer, and this marking period was all about crafting persuasive arguments. Teddy noticed how easily the words flow when you are writing about something you like, even better, something you know well. He passionately championed Michael Jordan as the GOAT over LeBron. A later assignment asked him to defend a controversial opinion that he did not personally believe. I didn’t read Teddy’s takedown of the #MeToo movement, but enjoyed watching him struggle to entertain and recommend another point of view. The last assignment of the marking period was to craft a speech on a topic that he truly endorsed, but it had to be provocative.

My boys don’t talk to me about their schoolwork very often. Having never taken Latin or Greek and failing to recall any useful Trigonometry or Physics, I’m relieved they don’t request help. But Teddy came to me to vet essay topics because he wasn’t sure which were the “right” ones. I kept insisting that it hardly mattered since these were just assignments for school. But my 16-year-old kid was sure that if he defended the “wrong” thing (e.g., abortion is immoral; masks mandates are unconstitutional), it could affect his grade.

I cannot imagine anything more antithetical to the spirit of debate, critical thinking, and education than to have students feel as though they need to steer clear of topics that are not sanctioned by the main stream. I’m saddened by the possibility that our children are not being enthusiastically encouraged to try on different opinions, to test the firmness of their beliefs, and to listen and debate without rancor. With this topic in the open tabs of my brain, enter not-doctor Joseph Epstein.

The knee jerk tweet reactions found my feeds before Mr. Epstein’s op-ed did. Women everywhere recognized this attitude and we were offended on Dr. Biden’s behalf. Dr. Linda Ivey, Chair of the History Department at Cal State East Bay expressed it well:

“I find your embarrassing, nonsensical, outdated and very public snippy rant comic.”

Indeed, that is how I reacted, too. I disagreed with his premise, balked at his reasoning… and giggled. His opinion is so old-fashioned and deliciously unapologetic that it was amusing.

I was also thrilled that he wrote it.

I’m going to go ahead and admit that I found his writing enviable. I asked Bernie to explain the origins of “bush league” and had to google at least two other similes. Our plucky BA boy is a wordsmith, for sure. Then, less than 24 hours after publication, “cancel culture” was calling for his head. This is a problem. I’m weary of a society than cannot stomach an alternate point of view. Mr. Epstein did not deny Dr. Biden the privilege of using her earned title, but disastrously wondered aloud if it was necessary. He used her as an example to consider the modern connotation of the honorific “doctor.” In his opinion, it should be reserved for the stethoscope-toting sort, or those that persevered through coursework he (arbitrarily and with zero personal authority) deems worthy. But what his essay actually evoked was a discussion. Would only-honorary-doctorate Epstein have written this article about a First Husband with similar credentials that used the same title? Do dentists fall into a gray zone? What does “Dr.” mean to you? These are the things we should be discussing and debating. This is the fun stuff.

Instead, we’re calling for a comeuppance.

Readers, the children are watching, and they’re concerned an unpopular opinion could lower their GPA. How do we get back to convivial conversation? Sadly, a pandemic precludes all of us from starting our own salons. But the intent of an op-ed is to lure us into the comment queue. Let’s discuss! I was instructed by my thesis advisor (an oncologist) to never, ever get an MD vanity plate for my car. (Total bush league move.) PhD-toting scientists with their own labs, a.k.a “principal investigators,” are called by their first names, but don’t pull that with the surgeon in the OR. I’d rather the teens in my home call me Britt than Mrs. Lee… but if we’re being formal, I’d rather they call me “doctor.” This title is variable and layered and weighty and, I guess, controversial. The WSJ op-ed put it out there for debate and I am here for it.

Was Dr. Jill Biden insulted or amused by Mr. Epstein’s piece? As someone who can claim the “doctor” title twice, my guess is that she giggled, too. In my personal opinion, she should never, ever drop the “Doctor,” and I assume she is unfazed by some opinion piece suggesting she should. Mr. Epstein’s essay is simply a poorly executed persuasive essay supporting an unpopular position. Dr. Wilson would likely give it a B minus. The argument was weak, but the writing was gorgeous… almost doctoral level.

