Safe back to school? as a swede and microbiologist in USA

There's a few times more that others when I get more attention. I remember the last pandemic - swine flu 2008 - when a bunch of friends (and not so close friends) from high school and uni contacted me to ask "should we give our kids the new vaccine?". My answer, starting with a disclaimer asking what their pediatrician said and why/if they trusted the MD whom they went to consult about their children with, was that I am pro-vaccines in general - against virus especially - and that I would take the swine flu vaccine when it was offered since I deemed it safe.*

In general, that's what I do; I defer to the experts and then I offer my point of view and what I will do and what I recommend my family to do. All in the same idea as the saying when I was a child "do as I do, not only what I say".

So, last week was a flutter of emails, texts and phone calls from a number of coworkers and friends asking "what do you think about going back to school? Is it safe? In Sweden they had school all through spring!".

I think the answer requires a multipoint explanation. I had a twitter thread the other day where I worked through some of the key points. (That thread started with a reaction of how some data is presenting as comparison between days and that there is no thought on having consistency between groups when comparing them. I'll write a separate post of stats, need to be consistent and attention to detail.)

Anyway, the thread can be found here


The relevant tweets for my this blog post start with number 5. It has to do with statistics ( percentage, likelihood, distribution) and then actual numbers.
In short, a lot of epidemiology concerns population based research, trends and breaking down distribution in larger cohorts. It doesn't really say much about one singular case. It is about distribution and likelihood, percentages and other general numbers that for many people is hard to understand when drawn to a single case.

I mean some of this is almost like explaining the likelihood of winning the powerball... (1 in 292,201,338) which is quite ridiculous and people still play it since "there's a chance to win". Yet same people might have a hard time accepting they have a 1:2.5(41%) of getting cancer after age 60 and not worry too much about that. Let's not get into the likelihood of getting SARS-CoV-2 virus in community spread without any mitigation technique like mask or physical distancing (like sports practicing like normal, indoors in teams).

To get back to point. A lot of these questions last week were directed at me since I am a Swede. My family is in Sweden, a lot of my friends are there and I live in the USA so I have "knowledge from both worlds". In this pandemic there's been a lot of polarizing news (some true, some not) and one of them has been the constant comment about "Sweden's experiment" (let's not get caught up in the fact that the whole world are doing some kind of experiment here and there, or the "United States of America's experiment"). Two parts that have been reported pretty heavily were that Sweden didn't close their schools in the spring, and that the country didn't have a lock down.Let's start with facts:

• Sweden moved high school and universites to online only in March/April.

• Sweden kept elementary and middle schoold open the whole time before summer break.

• Sweden kept daycare open the whole time, and kept it during summer break.

• While Sweden didn't have a mandatory lock down - there is no provision in the law during peace time to do this from congress - a lot of people worked from home, didn't travel, kept children at home, didn't visit grand parents and so on. (side note; Swedes are pretty good at following so called "governmental recommendations" as well as having a relatively big amount of single households in the country -world leading)

However, it's part of this fact checking that Sweden didn't see vast community spread outside of specific suburbs of Stockholm. And that the majority of people who have died so far have been people over 70 who lived in nursing homes/elder cares. It's a tragedy in itself, and should have been prevented.

Why am I mentioning this? Well, simply because I would say that the evidence in April looking at the metrics on who was infected, hospitalized and in ICU pointed at that there was a large group of "people over 60, definitely over 70" who were mainly affected of the virus. Other groups were showing low incidences.

However, like all epidemiologists (and some microbiologists) know there is that thing of "incidence bias". In short terms; as you look, you shall find. (how you test will bias the results you look at)

How many young adults were tested in the spring? How many people were really infected? How many people who had no symptoms were tested? (I bring this up since that's another group that has been shifting in interest the longer the pandemic and data gathering have been going on.)

There is this thing with incidence and drawing conclusions. It's fairly safe to presume that if a large group ends up in hospital during an outbreak - it's a high likelihood that that group is more susceptible than the rest of the population. It is sometimes "simple things" as "the people who have eaten at one restaurant", sometimes "an overabundance of people who are older".

However, it doesn't mean that the groups that aren't found in the hospital are safe. It means that they are either safe OR the outbreak hasn't touched them in large enough numbers for them to get sick. Depending on the numbers, the distribution of sick people might change, and the numbers of sick will people will change.

These details, as well as knowing the difference between an isolated outbreak, an ongoing epidemic and a move to a raging pandemic.... that's why I listen to experts. It's complex to break down all these parameters into bite size morsels of information that people can and want to digest. It requires trust with diseases specialists who work with this everyday. And most of all, it requires an understanding that whatever the data shows in the beginning of an outbreak/pandemic will most likely change with time and amount of people getting infected and that it is crucial to stay nimble, gather more information and reanalyze the results.

Anyway, to make a long story short. Looking at the facts of infection rate and age groups in the USA today it's pretty clear that
a) there's ongoing community spread in a lot of counties (% positive of tested over 10% in a conservative view)
b) actual numbers of infected children, youth and younger age groups are going up
c) there's been fatalities in the groups "under 25", even in "under 17" - which wasn't the case in EU
d) the situation in USA today (in various counties/states or as a nation) is not comparative to the situation in Sweden in the spring
e) the situation in USA today (in various counties/states or as a nation) is not comparative to the situation in EU at the moment where countries are opening up and preparing for school

I don't feel that this complex conversation is taking place - at least not in a bigger context as "the situation in the USA right now is completely different from the EU situation". (I know, northeast are looking more like EU and keeping the numbers pretty good with their continuing partial lock down and limited openness.) I have had a lot of various emotions about this, especially since there are so many things that could be done to mitigate and stop the spread.

Alas, I ended up writing this blog post to put words to my frustration. 

The final point. There is still time to do things to stop this virus from spreading. To be inconvenienced for another time in order to mitigate the spread and give us less infected, less in hospital, less lingering effects from people who have been infected. 

Why is this so important? Because if there is something that drives me completely bonkers right now is the statement "the virus will go away someday [so we don't need to do anything extra]".

