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.

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.

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 R_T, 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?