If you didn’t snigger just a little at this, maybe we can’t hang.

What Will You Do?

Are you excited about the Pfizer (available now!), Moderna (soon!), and other anti-COVID-19 vaccines that will be approved for “emergency use” to get us back to our lives… or are you skeptical? Maybe you oscillate between fantasies of mask-free parties and fears of Bell’s palsy or anaphylaxis. A large-scale vaccination program is coming to your town soon, and how you feel is less important than what you actually do.

Let’s begin with how you feel. Both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines represent a feat of biochemical engineering that has excited virologists for years. Only now, with a dramatically feel-good cooperation between scientists, private and public funders, and an Operation Warp Speed elimination of bureaucratic delays, we have a teeny tiny mRNA sequence wrapped in lipid nanoparticles that is safe, effective, and already mass produced for shipment. But we’re wary of this new technology because it is… new.

Well, kind of new.

Scientists have been working on mRNA vaccines for many years. Dr. William Schaffner, an infectious disease expert from Vanderbilt University, reminds us that although these were produced quickly, the technology stands on the shoulders of 10-15 years of work and peer-reviewed data. Also, after reading the 53-page report to the FDA to approve emergency use authorization (EUA) of the Pfizer vaccine, Schaffner’s study group of experts “… arrived interested… and left enthusiastic” with no concerns about safety.

A quickie review of how these mRNA vaccines work may minimize fear of the unknown. Wrapped in its lipid coat, a small section of the SARS-CoV-2 genome coding for its spike protein enters your cell and uses its machinery to make and display it. Your body says, “OOH! Weird protein! Better make an antibody and tell everyone else something is going on.” That little bit of mRNA has no ability to incorporate into your own DNA and is easily degraded (which is why it needs the “cold chain” from the lab to your doctor’s office to protect it). After two vaccine doses, your body is more likely to recognize COVID-19 quickly and mark it for destruction. It is important to understand that the vaccine won’t prevent you from becoming infected, but will significantly reduce the chance that you’ll even know it. Those that do get sick are less likely to need to be hospitalized; and those sick enough to go to the ER are far less likely to end up in the ICU. We predict that fewer coughing, feverish people will also drop the transmission rate, but we don’t really know that. So you’ll need to hold onto those masks for a while. Like, another year.

With these assurances, Dr. Fauci’s endorsement, and the heart-warming trio of Bush/Clinton/Obama willing to bare their deltoids in the name of public health, why do we still feel uneasy? It’s too easy to blame the outgoing administration for poor leadership. None of us particularly likes shots. Even though side effects are minimal and true vaccine injuries rare, the risk is never zero. It is encouraging that the vast majority of us here in Massachusetts got our flu shots when they were mandated. We clench our teeth and kiss our babies when office visits require them to be pricked so many times in their first two years. In spite of our gut reaction to a not-zero risk of vaccines, we do what we’re asked to protect our families and others. Many of us are a little vaccine-hesitant, but most of us demonstrate pro-vaccine behavior.

In 2014, a devastating measles outbreak that started in Disneyland and crossed borders to Canada and Mexico was traced back to an “under-immunized” population. Instead of uncovering a health-care desert where low-income communities faced obstacles to receiving vaccines, epidemiologists exposed a privileged set of people who erroneously believed their quintessentially healthy California lifestyle (homeschooling, vegan, organic, etc.) exempted them from needing them. Fearful of side effects and overconfident in their immune systems to beat deadly diseases, a tipping point of people claimed a personal or religious right to refuse recommended shots, and herd immunity failed. The only path to restoring it was to eliminate personal belief exemptions for recommended vaccines, which California did only a few months later.

Nearly a year into the COVID-19 pandemic, herd immunity has crept into our everyday conversations. Raise your hand if you’ve discussed the Rnaught (R0) of SARS-CoV-2 in the grocery line! Ok, maybe that’s just me. But it’s an important bit of math to consider as we move forward. R0 is the coefficient of infectivity, or the number of susceptible people who will get infected by ONE contagious person. Mathematical models can predict a threshold percentage of immune (or immunized) people needed to achieve herd immunity:

(R0 – 1) / R0

For measles, with a R0 that can reach 20, when the percentage of vaccinated people dips below 96%, herd immunity is lost and just one virus-shedding kid at Disneyland sends measles across North America. 