(I am sorry about the caps lock) 
THERE IS NOTHING STATING THAT THIS VIRUS WILL GO AWAY ANYMORE. 

The ONLY way we would've eradicated it would've been to quell it completely before it spread into an endemic virus. If it was a "truth" that viruses go away "after awhile" we wouldn't have as many diseases, rare and all, that pop up every so often. 

There's been documented two viruses that have "gone away"; SARS-1 and Small Pox. (First because of effective lock downs and controls, with a virus that was highly deadly. Second because of a world wide joint effort of mass vaccinations and travel bans without showing proof of vaccinations.)

We haven't even eradicated measles even though we have a vaccine since 1970 (and a better one since 1986), and it affects and kills children. Just asking a simple question; if we haven't been able to eradicate a disease that is that deadly and horrible to children - what makes you think that SARS-Cov-2 "will just go away"? There's got to be a solid plan (including distribution of a made efficacious vaccine - this is for another post)

I'll stop since this post is too long, too upset and touching on a lot of different things. Let me know in the comments if there is something I should elaborate or remove. Thanks for reading and being there. 




*there were a number of younger Swedes and Finns who got bad side effects from the swine flu vaccine. It was, over all in hindsight, impossible to have anticipated these side effects. It was about 200 children in Sweden and about 100 in Finland if I remember correctly. Out of a combined population of 13 million at the time. It's difficult to know how this part would've been discovered in the way "we" establish vaccines to be safe in this day and age. Most safety trials require relatively few, and then in the Phase III part of the trials - the more rare side effects are gathered as informational. Still though, it was a huge break in trust and it effected them in a life altering way.

know it all - intentional or not?!

"She's so knowledgeable about all these things. I mean, I'm American and I didn't know that DC doesn't have a congress person or a Senator but she did and she's not even from here."

Welcome to "my musings when I take things as a backhanded comment but maybe it really isn't but I had a rough childhood and end up in a defense situation".

Obviously at this time - internal self reflections are a clear sign of something not great. I feel that I should write something about BlackLivesMatters, the protests, the killings by the police, the shooting of teargas, the riots, the looting, the general upheaval of the constitution of the United States of America if the Active military are patrolling or surveilling regular US cities.

However, encountering another one of these comments as written in the first paragraph brought me back to my childhood. The comment this time was voices after we had discussed the current situation in the country and mentioned the yellow paint of BlackLivesMatter on the DC street. And I had seen a video where that street close to the White House was renamed "Black Lives Matter Plaza" 

I had a small smile since I find these things (non violent yet clear statements for the public) very on point and something to point the finger at something that isn't quite right. It's easy to prove when someone is upset about something like this, to object they have to state their case and that means they have to state WHY it's upsetting. Case in point; in Iran the British Embassy was on Bobby Sands street and there was short period time that the Saudi embassy in DC was located on Khashoggi way.

Anyway, this is my long way into a shorter comment that DC is a District of Columbia and doesn't have state hood and not right as the "other states" of the USA (since it isn't a state). I pointed out that there is a person who can talk in the House of Rep but doesn't have a vote, and that they don't have a senator. Briefly touched on the idea that DC wasn't originally planned to have people living there to vote since they were either IN congress or worked FOR a person in congress but in any event they were signed up in their state they represented, and then there were "non persons" who built the White house etc.... (african americans 3/5 of a person deal)

And I understand that this is part of my issue - that I get uncomfortable when people drop those kind of comments since I don't know if it's to point out that I make them uncomfortable, or if I push too much or if it's simply a "wow you know a lot". I know that I automatically say "well, I don't have any kids so I have a lot of time to read" as an excuse.

Part of my time in school as a younger child was a lot about making fun of me for knowing a lot. And I know that I at that time was less smart on how I said things so I probably came off as a know-it-all. However, as a grown up - there are so many times when I've decided not to rock the boat and not offer an explanation or a fact on the topic of discussion. Why? Because it's really not liked a lot of times. And, like when dating or getting a report with people in power at work or networking, it's just best to be a woman with "just enough" brain and wit.

My issues are those times are more obvious when discussing something that might have a more complex background and leading to some faulty conclusion. And when these things arrive - I've made a decision to state my knowledge and see what happens. If nothing else, I can feel ok with having said something, and not argue away. That's not the key point.

However, it would be great to not feel like a freak knowing things that apparently other people don't know. I guess I have to work on how I say things (yet again). Luxury issues - that's what this is. Real issues - outside our windows every day. #blacklivesmatter

small filter - maybe slight venting?

I've been drafting these blog posts about "sensitivity and specificity", "difference between antibody test (serotests) and PCR (RT-PCR)" and "timeline of pandemics". They are all still in the works. I got sidetracked though. Not by something fun. Not even by my work, even though I've managed to have two hard deadlines and another coming up within a few days, but by fighting this feeling that "throwing pearls for swine isn't worth it".

Nownow, I know the mistake of the analogy. First off, my blog readers are few and a lot of you I kinda know over the years. So, not "random", and most certainly not appropriate to have an analogy to "swine" as in the saying. For argument sake, let's disregard the saying and move on with the post.

It might just be the notion that writing explanations and trying to make sense of what is going on in the world from a microbiology point of view would be a good idea IF the posts were read in good faith by someone who might learn and even change their way of thinking.

Alas, and here comes the tiredness and the reason for the crude analogy, there's been quite a few interactions with people who go at things in bad faith. And also that they are so firmly lodged in the "other camp" that they have no interest, no semblance of idea, to learn or listen to facts.

And after the latest couple of weeks sharing borders with conspiracy theorist, "freedom seekers" and "God & Trump will protect us and the virus will go away with the heat in June" - I have spent a lot of energy not saying what I think. Not stating rude things. Not making over the top faulty "I want this to be true" signs posting them all over internet or calling people names. (Like they have done.)

Why? Because I was raised to be a behaved person. I was raised to respect and accept other opinions than my views. I was raised that "be above such muck".

