Sunday, February 28, 2021

AOC promoting mistaken inauguration history

By Mathew Goldstein

The Architect of the Capitol web site describes itself as “Serving Congress and the Supreme Court”. It aspires to “Integrity - We demonstrate our honesty, sincerity and dependability to earn the trust of those we serve.” It also self-exhibits “Professionalism - We adhere to the highest standards of quality and competency for the work that we do.” The AOC “erects the inaugural platform ... and coordinates other activities with the Joint Congressional Committee on the Inaugural Ceremonies ...”

The AOC presidential inaugurations page lists in three columns the date, the president, and notes. The notes say this about Theodore Roosevelt’s inauguration: “The only President not sworn in on a Bible." Absent eyewitness testimony to support the claim that each of the prior presidents used a bible during their oath of office, any declaration that Theodore was the first, let alone the only, who did not, as if we know that all presidents before him did use a bible, is falsely misleading. Such a declaration, when stated as a fact, exhibits a lack of integrity and professionalism. Since we have no eyewitness testimony for the presence a bible at George Washington’s second inauguration, nor at the inaugurations of John Adams, Thomas Jefferson (twice), James Madison (twice), and James Monroe (twice), any claim that only one president did not use a bible or that any particular president after George Washington was the first to not use a bible is necessarily mere speculation, regardless of who makes that claim.

Here is my understanding of what it can be said we know: George Washington placed his hand on, and then kissed, a bible at the first presidential inauguration to comply with New York State law because that inauguration was uniquely administered by a state government [Laws of the State of New York: Passed at the Sessions of the Legislature Held in the Years 1777-1801, Volume 1, Ch. 25,]. When he became president the federal executive and judicial branches existed only on paper and the first Congress had not yet passed any bills so the only applicable law was state law. Andrew Jackson kissed a bible. There appears to be no eyewitness evidence that any other president from George Washington’s second inauguration to John Tyler used a bible to swear the oath upon. John Quincy Adams read his oath from a book of law without a bible at his ceremony in 1825 (March 4, 1825 diary entry by John Q. Adams).

Bibles were usually present starting at the 1861 inauguration of Lincoln, except for Theodore Roosevelt who used no book for his first inauguration in 1901. However, there was no bible present during Calvin Coolidge’s impromptu oath of office at his father’s farmhouse in 1923. Although it is widely reported that John F. Kennedy used a bible during his 1961 oath of office, for most of his oath recitation his left hand was actually resting at his side not touching the Bible.

Theodore Roosevelt was one of several presidents whose hand was not on a bible during the oath recitation and who did not kiss a bible. Furthermore, for all we know, George Washington may have been first president to not use a bible and Theodore Roosevelt may have been the fourteenth president to recite the oath of office without a bible (other than Jackson and Polk, all presidents to James Buchanan is thirteen). But you would never know this if you trusted the AOC as an expert source of presidential oath information, which is a shame because they are supposed to be experts. If we cannot rely on experts then who are we supposed to rely on to understand our history? My message to the AOC: Do not assert as historical fact that which is not evidenced and is counter-evidenced. Remove the assertion that all presidents except Theodore Roosevelt took their oath of office on bibles.

Sunday, November 15, 2020

Supreme Court and Political Parties

Supreme Court justices are supposed to make objective legal rulings that are independent of political considerations. This is one of the reasons for giving lifetime appointments to the justices and preventing them from having to run for election.

That’s the way it’s supposed to be. But clearly it doesn’t work out that way. On most close decisions for many years, the justices voted along party lines. Although there were several exceptions in the 2018 term in which each justice voted across party lines, so it shows that this can happen, these cases are still a minority.

The most notorious case was Bush v. Gore in 2000, in which 5 Republican-appointed justices voted in favor of Bush, and 4 Democrat-appointed justices voted in favor of Gore. In the current panel of justices, three worked on that case in favor of Bush. 