For COVID-19, the R0 in most studies hovers around 2-3, but has been reported close to 7. It is wildly important for everyone to realize that this is not a reflection of a mutable disease. The R0 is a dynamic variable because it changes with our BEHAVIOR. You can look at the data in your own state or town and see the effect of social distancing, mask mandates, and travel restrictions on R0 (or the RT, the coefficient of transmission, which is similar).

Our curve-flattening behavior in the late spring drove the R0 so low, many of us enjoyed low-capacity indoor dining. The athletic club my father was forced to sell in April was able to reopen with a new owner in July. Most of our kids have returned to synchronous, in-person learning at least a few days a week. But then the spikes, surges, second and third waves, super-spreader events, and Thanksgiving happened. How does this relate to vaccines on the horizon? Our ability to control the R0 impacts how well they’ll work.

A pretend and overly simplified example is that if the R0 is 5 when a vaccine is deployed in an unimmunized population, we would need (5 – 1)/ 5 or 80% of us to receive our second doses before herd immunity takes effect. However, if masking and social distancing keeps the R0 hovering around 2, we’ll achieve herd immunity after only half of us are vaccinated. This is why it is so important to keep our guard up now. This is why you were asked to restrict Thanksgiving gatherings to your “bubble” and why you really need to reconsider Christmas plans that ignore guidelines.

So what are you going to do? Front line workers are going to need to figure this out for themselves rather soon, as vaccine delivery to 145 sites across all 50 states begins Monday. Our elderly citizens (or their children who make medical decisions for them) should already have a plan of action lest they lose an opportunity to take advantage of limited supplies. With only EUA approval (and only for those over 16 years old), a mandate is something for classroom debates and, ahem, blogs. The choice is yours. What will you do?

I hope you will devour all of the good information you can find from reputable sources. Ask questions. Query your friendly neighborhood epidemiologist or someone who has treated COVID-19 patients. Know how these mRNA vaccines work and the real data behind side effects. Remember that a vaccine deployed to billions of people will yield reports of temporally associated events that have nothing to do with the shots. Every medical student knows the cautionary tale of the baby that had his first grand mal seizure in the doctor’s office mere moments before his first doses of standard vaccines. What would we assume if the seizure had happened afterward? 

Is it too much to ask that all of us take a brand new vaccine? I think we’ll all need to manage our uneasiness. But just because the vaccines are “new,” doesn’t mean they are “untested.” Over 70,000 people were enrolled in the studies for these two mRNA vaccines. Doctors who don a white coat and swear to “first, do no harm” are also going to take it before you do. 

A time will come when we might be thrown into pro- and anti-vaccine camps, but that is unfair and unhelpful right now. However, if you find yourself relying on your own good health or relative youth to brave the actual disease over the negligible risks of a new vaccine, think about the rest of us, too. This pandemic has revealed that our health care system has already failed those in low income communities, people who live in close quarters in multi-generational homes, and those who do not have the luxury of working from home and are reliant on public transportation. When you take the vaccine, you are helping to protect them from a more severe course of the disease, too. Also, when you say, “if I get it, I’ll be fine” are you in the same mindset as the kale-chomping Californians who brought unvaccinated children to Disneyland? I agree it’s a bit more nuanced debate to consider taking a brand new vaccine, but the fact remains that doses are arriving to your town soon. Will you be a part of history or will you wait and see?

What will you do?

Immunology is Hard

Immunology is hard, people. I was a fantastic student right up until Immuno-Genetics, where my C- from Naomi Rosenberg was a passing gift. True story: I could not answer most of the questions, so turned the test over and word-vomited all of my memorized notes alongside an apology for being an idiot. Those of us who ultimately earned our PhD in Immunology specialized in small pockets of a gigantic field. For four years, I studied the effect of a single protein on the ability of white blood cells to travel through the body. One protein. But for four years, I also attended weekly lectures, dissertation presentations of fellow graduate students, conferences, journal clubs, and even shared an apartment with another immunologist. Nicole and I didn’t pour wine, we aliquotted. We also digested a lot of theories, factoids, terminology, and problem-solving mindsets from the geniuses that taught us. I defended my thesis over 20 years ago, and somatic hypermutation and cluster determinants have not been close to the tip of my tongue since then. But as SARS-CoV-2 began its course across the planet, it all came rushing back with one great truth: Immunology is hard, people.