However, I was also raised to stand up for what I believe in.
And I was raised to protect the people who couldn't protect themselves.
To think about and consider the people who didn't have a voice in the society.
To NOT only think about myself.
To be alright with having some discomfort IF it meant others were protected and it saved others.
To NOT put myself first all the time but to be humble and considerate of others.
To do the best thing for all of us, not only the best thing for me and mine.

Some of these things have been easier than others the last few months. I won't lie.

"First, do no harm"
I'm not a physician but the sentiment would be something that I was raised considering regardless. Got to be honest though, my experience with bullies - and I'm afraid I have more than I would've liked - is that you can turn the other cheek a lot of times, and not stoop to their level and be the better person.

Sadly (?) though, I would say that there was some experience of an effective way to stop and that was "to stoop at their level" and intimidate back. Threaten as the bully was threatening. Strike a punch and they got scared and thought it wasn't worth it. And to be the bigger person if finding a bully in the younger peer group, bullying the younger ones.

I don't like the experience the violence and threat "solved some bullying". I'm old enough now to see that it works for specific occasions. And that it is situational, like a four year old knows that mommy will be more likely to give the candy in the store if threatened with a full on temper tantrum and screaming and all the noise.

I had some hope that we were above being four year olds as adults. Or that it needed to be "brought to your own family for you to care". I'm now contemplating that a lot. I find myself looking back at my grandmother's teachings of being a lady, while running a secondary commentary in my head "let's go outside and solve this the old fashioned way".

But most of all I have had to fight my thoughts of "maybe, just maybe it's going to have to be really bad for these people to understand the errors of their ways" - also known as Burn it to the ground.  It is a fairly common tactic in war after all (hello Russia in WWII and Germany on their Western front). Main issue is that there are A LOT of collateral damage. And again, the main issue here is that even if that would be a wakeup call for many "good faith" people, it wouldn't mean anything to "bad faith argument people". They see what they want to see. And collateral damage doesn't face them.

That means that the main thing getting hurt from that would be me and the collateral damage, and that wouldn't really help anything now would it?

TLDR: 
Wash your hands.
It's helpful for vulnerable people (and you and others) if we keep social distancing.
Since we don't know everyone, if you are grocery shopping, in a closed space or on a public transportation, please wear a mask to save others like if you have the virus.
IF you feel sick, stay home and don't expose others.
It's the only way vulnerable people (and others like health care workers) will be able to go outside for the foreseeable future.

And also, if you still think this is a hoax - you are fooled by whatever outlet you watch, read or listen to. The virus and the consequences of being sick are real. And we don't even begin to know how being sick has affected people who have recovered.

"let's wish the virus away" and other comments - from a microbiologist

The last couple of weeks (months if you are picky) it's been very clear to me that a lot of people are stating opinions and thoughts in regards to covid-19 that are not based on fact, nor knowledge. As I've been working from home and reading news, tweets, facebook posts and listened to a number of news shows and podcast - I've come to grow increasingly frustrated with a few very obvious limitations in what people really know in regards to viruses and pandemics.

This post is in no way covering all things that I would like to point out. It's mainly a try to state some of the bigger points that have been confused/forgotten/ignored/whathaveyou - in my opinion and knowledge as a trained microbiologist with training in viruses, bacteria and having been an active researcher at the time of the last pandemic (H1N1) where I was part of conferences and guideline preparations on what countries, companies and people could do to prepare for a situation that no one wanted to happen.

1) it's very important to remember that comparing countries - both in regards to "reported cases", "reported fatalities" and "actions suggested and legislation enforced" - are very different and difficult to compare to each other.
Example; one country only reports deaths in hospitals where the person have had a positive test for virus, another counts all deaths in a hospital where a person have been previously tested positive for the virus and people who died in nursing homes having a few symptoms associated with the virus.

2) the actions taken by various countries depend, not only on the way the various government have ability to enforce regulations, but also on when in a pandemic they encounter the virus that is spreading across the globe. If early, complete eradication might be possible, if later in the time line - mitigation might be the only opportunity.

3) reporting "positive tests" as a number on its own is not helpful unless presented in context of "how is testing done" and with numbers of "how many tests have been administrated". This is the long way of saying - know which part of population is being tested, how often and with which test.
Example; one country tests only people going to the hospital with symptoms, another country tests people who go to school regardless of symptoms.

4) as long as there is no vaccine nor treatment that will make an infected person better, there is no other option to stay healthy but not becoming infected. Any infected person will have to beat the infection on their own. Some people benefit from helpful interventions like ventilators, a lot of people don't necessarily get better as much as we would like from these interventions.

5) saying "it will go away" doesn't solve anything. The virus "will go away" when it is no longer present in the population by not having any more susceptible people to infect (either by everyone being immune due to earlier infection or by vaccination) or when we have successful treatments. This also implies that a lot of people will have become infected and either survived (immune) or not survived the infection (died) or a treatment has been found.
Example; very few infectious diseases have "gone away". Even when we have vaccines. They have decreased and for a lot of them they might "flare up" in a smaller part of the population and then we can successfully protect more people so they don't get infected. This is also where viruses are different from bacteria since for many of the infectious bacteria we have found an antibiotic that can treat the cause of infection. For viruses, viral infections, the only known "treatment" is a vaccine which technically is viewed as a prevention, rather than treatment, since you need to be vaccinated before being exposed to the virus and therefore avoid infection.

6) most airborne and droplet spread infections will be hindered by hand washing (the virus will not be present on your hands and therefore not spread when you put your hands in your face), wiping down shared surfaces you touch (with your hands) or by limiting the number of people you meet and talk, cough, hug, kiss or hand off infected stuff to.
Example; someone coughs in a room and droplets end up on a keyboard, you later touch the key board with your hand and then touch your face.... the virus spreads. If the keyboard is wiped down between different users, the virus will be removed/inactivated and the other user will not catch the virus on their hands.

7) masks limit the amount of virus particles you spread and that others spread to you when breathing/coughing. Proper mask handling is key for this to work. Improper mask handling will create a sense of false safety and therefore might increase the spread.

8) regardless of your political affiliation - the virus doesn't care about that - everyone in a society is susceptible to viruses (and other infectious diseases). Virus aren't sentient and therefore per definition "not smart" or "intelligent" or any other wording that's being used.