Clearly, the Supreme Court is not removed from politics. Justices strongly tend to vote with the other members of their party.  This is confirmed by the extraordinary lengths that Republicans in the Senate took to appoint justices of their party. The Republicans refused to consider a moderate Democratic nominee in 2016, but then this year bent over backwards to quickly appoint a Republican, Amy Coney Barrett.

What is the solution to the problem? The justices are good lawyers and capable of reasoned arguments.  They are clearly capable of voting across party lines, but they usually don't.  The common party-line votes makes the Court look openly partisan and without objectivity. 

There are some solutions that could require at least one of the justices to agree across their party lines. One is to have an even number of justices with an equal number from each party. A party line vote will be a tie, and it doesn't result in a binding decision. If the justices feel that a ruling is important, they will have to convince someone from the other party to agree with them. If the decision is clearly partisan, and no one will break the tie, then there won’t be a ruling, and the Court won’t be involved.

Other solutions have been suggested. The approach of “court packing,” adding more members to the court, is a bad solution because it invites retaliation from the other party. Also, it is clearly a partisan solution, because it’s a competition to get more justices of the party in power.

Another solution is term limits for justices. It has been suggested that justices have terms of 18 years, so two justices would be replaced every 4-year presidential term. This would solve the issue of justices being nominated at younger and younger ages so they can serve longer. It will allow justices to be replaced periodically so they can stay current with public opinion, rather than staying long past their time. It will give a prospect for getting rid of bad, unproductive justices. But as long as the number of justices is nine, there will still be competition for the majority.

Another simpler solution that doesn’t require congressional action is for the president to refrain from nominating a justice when the next one retires, dropping the number to eight. At present, if the replacement is for a Republican, it would still leave a 5 to 3 Republican majority. It would take the loss of two Republicans to get a 4 to 4 balanced court. Also, this approach has the disadvantage that a new president could immediately fill the seat extra seat to go back to nine. An action of Congress would be needed to fix the number of seats at 8 or 10 (if it is constitutional). But at least it would restore the reputation of the Supreme Court as being impartial and nonpartisan.

Tuesday, September 08, 2020

Methodological empiricism, not methodological naturalism

By Mathew Goldstein

The theoretical physicist Sean Carroll recorded a series of 24 videos titled “The Biggest Ideas in the Universe!”  Following this paragraph is a transcript of the methodological naturalism topic excerpted from video #24 “Science”, which addresses philosophy of science issues (it is about 2 hours). Atheists in particular can (and should) reject the misconception that science is limited to, and constrained by, methodological naturalism. This common misconception is then utilized by theists and others to mischaracterize science as being intrinsically biased against supernaturalism.

You try to invent a theory of science, and someone is doing science, but it doesn’t count according to your criteria. What you should say in that case is that “oh, my criteria of what is science was not quit right, I should update it”. But in fact what people say all the time is “that is not science, what you are doing over there’s not science. I know you think it is, but it’s not because I figured out what science is and it’s not that.” I think, as much as I am a fan of philosophy in general, this is something that happens at the boundary of philosophy and science itself. Either scientists, or philosophers, try to come up with the correct, we are done with it, philosophy of science. And rather than updating that philosophy when they encounter something that they did not understand before, they ipso facto exclude it from counting as science.

I think that's a mistake. So let me give you a couple of examples of what I mean. One is, maybe you're too young to know much about this, but there's this idea called methodological naturalism. It's a mouthful.