I’ve never been hopeful for a COVID-19 vaccine. And after visiting the Facebook page of my own community after our state mandated flu vaccines for kids in childcare and schools… well, even if Fauci backed a vaccine for COVID-19 today, many would opt out, anyway. Why? Thoughtful people worry that a quickly produced vaccine might not be entirely effective or safe, and let’s be honest; most people prefer to avoid any shots at all. But instead of saying those things, it’s juicier click-bait to blame an unpopular President for seeding mistrust in our scientists. In any case, the upshot about a pandemic-squashing vaccine is first that it is unlikely to be developed soon, and second that it will be harder to attain herd immunity with it than anyone assumes.

An oft-repeated argument against acquiring a flu shot right now is, “Why would I overtax my immune system during a pandemic?” This causes immunologists to face-palm, but they’ll seldom chime in to correct this vein of thinking. Again, Immunology is hard, people. Also, anti-vaxxers of all varieties are especially combative in on-line settings and paradoxically immune to PubMed searchable corrections. But as an immunologist, it sounds like this to me: “Why would I get my oil changed when I need new brake pads?” Your immune system is diverse and complicated with myriad weapons; it can react and remember. It uses too many different cell types and mechanisms to recount here. Quite simply, though, a recently published systematic review showed that COVID-19 is associated with certain co-infections–Influenza types in particular, for which we have vaccines– that increase mortality in those patients. (Bacterial infections are also common in our sickest COVID-19 patients, but we have antibiotics to treat those.) We also want to keep preventable diseases to a minimum during a pandemic. My hunch is that a flu shot/mask-wearing combo will stifle a significant number of flu cases and hospitalizations. Yay!

But how do we get back to Life as We Knew It?

We’re back in Zoom School here at the Lee house, and it feels like March all over again. My boys log in with bedhead, want lots of different snacks and meals at different times, and are always around except when the puppy needs walking. Their school put together an incredibly thoughtful plan that puts boys on campus with their cohort every other week. With masks and Purell stations and extreme vigilance (I’m looking at you, sportos with your outta state tournaments) we might get the whole school back in person before lacrosse season. Unfortunately, the only tools we have right now are self-evaluation (which requires diligence and honesty), hand washing (ditto), masks, and social distancing (which we’re fudging a bit inside the schools).

What if we could just test ourselves every day before leaving the house?

The greatest minds in epidemiology and virology tell us the only way we’re going to stop SARS-CoV-2 from reappearing and spreading in hotspots for years to come is to battle the RT into submission by keeping people who are actively shedding virus—whether they display symptoms or not—from leaving their homes. Dr. Michael Mina has been a vocal expert and advocate for technology that already exists: a home administered saliva test that takes 15 minutes. No, it’s not as sensitive as the PCR assay that amplifies the actual viral genes. Instead, it detects a certain threshold of antigens: those sticky proteins on the outside of the virus. Your positive Rapid Antigen Test would mean you are COVID-19 positive and also suggest that you are extremely infectious. Of course, those who test positive with the home test would follow up with a PCR test and a doctor’s visit (more data, yay!), and those who test negative and have no symptoms could go to school, a restaurant, or the movies. There will be some gaps with false negative tests, but with daily testing the chances of missing positive cases are reduced each day (yay, math!). Also, there will be far fewer false positives than the PCR assay, which is likely keeping people quarantined longer than necessary.

Experts predict that we could get our pandemic under control in as little as six weeks with widespread, daily rapid antigen testing. Meanwhile, we could more confidently open schools and gyms, see people outside of our bubbles, and worry less about killing grandma. The only things stopping this is red tape, money (ok, so a heady sum of $), but ultimately… The American Spirit. Explaining the inexpensive ease of daily testing to my own smartypants big sister was met with, “meh… sounds like a lot.” Even when I explained that it could cost $1 and take 15 minutes, she, like so many of us, is just over it. We have a collective pandemic fatigue that is making us skeptical and more and more willing to turn a blind eye to the thousands (millions?) more who will die if we don’t do something.