9) Actually, per strict biological definition a virus isn't alive since it can't replicate on its own. A virus needs to infect a cell to be able to replicate. That's why researchers make a distinction of "being able to replicate" or "infectious doses" and "RNA titers". Of course, this is detail that for much of the current (social and political) discussion isn't really relevant if it's not for the point that a test showing there is RNA present in someone doesn't automatically correlate to that person having a viable virus that can infect and then replicate (it's more likely than not that the virus titer indicates that there is a presence of virus being able to replicate - especially for this covid19 bullet point list that I'm writing here). For the sake of 99% of the conversation about covid19 though, this point is not key relevant since it's the weeds and details that many researchers take into consideration (mainly super important for the discussion of tests and their sensitivity and false negatives and false positives - see point 10).

10) the general understanding of what constitutes a "validated and confirmed biological test used in hospital setting/for medical purposes" is low. There are a lot of details going into validating a test. Two of the most important factors are sensitivity and specificity. The test needs to be specific enough to only pick up specific factors from the virus (microbe) in question to be positive. The test also needs to be sensitive enough to pick up factors even when in small quantities. There are more factors that are important but in general, I'd say these two factors are key when discussing "false negatives and false positives".
Example: currently there are a lot of antibody tests being deployed all over the world to investigate and confirm how many people have really been infected by SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes covid19). The antibody test need to be specific enough to ONLY give positive to people who have been infected by SARS-CoV-2 and not any other virus around. It also needs to be clear how sensitive it is - as in "how many antibodies/what level of immune response" will the test detect. This latter part is complicated since it's not known what kind of threshold is needed to be protected for future exposure nor what kind of immune response various individuals have had if they've been symptomatic or asymptomatic. (see, I'm in the weeds now... lots of details on the background on validation of these tests.)

11) microbiology, epidemiology and public health are specific areas of expertise where there are a lot of facts and previously collected knowledge that are helpful when determining what to do, when and how. There is a difference between non trained people and trained people in regards of this knowledge.

12) no situation is being helped by panic. Many situations involving "unknowns" and "large amount of people potentially afflicted" create panic reactions and knee jerk responses at the time they happen. This is why it's important to have a plan before a bad situation happens since then there is less second guessing or panic reactions but rather "following a plan previously vetted and laid out". Most health care workers have been trained in planned responses, so that when "panic situations" arise, the trained people don't panic but rather adapt well to the planned response and go through the situations many of us untrained people wouldn't handle as well. Trust well trained workers.

I'll stop here since I don't want to overthink or write more at this time. It's my vent and my thoughts and feelings. And hopefully someone who reads this will find it helpful. It was helpful for me to write it down. And possibly I'll make a blog post regarding number 10 - Validation of biological tests - later since I've created test validations under FDA (21 CFR part 11) and EU equivalent from EMA (EU Annex 11) requirements.

WFH - or "being at home trying to work when crisis going on"?

It's been four weeks for me being at home and not being allowed to go to "campus" (my office). so officially I'm "Working From Home" - WFH.

One of the things that I've been dealing with is the fact that I was SO proud I never got a proper organized work from home station organized at home. (I'll have a disclaimer here - since I'm a "straight A person" this has been stressful. Don't get me wrong, last few years in my job I've worked "being off campus/off hours on weekends" but it's always been my work laptop on my dining table, for a selective period of hours.) It has NOT been in what I call "my room" where I do crafts, write my blog posts, skype with my parents on the weekends, write my short stories - in short; where I do my hobbies and feel like I'm in my personal space (as an introvert).

It's been a temporary space when I pen my laptop on the dining table in the mornings or perhaps the few days I've been at home the entire day working but not going into the office)l.

Now?

Well, sorry sweethearts. My "hobby/relaxing/lovely 'my' room" is turned into "my office". I have my work monitor, a set up with the keyboard, headphones and all the work papers and books that I brought with me from work with special approval. On one level I understand that I should feel grateful that I not only can work from home, and also that we have a full extra room that I can call "my room" - another part of me was very annoyed that "my" room is no longer "my" room rather than "my work room". It might not be an issue for a lot of people, but for me - it's clearly a new thing, and something I have needed to take some time adapting and accepting.

It's similar to what a colleague of mine mentioned last week. They talked to me about issues that have come up with employees who have a though time adapting to working from home - mainly since they are lab workers and do lots of lab work - with out lab, what do they do? And that they are fortunate to get a pay check anyways (my work place is paying everyone so far, no furloughs of full time employees, regardless of "being able to do work from home or not").

For me I've mainly been dealing with the idea that I could technically work at least 12 hours a day, every day. There's a lot of things I need to do that's only me doing and once I'm done, we are done. So, part of my anxiety is to focus on that I "will not" do the work in 3 days, but I will do it in 4 days since I'm working 8 hours a day from home.

Trust me, it's not that easy and clear cut for a slightly over-working, over-achieving type A personality like myself.

Another way of looking at this situation - especially when talking to colleagues who are at home with children and therefore feel guilty that they aren't doing great in either place, their younger kids are upset "mommy/daddy doesn't play with me", nor that they get enough done at work - is looking at it slightly differently.

It's not "working from home" as we usually know it. It's "being at home and trying to work in a crisis". Sometimes giving the right frame to a picture makes you see the details in a clearer light and giving you an added understanding to your emotions and actions.

42km/26.2miles - again?! why? (marathon musings)

I realized that I never did follow up on my post about marathon training last year . Together with my earlier musings this year in regards to Lessons learned post I put up, I feel that it might be a good idea to do follow up....

So, in short I ran the marathon after 6 months of training. Like a lot of people will say, the race didn't go according to plan. I woke up to thunderstorms, delayed start, pouring rain like you wouldn't believe and then more delayed start. When the start happened the sun was up and the course was pretty much without shade, it was 96% humidity and unusually hot for being in December (80F/26C) in the shade. I had a sneaky feeling at 10 miles when I wanted to use the restroom to pee that I was in trouble since there was no way I really needed that. Especially since I know that one of the signs to flash "you're in dehydration" mode, is the feeling that I need to pee. Strange, yet there it is.