This again is a holdover from the days of fighting against creationism in public schools which was a big thing in the United States of America in the 80s 90s into the 2000s. Okay, so the idea of methodological naturalism it's different than naturalism. So, what naturalism is is the idea that there's only one universe, one reality, the natural world, the world that we discover by science. That's what naturalism says, and you might call that metaphysical naturalism or ontological naturalism. It’s a statement about the nature of reality. Reality is fully described by the natural world, there's no separate supernatural world, for example.  Methodological naturalism was the idea that was completely invented by people who are trying to fight against creationism. So with the best intentions, they said science proceeds under the assumptions of methodological naturalism, which is the assumption, ahead of time, that when we go to explain some observations, we do so in a naturalistic way. In other words, that the kinds of explanations that science can come up with are just in principle, just a priori, just because we said so, naturalistic explanations. So the idea of methodological naturalism was even if the true explanation for a phenomenon was supernatural, science would never allow you to contemplate that. And the reason why they came up with this cockamamie scheme was they wanted to be able to say, intelligent design should not be taught in public schools. 

So it's an entirely political motive, not a philosophical or scientific one. They wanted to say that this attempt to bring religion to schools, which is what it was, like intelligent design, was clearly an attempt to smuggle religion into public school teaching, and they wanted to argue against it by saying, well we can't allow supernatural explanations in science. But that's just wrong, like nothing that we said up here had anything to do with what kinds of explanations are allowed. We come up with the best explanations, that's what abduction said. Whatever explanation fits the data the best is the one that we like. If you could convince me that there is some data for which the best explanation is to assume that naturalism is wrong, then any good scientist will say, therefore naturalism is probably wrong. If an angel comes down, you know, with a flaming sword and wings and so forth, and says “All right, I'm going to perform some miracles for you now”, and this happens regularly, and it can't be explained by illusions or trickery or laws of physics or anything like that. Or if, you know, all sorts of things happen simultaneously throughout the world to bring true some predictions that were made by some religious tradition. A good scientist would say well, we should at least consider those explanations. 

So the reason why you should keep intelligent design out of schools is not because it's not science. It's because it's bad science, it's because they're not explaining anything better than Darwinian natural selection ever would have explained. But that argument seems a little bit more loosey goosey, like you're not saying that something is cut and dried disallowed. You’re saying it's not very good and then people can make the counter argument against that. What I'm here to say is yes, that is correct. You need to bite the bullet and make that hard argument, make the case that this is bad science and should not be taught because it is clearly just an attempt to smuggle religion into your schools. You should not invent weird philosophical principles after the fact to justify your choice. You should be honest about how science works. 

Science is not methodologically natural, it is methodological empiricism. In other words, the philosophical presupposition of science is not what kinds of explanations we will allow, but how we decide which explanations are correct. Namely, we do not appeal to revelation, we appeal to the data, to looking at the world. We say which of our explanations is the best fit to the empirical information we get about the world, and we could always be wrong, and we could always try to be better.

Tuesday, August 25, 2020

Disbarred lawyer Michael Cohen talking about president Donald Trump

By Mathew Goldstein

This particular advertisement video, while it is partisan politics, is also independently newsworthy. With this justification of its being unusually newsworthy I am placing it here. It is the first of a set of such videos from American Bridge 21st Century “the largest research, video tracking, and rapid response organization in Democratic politics”. What makes this video more newsworthy than the usual presidential campaign video is that the person talking about (criticizing) President Donald Trump for this set of videos is his former personal lawyer, the disbarred Michael Cohen currently serving a three year sentence under home confinement.

Sunday, July 12, 2020

The ethics of brown eyes

By Mathew Goldstein

To understand that ethics is built on knowledge consider a false ethic, such as all people with brown eyes should be enslaved. What false claim to knowledge would justify that false ethic? One possibility would be the claim that there is an omniscient creator deity who has told us that the divinely favored blue eyed people are rewarded with everlasting life in heaven provided that they enslave all divinely disfavored brown eyed people. 

People are reluctant to acknowledge that if the mistaken claims of knowledge endorsed and promoted by ISIS are correct than their practice of beheading opponents, kidnapping women as sex slaves, killing homosexuals, etc. would arguably be ethical. Creator deities who are to be worshipped and obeyed can be cited to justify otherwise unjustifiable ethics. Not all mistaken beliefs result in equally unethical behaviors. Falsehoods masquerading as knowledge can correspond to mostly good ethics, but even then valuing falsehoods in the name of ethics tends to either hold us back from accepting an increase in knowledge or render the ethics fragile when confronted by an clashing increase in knowledge.