Enter Dr. Scott Atlas. He’s likely brilliant and certainly has better credentials to speak about the pandemic than the average Twitter ALL CAPS hand-wringer, but he doesn’t have any more expertise in Virology and Immunology than the guy reading your MRI. Nonetheless, he caught the eye of our President who is looking for different solutions, even if they might not be better. If you do a quick search, you’ll find that Dr. Atlas is advocating “herd immunity” to spare the economy and advance his career. That’s the problem with the quick search and also the leading motto of this essay. Immunology is hard, people. I think he’s being largely misquoted, but his stance on masks is just irresponsible. Either way, NYT reporters (none is a scientist) attempted to malign him today by reporting that his theories about T cell mediated immunity are considered bunk by immunologists. They even sourced a TWITTER THREAD that includes peer-reviewed papers of immunologists hopefully speculating about a role for T cell memory. They need more data, but they certainly don’t think it’s bunk. How did they get this wrong? First, they only read the first tweet of the thread. Second, IMMUNOLOGY IS HARD, PEOPLE. Finally, those of us who consider ourselves any sort of scientist are horrified about any of this being politicized. And sourcing a Twitter thread as a scholarly reference? And misinterpreting it? Naomi Rosenberg is going to give this less than a C-.

Wash your hands, wear your mask, socially distance as much as possible, and be honest about your comings and goings. But if you want to get back to something akin to Life as We Knew It, text RAPID CONGRESS to 50409 to support the development of inexpensive saliva COVID-19 testing that can be done at home!


IMMUNOLOGY IS HARD. This group detected SARS-CoV-2-reactive CD4+ T cells in 40%–60% of unexposed individuals, suggesting cross-reactive T cell recognition between circulating “common cold” coronaviruses and SARS-CoV-2. THIS IS GOOD NEWS!

Midsommar Update: cautiously optimistic… if you wear a mask

Let’s talk about COVID-19 again. I want to share just a few paragraphs to simplify recent, good data that might lessen your anxiety over rising cases, the paradoxically increasing opportunities to spread this largely untreatable virus, and looming school start dates. And if you read no further the upshot is this: wear a mask and avoid places and situations where large numbers of people are enclosed in spaces without them.

For those of us in and around Boston, the numbers are promising. The effective reproduction rate of COVID-19 is now under 1; and when the RT is under 1, the virus stops spreading. From a microbiological perspective, this makes no sense. COVID-19 has not mutated dramatically and we are nowhere near herd immunity making hosts for coronavirus harder to find. It’s simply our behavior that has led to this decrease. Every canceled concert, empty seat at Fenway, closed bar, masked wait staff at outdoor restaurants, and postponed graduation party helped. YOU helped. Good job, Massachusetts!

With the RT below 1, our essential workers at grocery stores, pet groomers, and fast food joints are also safer. But as we relax stay-at-home orders, we need to personalize our own risk assessment: if you contracted COVID-19, how likely is it to kill you? When I first wrote about the novel coronavirus, citing data from Wuhan, 15% of patients required hospital care and the infection fatality risk (IFR) was over 5%. This number was terrifying as the scale of the disease was taking shape. Conservative estimates of 40% of the population ultimately contracting this virus could have resulted in 7 million Americans dying. This is why Dr. Fauci was on TV every night. Three months later, scientists have more data and that number has dropped dramatically. A promising study group from the Diamond Princess cruise ship tested all 3711 passengers and staff, effectively capturing even the asymptomatic carriers, and estimated an IFR closer to 1. As testing improved and widened, other studies (albeit quickly calculated and not-yet-peer-reviewed) found IFRs hovering between 0.5 and 1. And even if we’re still underestimating this, it’s a far cry from 5.