I still felt pretty ok about it all when I saw a runner getting taken off the course at mile 12 (medics pulled them off). And then the runner who almost ran into a tree. And then runner who was all gray in their face, walking slowly and then threw up next to me. At that point I started to think "what is the most important thing for me?". And it wasn't about finishing on a good time, it was finishing strong. So, I started walking a little and took it slow and steady.

I picked up the pace again closer to the finish line, once I hit 22 miles I felt safe to run "as fast as I could to get in goal" and did my last mile as the fastest mile of the whole race. Happiness for me! I crossed the finish line, got my participation medal, snapped a few photos with it and went to the hydration and food stance. Called my parents and talked about the race, still feeling pretty good about it all. And then the strangest thing happened when I met with my partner (in hindsight I should've seen it coming but I am good at ignoring certain things) - I started crying and mumbling that I hadn't done a good race. There were so many emotions all at once. Not only tired, but "not as tired as I thought I would be" (since I hadn't pushed myself as much since I was scared of the dehydration and belly cramps). Not as fast as I had hoped, which I had told myself all alone was never going to be the goal - "first race is to finish, not for time".

It all felt a bit better after the cry, the hugs and "you're being silly sweetie, you did great", and of course the glorious shower once I got home. And hydration fluids and a little bit of food. And more rest.

All in all, looking at the scale and the weighing before carbo loading, before the race and after the race - I lost over 6 pounds in water weight that day. I was seriously nervous about how little fluids I had left in my body (pee colour I've never seen before...) but I kept up with hydration two more days and then I had my annual physical. (Wouldn't recommend it but there is was.) My labs were excellent by the way, go me and hydration!

So, why do I bring this up now? Well, because I have gone and signed up for another marathon to do soon. And this time around my anxiety (competitiveness) is ramping up and I have to face a few uncomfortable truths.

I've always detested "the second time". I had to do my driver's license test twice and I was way more nervous the second time than the first. The first was "you just go and try", the second was "if you fail now you really aren't good". In short, stakes were/are higher the repeat time than the first. In theory, I should be faster this second time than my first race. But that's in theory, not a given. And it is a chance I will fail at that.

I got a good eye opener the other week when talking to a colleague about the training and how the running is going when they asked; "who are you running for? It doesn't sound like you look forward to this". And I thought to myself, "hm, that's an interesting thing.. I am way more nervous about this time around. I want to make a better time than last year, and I would like to feel better afterwards. But if I don't make a better time, how will I feel?". I answered them that this is one of the reasons I wanted to do it a second time, to prove to myself that I can do it "when I know what I am getting myself into and see if I can repeat what I did".

Funny enough (?), until I was on the course last year I never would've thought that I couldn't finish. All my training was still while never having doubt. I did my training program, kept at it and chafing and all, I still kept slogging along. It was while I was on the course, during the race, that I realized that it could go pear shaped at any time. That my training had been good, but at that point there were a lot of choices that I could make that would make things very difficult and that it wasn't at all clear that I would finish just because I had started (after all, more than 500 people of the 3000 who started didn't finish). And that knowledge - the doubt and the knowledge on how fickle the weather and life can be - is more prevalent this time around.

It's one of the things I have realized more and more the older I get, a trait (skill?) I have that isn't in everyone - the ability of shutting down and just keep going. Sometimes it's a good trait, sometimes it would've been better to stop and leave - accept that the situation is horrid and there's nothing you can do and you need to get out. I'm not saying it's all great to "persevere", sometimes it's plain dumb and I have certainly a few experiences that I would do differently if they came about today.

However, there are times - like when you are pushing yourself to jog 26.2 miles in a go - that the ability of not questioning "why am I doing this" but focusing on "one more mile, then I'll take a sip of water" is a good trait to have. The other benefit for me doing this is that I have to get over myself mentally - especially when I do my long runs. I have to get my brain in gear and think "I can do this". Somewhere during the run my brain will start spewing negative thoughts, not only doubt but "you're too slow", "you're too fat to do this", "why do you keep trying", "start walking and turn around to go home" etc. I've mentioned before, and it's probably all too obvious in my previous posts, that I am a champion in having these less than supportive self esteem thoughts. The good thing though is that it's really hard for my brain to do those thoughts after a long run when the body and brain is drenched in dopamine and my muscles have used up adrenalin and I lay panting on the floor hurting everywhere.

And I'm smart enough to remember that feeling when my brain comes knocking saying "hey, you're on mile 4, let's go home instead of doing another 12 miles". That's when the stubbornness kicks in and states "keep going, it'll be over soon enough and you will feel great afterwards".

All in all, what I wanted to say with this post is:
If you wanted to do a marathon - go ahead and train! Give yourself at least 6 months. I had done 6 half marathons before, and would recommend at least one half marathon before a full so you know how you feel after 2hours of jogging/running.
It's a lot of mental training to keep training and to keep running. And it gives you a different perspective on a lot of things. And if you can do it without music (which I recommend), it's an amazing time to be alone with your thoughts and really tap into feeling your body, breathing and everything.
And I really hope that my second marathon race will feel at least as good as the first. Fingers crossed!


TLDR: I hope I feel happy after my second marathon than my first. It was a lot of emotions and expectations in one day. And I want to prove to myself I can repeat this training and race a second time since now I know what I can expect from the race - and it's going to be tough. Mainly overcoming my own expectations and shortcomings.

some thoughts on #metoo and women

Like everyone I've seen the feeds of #meetoo on social media. I didn't want to add myself in the mix while I was thinking. Mainly because I thought it was fairly common knowledge that women are being harassed, partly because I am private about "what happened to me" since it's private. Yes, this would be one of the issues that make the harassment difficult to stop, the shame and non-privacy aspect.

Anyway, after these more than two weeks since it broke a few things stand out to me.