Knowledge precedes ethics. Knowledge is built with an indifferent lack of bias. To get from knowledge to ethics we actively introduce a bias to favor the outcomes that are better for humanity over alternative outcomes that are worse for humanity. What should be depends in part on what is, and what should be also depends in part on viable could be alternatives, which also depends on what is. To be meaningful ethics must be non-fictional. Fictional ethics, ignorant ethics, are a self-contradiction.

Answers to how the universe works answers undergird ethics. What alternative outcomes are better for humanity? How can we most quickly obtain and implement effective better outcomes? What can we learn about a problem with negative impacts for humanity that can be applied to countering the problem? Chronologically, answers to how the universe works question come first and provide us with the understanding we need to more effectively bias the outcomes in favor of humanity. Some religions appear to have a tendency to get this sequence backwards. They claim that there are some assertions about the how universe operates that need to be true to justify ethics and therefore those assertions are true. That is wrong, there is no such “therefore”.

It is common for people to try to argue otherwise. A common saying is that what should be cannot be derived from what is. What does it mean to “derive from” and in what sense is one derived from the other? Clearly, knowledge and ethics are different, they are not synonyms. Yet they are dependent on each other. We start with knowledge and apply to it the goal of promoting general human welfare, opposing the factual indifference of the universe, to promote the general benefit of humanity, in pursuit of obtaining the should be of ethics.

Tuesday, July 07, 2020

Less reliance on faith is better

By Mathew Goldstein

Barney Zwartz is a senior fellow of the Centre for Public Christianity. The Centre for Public Christianity is an Australian not-for-profit media company, established in 2007, that supplies mainstream media (such as The Age, an Australian newspaper) and the general public with material about the relevance of Christianity in the 21st century. It seeks to represent historic Christianity as defined by the Nicene Creed. This is a response to his recent article Faith is key to our lives, even for atheists.

However obvious this may be, the following observation still needs to be reiterated because many defenders of religion lean heavily on this fact in their arguments, as illustrated by the aforementioned article: We are not all present and all knowing and therefore our ability to utilize empirical evidence to reliably identify what is true about the universe functions is not, and cannot be, 100% complete, accurate, guaranteed, instantaneous, certain, etc. What is maybe a little less obvious, but nevertheless equally important, is despite all of empiricism’s imperfections and limitations, it does not follow that we know nothing at all or that there are alternative, equally valid, or better, ways of obtaining such knowledge. Therefore, while we are all frequently making decisions on incomplete information, citing this fact to argue that we all are reliant on faith is not a good argument against our responsibilities to seek the relevant empirical evidence and try to reach our conclusions regarding how the universe operates on a best fit with the available empirical evidence basis.

The following statement from this article is one good example of this tactic of over-leveraging the imperfections of empiricism to defend religious belief: “we only know something as simple as how old we are or our birthday because our parents told us (or the Registry of Births). That this is accurate we take on faith.” No, there is more than faith behind confidence in birthdays. First of all, we have good reason to think our birth certificates are accurate because there is generally no motive for the direct eyewitness mother and hospital, or for the government, to falsify the birth date. Furthermore, we have first hand knowledge about how people change over time and that the changes proceed more quickly when we young. So we have ongoing empirical evidence from our self-experienced childhood, along with the childhood of others, to determine if the birth certificate birth date is at least reasonable. Our date of birth could not have been a decade or more earlier or later and still match our self-experience of our life. Plus there are other supporting documentation regarding vaccinations, baby food purchases, school attendance, other eyewitnesses to your early childhood, and the like.