You can see here and here how well Massachusetts is doing IFR-wise. Another heartening statistic is a death rate of zero (ZERO!) for patients under 19. Unfortunately, these statistics don’t suggest we can stop worrying about Grandma. A closely studied population in Geneva stratified the IFR by age and found that in a city with sufficient hospital capacity and excellent medical care, the risk for those over 65 years of age is still between 4 and 7%. Other articles you have probably already read suggest that many of those patients are also overweight, diabetic, hypertensive, immune-compromised, etc. The best way to protect our elderly and at-risk loved ones is to prevent them from getting COVID-19 at all.


Odds are, you’re already doing this. Masks masks masks, limiting exposure, and close surveillance of your own health. Back in March when tests were sparse and we had only just stopped doing spin class, Sunday mass, choir rehearsals, and travel team sports, we had no idea who in our midst could be carrying and spreading COVID-19. Strict shut down was essential. Today, scientists are less worried about you contracting coronavirus from your play dates and take-out containers than from a “superspreader.” Pockets of new cases arise as people with no symptoms (or let’s face it, probably a little under the weather but ignoring it) and who aren’t wearing masks unwittingly attend activities that should still be verboten. An alarming example out of India is cautionary: after a wedding reception where over 350 guests were somehow allowed, nearly 100 townsfolk were infected. Though most of those who contracted the disease were asymptomatic and ultimately isolated, the 30-year-old groom who had exhibited all of the telltale COVID-19 symptoms died only two days after the ceremony. This devastating case illustrates the tragedy that ensues when a person with a high viral titer (the groom) is widely exposed (parties over 20 people) in an enclosed venue (reception hall) at exactly the wrong time (active infection with droplet-spewing symptoms).

The Indian wedding example is what is happening in areas that now need to reverse course and reinstate restrictions. As unmasked young people flocked to restaurants, bars, and parties, it took only one superspreader in their midst to undo three months of curve-flattening. Those who continue to hawk conspiracy theories and politicize mask usage will use new data to their advantage. Whoo-hooing revelers who contract the virus and don’t die (because they are young), will cause the IFRs to drop even lower. COVID-19 remains as deadly as it was in Wuhan in December, but will seem like it’s petering out.

It’s not.

So wasn’t this supposed to be an essay to alleviate your worries and bolster your confidence to send bored kids to camp and (please please please) back to school? Yes. Yes it is. The kids are alright, as the saying goes. And yesterday, Massachusetts posted its first day of zero (ZERO!) COVID-19 related fatalities. Unfortunately our at-risk population will need to remain vigilant until we have herd immunity (not happening any time soon) or a vaccine. I am loathe to give you my hunch about a vaccine, so let’s leave it at this: keep wearing masks and washing your hands, postpone parties, see friends outdoors… and maybe we’ll RT this thing to oblivion.


If Captain Kirk can wear a mask (while supporting the local bookstore… swoon…), let’s boldly join him in doing so.

Front Yard Pursuits

Good morning, friends who still read blogs. I hardly get past headlines anymore. Everything in the news is so exhausting, traumatic, biased, unkind, sensational, and so rarely… fun. But Bernie and I have been giggling for weeks on this little tidbit that I share for you here.

Before Hero’s very routine, but upsetting (for all of the boys in the house) neutering surgery, Bernie and I were taking long morning walks with the puppy. Often we were also listening to Morning Prayer, which live-streams on Facebook from Church of the Redeemer at 9:30am. Honestly, 25-year-old Britt, who thought pet ownership was a huge drag and God a myth at best, would not recognize this woman nearly twice her age. In any case, we were getting close to the house where Hero always freaks out a little.

“Watch this. Hero always barks here. I think it’s the swing.”

Right on cue, our prancing puppy stopped in his tracks, lowered his tail, and started growling down the driveway. The swing was, as usual, empty and oscillating in the breeze, tethered to the same overhead branch we see every single day. I mused aloud to Bernie that I am convinced ghosts exist and that Hero sees them.

Bernie was chuckling.

“That is an odd swing.”

I hadn’t really considered it. I mean it isn’t a cute hanging bench or even a quaint tire… it’s just a swing. Bernie continued,

“I mean, it’s odd to have that in the front yard.”