First, it's been a huge thing in Sweden where equality work and feminism is on the active political agenda (two of the political parties have very clear wording on what they would like to accomplish in terms of future society, and almost all party leaders call themselves feminists). It's been a drive to "stop this culture of harassment now!" and demonstrations and now the latest the secretary of arts becoming involved with the national dramatic scene since 456 actresses published an article today telling their stories of harassment and sexual abuse in their work spaces (theatre and movie industry as well).

Second, the comments from not just one man but several in my vicinity where they've opened with various comments as "I just don't understand, those allegations refer to something that happened years ago" and "really, it's just a comment - it's not that bad", not to mention "Do you really think all these women have had something happened to them, maybe just someone calling them cute in the workplace, that's really not harassment". And of course, with utmost sincerity "well, it hasn't happened to you right - so not all women" and the subsequent shock when I had to reply to them "It's happened to me, several time and degrees. I don't think I know any of my female friends over 25 who hasn't had an inappropriate come on from a coworker/manager, and let's not even go into the bar scene where everyone I know have had a least one man grabbing their boobs or butt" (I tend to separate the drunken incidents from the general discussion since I have noticed that "I was drunk" is a common point of excuse and takes the focus out of the actual problem - the touching/harassment.)

Third, the subdiscussion coming out of this where a bunch of men, and women, start yelling and talking about "this makes it impossible to joke at the workplace" and "all these women turning into victims and this isn't helping women's image as strong at all". It's been a surge in the "let¨s all do the Mike Pence way and not be alone with a woman if you are a man" thinking. Not as much discussion about what kind of jokes are you really throwing around in a workplace? It's not your home you know.

To me the obvious faulty step with the third point is that it really says "a man can not be left alone with a woman since then he will assault her because he can't control himself". I call BS on that. Most men I know have no issue being alone with a woman and nothing goes out of hand. Some men are bullies(opportunist/sociopaths/harassers/bad people). These people are always going to use a one-on-one situation to their advantage. For the life of me I can't understand why not more men are raising to the occasion and saying "I don't want to be associated with those men, therefore I will not be the silent witness around".  Not to mention that the idea that a man can't control their behaviour around a women when opportunity arises to be doing something alone seems to me to be.... let's say very animalistic and basic, not really civilized and being in control of your own body and mind. Something similar to the argument that a woman can't be president because we don't know what will happen when her ovaries gives her PMS and she has access to the nukes. Yes, BS.

If we bring it back to the science scene, rather than the acting scene since I'm a trained scientist and have spent more than two decades in academia and pharma. Science and art have similar feature when it comes to perpetuating the genius image. You know the "he is so talented and successful, super special" feature. The golden lab with the associations. The PI who gets all the grants, the PR and the glory. The lab where you go and then you get invitation letters to the ball with the keys to the kingdom after a successful grad studies/post doc/first appointment.

And when genius is involved, a lot of things slide. Same with money, when money gets involved - a lot of things are overlooked. You want to keep the golden ticket and be associated with the gold and the glitter. Especially if you have invested in them. The higher up, the more protection. Nothing new about that.

I'm missing the biggest discussion I have had though. I touch on it in the second comment above. "It doesn't seem so bad that someone would lose their job now 15 years later" - mentioned in context about "he touched her thigh under the dinner table at a state dinner" and "he talked about oral sex in front of me when I thought we were going to talk about work". I had to get into the nitty gritty details and explain the surrounding extra things that to my surprise was not on the radar of the person I was speaking to. Then again, while talking I remember again that the perception of "threat" is very different when you are a tall man compared to a average woman. Not to mention that if you go to a state dinner to discuss affairs of the state, is it a positive to realize that the man next to wants to touch and grab you, rather than respecting you to know your thoughts and politics about the issues at hand?

Long story short, the upsetting (and unacceptable) part in these stories are when you as a woman have to encounter sexual advances from men while you think that you are discussing work, while they are not remotely interested in you as a contributor to the science, but rather to make them feel good and feel manly and in control. Every such encounter adds to your archive of incidents and after a few years, you start seeing these (what some people call) small incidents as the start of something bigger. It's the "feeler/grooming" territory. It's about not respecting your boundaries since they are not even a part of the conversation. It's also simply about power and a little help from their friends.

It's been said SO many times, most of these men know exactly what they are doing. They are not behaving like this with everyone. They do it when they know they have the power. And maybe most galling, the do it when they know that the other (powerful) men around them will not do anything against them.

I wrote on twitter awhile back "Do they behave in this way in front of their wife or daughter?". If they do, they fall into a very clear abuser definition since they are very entitled. A lot of them do not though. They know where the line is when other people whom they need to maintain a good character in front of are watching. After a dinner at a conference where they are in control is not one of those times.

A friend and I talked about the age old "professor sleeps with student" scenario that seems to be so  difficult to get understanding that it is not appropriate and never excusable. Never mind the post-doc/grad student in a relationship with PI. The latter is especially galling to me since I've heard the excuse so many times "she is a grown woman and can choose what she wants. You don't know thtat the PI inserted influence and there was anything inappropriate going on". (I say her since it's mainly female post-doc/grad student with male PI). Never mind the whole structure in science that we know that if your post-doc PI doesn't support your future career in science, it's going to be very hard for you to get the keys to get invited. And IF your PI opens the door to inappropriate behaviour, how difficult is it to reject the advances without hurting that precious position? And especially if you know that your institution nor the other PIs/people in power doesn't have the best track record of helping you/the non faculty. So WHY would the PI want to risk their reputation on this? (Because they don't risk that much, that would be my short answer).

When I started in science I naively thought that the employee handbook - where it clearly states "no person can have a relationship with someone who is their direct report" - was a rule. My friend works in a place where they have the same rule. I saw that Berkley, San Diego and the other universities that have been in the news for their disgraced PIs lately have similar writings. Yet, when it comes to geniuses, or people who has secured a lot of grant funding, these rules are just not as easy. And most often it's the "oh, would you really want to ruin his life and lab, it was just a little touching, or a late night text. Surely you can take the compliment and not make a fuzz." The colleagues to the person stepping over the line silently distancing themselves doesn't help either.