Another example from this article: “The same principle applies to the highest reaches of scientific endeavour. Scientists rely on the testimony of other scientists because it is generally either a waste of time or impossible to replicate their research. And by and large this works, even when sometimes it later emerges that research went astray.“ This is mistaken.  It is generally not “a waste of time or impossible” to replicate research. On the contrary, replication with the same result strengthens our confidence in that result while replication that fails to confirm the result weakens or undermines our confidence in that result.  Replication requires effort, time, and money, all of which tend to be in short supply, which imposes practical constraints, but that is generally true to varying degrees for all research regardless of whether or not that research is a replication of earlier research.

Another example from this article: “History, psychology and all manner of disciplines rely on other people’s testimony, acceptance of which is largely a matter of faith. I cannot know by experience or perception that Napoleon lived, or any other historical figure whose existence it makes no sense to doubt.“ OK, and why does it “make no sense to doubt” various “historical figures” such as Napoleon? Although this question is of central relevance for this topic Mr. Zwartz ignores it, probably because the answer is incompatible with his goal of arguing for religious belief by arguing against empiricism. The answer is that we have a good amount and variety of good quality empirical evidence from multiple independent sources for some historical figures, particularly those historical figures who are more recent and whose actions impacted many other people and events. Empirical evidence, despite its imperfections, can be powerful, so powerful that it becomes unreasonable to reject conclusions that the available empirical evidence favors even when the evidence consists entirely of artifacts from the past.

Mr. Zwartz then identifies one of the conclusions he is pursuing: “we are wrong to exclude testimony from knowledge in any ordinary, useful sense. In other words, faith.“ This is a mistaken over-generalization. We absolutely should be skeptical of the integrity of testimony that is in conflict with our empirically based knowledge of how the universe operates. Let’s say someone gives testimony that they (singular “they” for gender neutrality) eye-witnessed a donkey or a snake briefly talking to them in the same language that they speak, providing them with an instruction to not strike the donkey or not eat tree fruit. Is Mr. Zwartz claiming that such testimony qualifies as knowledge in “any ordinary, useful, sense”? 

He then anticipates the above objection and responds as follows: “many religious truth claims are in a different and more complex category: they can seem contrary to reason and experience. But equal questions apply for those who believe nothing exists other than what science can measure, for they cannot even explain human consciousness, let alone spiritual experience.“ Not explaining consciousness is different from denying it. Our modern knowledge indicates that our day to day reasoning and experiences are too limited to be a proper basis for understanding how the universe at large operates and our intuitions, rooted in on our limited experiences, tend to conflict with how the universe at large operates. This is one of the reasons it can become necessary to seek out and follow the empirical evidence in a rigorous way. If human consciousness will be explained in the future (and all we can do is wait, however long it takes, for explanations that we currently lack) then the probability is high that the explanation will be obtained the way all of the other explanations from biology humanity has obtained: Measures of biological activity by scientists with the assistance of human engineered instruments. Consciousness is manifested strictly as a first person self-experience which makes it difficult to explain, but even without explanation its likely presence or absence can be inferred from observable behaviors. Human created religions fail to provide a reliable way to conclude anything about how the universe operates, let alone overcome this first person difficulty with regard to explaining consciousness. Furthermore, the Nicene Creed is not explaining consciousness and therefore is not properly justified as being true on the grounds that it provides an explanation for consciousness.

Lastly, Mr. Zwartz asserts: “there is no doubt that the eyewitnesses to the resurrection believed it, because many of them later died for that belief.“ Before such an argument can be taken seriously we need to establish that there were such eyewitnesses and that we have such eyewitness testimony. Despite innumerable efforts and assertions otherwise no one has ever succeeded in establishing that there were any resurrection eyewitnesses because the need for empirical evidence imposes constraints that the most sophisticated cleverness cannot defeat. The best candidate for the eyewitness role is Paul. It can be determined from his writings that Paul is a poor quality eyewitness. He talked about much more than he eyewitnessed. Paul comes across as a confused and distraught person who self-promoted his poorly anchored fictional thoughts, imaginations, and dreams to the status of facts. Paul is an archetype of a person who is unable and/or unwilling to reach conclusions about how the universe operates on a best fit with empirical evidence basis. The resurrection of Jesus story lacks the solid supporting evidence that we have for the historical reality of Napoleon or of Paul. The far too many people who claim otherwise are arguing against the evidence despite their self-assertions otherwise.