Is outdoor swinging a backyard-only pursuit? I hadn’t thought of that. Hero was still straining at the leash, desperate again to check out the swinging ghost.

“Britt. The swing is for one person. And… IT HAS STIRRUPS.”

OMG. Every day I pass a house where Hero barks at a sex swing. My ghost theory was swiftly debunked, and ewww why is this interesting to the doggie. Do they actually use it? Do you think they got it on super sale and have no idea what it is? Was it a gag gift turned permanent lawn ornament to alarm, amuse, or annoy nosy neighbors? WHY IS IT IN THE FRONT YARD.

Naturally, we’ve been working Sex Swing into conversations for weeks, so I guess it was no surprise that Facebook is now offering Bernie ads for one.

“Look! Price isn’t bad…”

Not bad at all. Father’s Day is right around the corner, and our front yard is chock-full of sturdy branches.


Couldn’t bring myself to put a picture of a sex swing here. But my suggested items from Amazon have now taken an interesting turn.

Pandemic with a Puppy: A Day in the Life of Lees

Brodie told me yesterday (in the 12:30 to 3pm window of interruptions) that he rejects the idea of a “new normal.” I get that. I want life as we knew it to return, too. And it will. Sort of, and eventually. And because, as Father Michael Dangelo reminds us twice daily and on Sundays that “this will pass,” I wanted to capture a typical pandemic day in the Life of Lees. Teenage boys are wrapping up a year of high school. Hero is still a puppy. Bernie is WFH. And I’m doing All of the Things. My guess is most of you (especially the mommas) could white-board a similar schedule.

8 – 9:30am Wake up, walk dog, make puppy breakfast, drink coffee, wake up boys (WHO SHOULD BE WAKING THEMSELVES UP), make them breakfast, drink more coffee

9:30 – 10:30am Listen to Morning Prayer while walking Hero all over the neighborhood

10:40am At least one boy wants 2nd breakfast

11:20am Snackish children emerge from rooms for lunch, but it’s too early for lunch for everyone but the puppy

Noon Quickly frying dumplings because now everyone is starving and school starts again in 20 min but we had sandwiches yesterday

12:30 – 3pm Interruptions for political commentary of the day from Brodie, chitchat with Bernie, query from shirtless Teddy about his “gains” from a slightly altered workout, conversations with various contractors/painters/vet all while trying to OMG ANSWER JUST ONE EMAIL

3:30pm Boys need differing snacks/protein shakes after workouts. Hero hangs out on the deck half-heartedly barking at golfers, other neighborhood dogs, turkeys, the wind, and ghosts. Bernie emerges from Zoom purgatory asking if it’s too early for cocktails. It is too early for cocktails.

4:30pm We have decided it is no longer too early for cocktails. We listen to Evening Prayer and walk Hero all over the neighborhood to give the ghosts a break so they don’t start planning retaliation hauntings.

5:30pm Start preparing dinner during which the boys wander in and out looking for pre-dinner snack offerings and play with Hero for maybe 3 minutes and 45 seconds even though this is the only time of day he really needs lots of attention and the only time I ask them to watch the PUPPY THEY WANTED

6pm Dinner is ready. Not everyone else is. They eat anyway, because they are constantly starving anyway and also are good like this and will sit down right away and eat up every last bite while making yummy sounds and I just adore them. Bernie sneaks Hero little morsels even though the puppy eats like the princely puppy he is and already had his supper.

7pm Hero has the “zoomies” and cannot decide if he should be inside or outside or doing crazy figure 8 races around the furniture, so he does all of these. More barking at ghosts.

8pm What day is it? If Thursday, Friday, or Saturday, we’ll probably continue cocktail hour. Scroll on demand channels for 27 minutes, realize neither of us wants to watch the same thing, so we watch something meh that is too girly, too violent, or puts both of us to sleep.

10pm Hero is a sleepy puppy and does the cutest slow walk to his crate. The tell tale puppy plop signals bedtime for everyone except teenage boys who suddenly appear for dessert.

11pm – ??? Teenage boys are doing Internet things that might be for school, but who are we kidding. Only the ghosts know.


Hero, adorable… and also sees dead people… probably.