The long and short of this rant is this:
To me it's obvious what a lot of this confusion is about when it come to "why such a big deal". It's that specific feeling of being regarded as meat, as someone's pleasure, regardless if you have a will of your own since their will overrides everything else. You should be happy that this genius is interested in you - not your mind though - but wanting to be with you. You should thankful that they deem you interesting enough to care about them. I guess they think that the shine will rub off once they sully your body with their hands or their thoughts about what they can do to you.

I don't think they have ever considered how impersonal it is to be viewed only as a piece of meat (boobs, butt or other parts) that makes them feel happy and aroused. Because really, isn't that what being a woman should be all about? Being admired and wanted for our looks. We all apparently want to be Helen of Troy, not Morgaine Le Fay.

a lab is like a NHL team?

I know, it's a little out there. And it might not be super accurate but the last week I've thought a little more about "what makes a good player/PI/postdoc" and "what makes a good team". It's mostly in the context of some moving a person with specific skills from one environment to another environment and hoping they will thrive in this new place. You know, like it happens all the time in science when a graduate student moves to a post-doc, or a player changes team and moves up to the NHL.

I'd admit, I started really thinking about this yesterday when I read this piece in ESPN and coupled it with what happened with Vegas Knights' player Sjipatjov/Shipachyov (depending on which transliteration you use, Swedish or English). Side note, if you are interested here is the official guide to "how to" from Russia to English from IIHF.

Anyway, back to the issue at hand. Just because someone is a shiny star in one place, doesn't mean that they are going to be shiny stars in a different environment. In certain things, this is obvious. In other situations, maybe not as obvious. And then there is that additional factor of "the majority of people want to feel comfortable" in order to do a stellar job performance.

The first time I encountered the discussion in a lab setting was as a graduate student with a predominantly homogeneous department. Let's say 90% was speaking fluent Swedish. It obviously meant that any visiting scholar was going to be either "changing the entire conversation into English" or "feel a little isolated when everyone was chatting away in their own language".

I've mentioned it before, it might not be an issue to keep all work presentations and seminars in English (common language) - however the small talk between people in the lab is usually feeling slightly contrived if it is in "not your native tongue when you are in majority in the group" (like being 9 native Swedish people and 1 foreigner). Yet, and I've given this spiel before - A LOT of communication and work productivity is lost if some members of the team doesn't pick up on the general chat that goes on. Of course, as I am not outside of the lab - I've missed that a lot of people nowadays wear headphones all the time so maybe this isn't as much of an issue that I had back in the days?

Moving to the United States, this became more diverse and complicated. The majority of the people at my institute were native English speakers. And we had a lot of international post-docs in the labs. A lot of people gathered and got to know each other, some more lucky (?) than others with having a peer group who spoke their native language and getting a taste of home. I still would argue though that if you are in a group of say 6-10 people, I think it is fairly rude to start chatting away in your own language if there is only one or two people who don't speak the language. (Yes, I've been there. As a person who has chosen to live with a person who doesn't speak my native language but hanging out with people who do.... I try and translate and keep him in the conversation since I find it extremely rude and excluding and these situations have decreased.)

It's different if you go off on your own with a small exclusive group, say three swedes go for dinner. There is no reason why we would speak English with each other but rather bond with our native tongue, exploring all the feelings that come from speaking your own language with all the nuances.

I digress from the point of the article. Most often when you talk about language issues and NHL there is a Russian somewhere in there. Why? Because other European countries have more English and do use the same alphabet as English. There have been a few examples of Russian players who come to the United States and start playing for NHL and not knowing any English at all. They have been great at playing hockey, stars of KHL but moving to NHL is a whole different game.

Some teams solve this a little different. There are stories about "host families" who speak Russian and English and take care of the 20-22 year old man who now is living in a completely different world. Others might have "another Russian" on the team and expecting them to guide the new guy into a more American style, interpret and then hopefully get the English going. The rumors around Shipachyov has been that he moved from Russia to Las Vegas as a 30year old who doesn't speak English, no host family or other Russian player on the team and that this didn't work out for him. There is probably a lot of other things, but a lot has been mentioned about this language/cultural barrier and that the owner and manager team might not have done as much as the could.

It's like when some new post-doc move to the new lab from another country and doesn't speak English that well or almost at all. They were good in their old environment, star in the lab, had good publications yet coming to the new lab entails learning where everything is, how things are done, where to go in the city for regular chores etc. Not always so easy and some institutions have a post-doc coordinator or an academic office to help with relocation issues. I know that I benefited enormously from the one that was there to welcome me. I don't know how I would've gotten a bank account, found a car, gotten a driver license and all those other stuff that I fixed the first two weeks of settling in the United States after getting off the plane with two suitcases.

All of this ranting is because I'm trying to avoid being rude. You see, I have a bad flaw when certain people start complaining about "they don't speak English all the time". It sometimes happens when people say similar things about Swedish, although it's easier making excuses for not knowing Swedish (small language, pretty difficult to pronounce), but I'm not as annoyed by it, my bad. My complaint is mainly these people say something to the point that they feel excluded in their own country and that "we need to put our foot down about this". (If you read the ESPN article linked in the beginning, look up Mr Seguin's comment. That's pretty much right on point where my irritation happens.) The unfair thing I want to ask them is "so how many languages do you speak?" Or sometimes, when I'm feel really self-important I'd say "come back when you've learned another language". Partly to point out that it isn't the easiest thing in the world to master a new language. Partly to bring to their attention that maybe, just maybe, they could pick up some new words themselves and make an effort to know something else that their native language?

I realize that it's a lot to ask from a hockey player to pick up Russian when playing in the NHL. And really, if they should pick up something it would be Swedish (109 players in NHL are Swedish, 66 Russian and 44 Czech) but hey - I'm just pointing out that there could be a humility about the fact that even if they are playing in the NHL, maybe that is because NHL is the best league in the world and people want to play there.

Similar to when people want to work in a world famous international lab. Regardless of the lab being in the USA or in France or in Holland, the people want to go there and work with the best of the best in that field. And maybe, just maybe, we have to accept that it means that it will be a little uncomfortable and that everyone, not just the people who move there, will have to make some changes and adapt to make everyone feel welcome and produce the best of their ability?