Wednesday, May 20, 2020

No legal privilege to spread COVID-19

By Mathew Goldstein

Religious freedom is one of our first amendment legal principles. There are multiple different legal principles and they sometimes conflict with each other, which is why they cannot be absolute. Religious freedom is not a shield that protects criminal activity or authorizes harming people. Claiming that God wants you to seize someone’s property is not a valid defense for theft. 

Government stay at home policies that restrict the size of public gatherings, or require wearing face masks, or require maintaining some distance from other people, to protect the health and economic welfare of the local community from a contagious disease are not unconstitutional or tyrannical because they interfere with religious exercise. Many religious worship congregations acknowledge their communal responsibilities and some have moved religious services online. But too many of the governments within the United States have risked the health and economic welfare of their citizens by carving out exemptions for religious institutions so that they can continue to operate while similarly situated non-religious institutions cannot.

Maryland is an example of this. Governor Hogan has declared that “Social, community, recreational, leisure, and sporting gatherings and events of more than 10 people (“large gatherings and events”) are hereby prohibited at all locations and venues”. But he then singled out religious facilities for an exemption (as of May 15), declaring that “ churches, synagogues, mosques, temples, and other similar religious facilities of any faith ... may open to the general public“. Prince George’s County, in contrast, is not discriminating between religious and non-religious facilities. The state and county wording are identical except that the state omits “religious” from its list of gatherings that are limited to ten people. County Executive Angela Alsobrooks declared (as of May 14) “... social, community, spiritual, religious, recreational, leisure, and sporting gatherings and events ("large gatherings and events") of more than 10 people are hereby prohibited at all locations and venues ...”.

Laws designed to protect public health and safety are constitutional when they are applied neutrally, across the board, without favoritism. Thus, if plays, concerts, sporting events, lectures, etc., sponsored by non-religious non-profits are shut down, then religious services may, and should, also be shutdown. A virus doesn’t discriminate between someone reciting a prayer or giving a lecture. Government officials should respond to a non-discriminatory virus with a non-discriminatory policy that similarly restricts all non-essential gatherings, religious and non-religious, or none.

No one likes the current situation. We all want to return as soon as possible to a normal life. Our return to a normal life is being made more difficult by some religious institutions that are resisting bans on large gatherings and by some elected officials who are creating government policies allowIng large gatherings for religious activities that they are unwilling to grant for non-religious activities.

Free exercise offers religious practices additional protection against being victims of government targeting. Judges evaluate whether government actions that interfere with religious practice are doing so incidentally within a context of conducting a properly justified government function, or because of popular or governmental resentments or prejudice against the inconvenienced religion(s). Free exercise should not automatically grant all religious practices an exemption from government policy interference.

Another weakness with these policies is that they tend to be incomplete, specifying only the conditions triggering the phase out of the precautionary policies without specifying the triggering conditions for re-applying the precautionary policies. Contagious diseases exhibit a tendency to wax and wane over time. Weakening a policy that is effective in inhibiting the spread of a disease will tend to hasten the spread of the disease. A good policy to manage a contagious disease would be a better policy if it were defined to self-adjust in both directions.

Saturday, May 09, 2020

Some COVID-19 defense suggestions

By Mathew Goldstein

Protecting people from a contagious illness invariable harms the economy and protecting the economy invariably increases infections. One way to break this cycle of misery and deprivation is with widespread testing and contact tracing. Another way to break this cycle is a medical remedy. Alternatively, after some years, sooner if the economy is prioritized over individual health, COVID-19 could almost exhaust itself by infecting almost everyone provided that everyone who survives thereby acquires a long lasting immunity (which also implies an effective vaccination could be developed). It appears likely one or more of these cycle breaking scenarios will happen eventually. While we wait for a medical or epidemiological remedy without knowing how long this will last, we can take precautions against the risks posed by COVID-19.

If you have an Apple Mac, Linux, or MS Windows computer you can install the folding@home program which simulates the dynamic movements of the proteins the virus creates (with the help of the hijacked cells). This information is useful for finding a medicine that blocks the functioning of the proteins. You can report your daily health status information to epidemiologists and health care researchers by installing the COVID-19 symptom tracker application on your mobile device

You can make a face mask by cutting a cotton t-shirt. Here is one way to do this: Cut about seven inches from the bottom. Then make a vertical cut and fold it horizontally in half. Shorten the overall length of folded fabric to about 18 inches by cutting vertically on the open side. Then cut out the horizontal middle 5 inches from the open side for about 12 inches. Then unfold and put over the nose and mouth, tying the upper two strings behind the head and the lower two strings on the top of the head. The sizes are approximate, people with larger or smaller faces and heads should change the cutout sizes accordingly. Consider cutting and combining two cotton face masks from one t-shirt and wear them together, one over the other. A single layer may work better for aerobic exercise heavy breathing. Wash the face mask after each use. If you go out multiple times in a day you need multiple face masks.

The eyes are another potential route for infection. Consider purchasing silicon frame goggles. If you wear eyeglasses you will need over the eyeglasses (OTG) goggles. The face mask and goggles combination can reduce the quantity of any invisible dose of virus that reaches us. A lower initial dose of virus may (or may not, this is speculation) give the immune system more time to successfully build resistance to the virus. The face mask reduces the spread of infection by wearers who are infected but asymptomatic. Contagious COVID -19 infections are often initially, and sometimes completely, asymptomatic. 

More humidity decreases the amount of virus floating in the air faster (some laboratory studies have shown reduced transmission of the virus under more humid conditions) while increasing virus survival duration on surfaces. Therefore, you may want to pair trying to keep indoor humidity between 50 -70 percent with cleaning or disinfect commonly touched surfaces.

If you have a yard and are getting deliveries from online shopping then consider setting up an outside shelter, maybe using a tarp that is secured with bricks, to protect against rain and wind. Silicon gloves can be useful whenever you lack confidence in the safety of the objects you are touching. Remove the gloves into a garbage can without touching the exterior of the gloves. Turn the gloves inside out as they are removed, placing a bared finger under the second glove, twisting to get a better grip, and then pulling it off. 

Consider leaving packages outside overnight (some advocate leaving  packages outside for as long as three days). Place some containers or carrying bags in a foyer, hallway, or room near the place where the packages reside outside.  Remove and discard all of the original packaging and fill your containers or bags. Wash your hands. 

Ultraviolet light disinfects both surfaces and the air and can be used against SARS-CoV-2. Consider using a UVC lamp with a timer. Keep it away from children and pets and people’s eyes and skin. Shine the ultraviolet light on items brought in from the outside to disinfect them. Run a slow fan together with the UVC lamp to disinfect the air in a room.

Consider using a water electrolysis machine to generate hypochlorous acid from water combined with non-iodized salt. Hypochlorous acid is a weak acid disinfectant that can destroy viruses at concentrations from 200-500 per million within about 10 minutes (it may also work at lower doses). You can make you own as needed, it is considered to be safe enough to use on uncooked vegetables and fruit, and it can be sprayed on almost anything, including around a kitchen. Nevertheless, avoid breathing or drinking it.

Exposing your skin to some sun each day produces Vitamin D which improves the immune system response to the virus. Low or modest dose zinc and selenium supplements appear to be good bets for improving your odds of prevailing over COVID-19. Also, be prepared in advance for what could happen. Having an oximeter (in addition to the more commonly possessed thermometer) can assist with deciding whether to go to a hospital. Establish beneficiaries for your savings and property.