(Disclaimer; if you read this far - thanks. I personally think that learning the language of your new country is a must if you want to fit in. If my lab had been in France, I would have to speak more French, just as a lot of people moving to Sweden have to learn the language of 10 million people to make themselves more comfortable. What really pissed me off with Mr Seguin's comment was the fact that he lived in Switzerland for a year playing there. While he was there? He didn't speak any of the four languages given as an opportunity but kept on in his American English. So..... I would've hoped that he could've had just a little more understanding and humility than what he explains in the article as "putting down the foot and speak English since we are in the US". I just would've liked him to think that maybe his team mates in Switzerland would have liked to keep talking French/German on the ice rather than accommodating to him. Alas, I have prejudice and doubt he ever went there in his head. Mean me.)

when procrastinating isn't an option

I'm as a good procrastinator as anyone. I remember being an undergraduate student and prepping for exams knowing that I don't really like studying in the morning but rather start in the afternoon. I had one hard rule, all through university and that I've kept the rest of the years. If I have an exam on Tuesday morning, I did not go out the weekend or did anything that resembled fun. I was suppose to study, and even if I knew that I wouldn't spend too much time Saturday doing just that, I gave myself an opportunity to do it. What usually happened? I woke up early on Saturday - intention to study. Ate breakfast, prepped a large pot tea, placed all study material on the table and started organizing the things. Then I remembered to clean my room, my bathroom, maybe there was some food needing cooking?, and so on... the clock started ticking towards 16 and usually by then I was sitting down by my desk and starting picking up the pace. And come 22 I was deep in thoughts and getting stressed about "how little time I had left to do all the things that needed to be done by Tuesday morning".

This pattern repeated itself plenty of times. I started having these weekends earlier than 3 days ahead of schedule so I didn't have to stress quite as much. However, the sad thing is I usually needed some sort of time pressure like that to really get to it and study/spend my time doing what needed to be done. This pattern also repeats itself when it comes to doing taxes for example. I'm never late but it takes a least one day of procrastinating and staring at the papers and starting the process yet knowing that I will not finish it in one day. I will have to go back and double check everything and shuffle around a bit in the space.

It's a good reminder now when I have to finish a certification before the holidays. I have to study for it, but I also have to pay for the time and date to take a certification before I have finished studying since the available time slots for taking the exam are limited... not my ideal situation if I were to say so.

Well, all of this blog post? A clear procrastinating tactic since I should finish my application for the exam and then finish the first 3 chapters in the book so I can say that I'm keeping with my schedule. Lucky me! I have set up some time in the coming weeks when I can take off from work so I can stay home and shuffle my feet and get started on my studying, hopefully before 13 o'clock in the day. Wish me luck!

For now, I have procrastinated enough for today and will finish my application since the application isn't getting better unless I work on it and the later I put it in, the less time slots and freedom do I have for the other studying! Happy Sunday!

Stockholm syndrome

After some days when I've encountered the same question at least five times, I had to stop and think yesterday why it bothered me so much.

The question? "I've heard that Sweden is such a great country, why did you leave and aren't you going back there". It's also been "do you think you are moving back to Sweden since it's such a great place".

From some of the people who has asked, I understand. They come from countries where they can't go back. There is war, there's less heath care, fresh water, clean air, democracy and so on. The didn't want to leave but took a chance to get a decent life. A couple of them do comment that they stay in the USA because of their kids, they want to give them a good start in life. Then they ask, why don't you go back? You don't have kids and your family like mom and dad, siblings, cousins are there.

Yes indeed, why don't I?

My initial thought process - this is a _very_ private question and I really don't have an interest in sharing my life choices with every Tom, Dick and Harry - aside, why don't I? I guess it's because a lot of things in life, I'm a little vain and insecure at the same time. I've also lived abroad before I moved away for my post doc and the return to Sweden was.... interesting. Maybe something other people recognize in other countries, I know that lots of Swedes who has lived abroad know what I mean since we've shared the feelings and thoughts about this. A lot of them have moved back to Sweden, just to move out again and find another country to live in for awhile.

It's a complicated feeling, this love for a lagom land where people walk around thinking it's the best place in the world. (And it might very well be, since it is pretty awesome.) The issue? My issue? The people complain so bloody much about all the things that aren't great, yet fail to actually do something about it. The consensus attitude and fear of stepping out of the group is very very large. That not being part of the group is something that most people fear. You want to fit in, you want to be like everyone else. You don't want people to say that you are "wrong" or "not part of the group". Most of the times this is a good thing. I grew up with it and I can't say that I didn't like it then. It's a community feeling and in order to obtain it, you have to be a team person. However, there are some obvious drawbacks with it and once you've seen them, they're pretty hard to ignore.

Anyway, the simple answer to "why aren't you going back" is - I haven't managed to get a job back home yet. After 2 years as a post doc and being away from my country I applied for about 40 jobs. The general gist, at that time (only 2! years away from home) was "well, do you think you will be able to move back here after being so successful in the USA" and "do you think you can manage to speak Swedish everyday*" [say hello to the little complex of being one in the group and moving away to big country and not failing is not "being part of the group"]. The overall summary comment of my job seeking experiment at that time was "we might be able to find something for you, if you reapply once you are back on Swedish soil so we know that you are actually here". And therein lies the rub. I am a little bit proud you see, and not as desperate to move right this very minute, that I would quit my job and move back and then look for jobs. I understand that it might have to be that way, but really - it's not a viable idea for me right now. Of course, the higher I go in my present career, the more experience and well rounded I become, maybe the likelihood of "taking a chance with me" will increase? Time will tell.

The idea of this blog post however was a little more somber, hence the title. During my time as a post-doc, and my current interactions with people working in lab environments, I've come to realise that there are quite a few "less than ideal working environments" going around and how that has affected some of my friends. While I'm quite ok with working in a lab where people aren't super friendly and doesn't need to hang out outside of work, as long as they are not hostile out right, I'm quite happy. However, I've had the good fortune to have close bosses/supervisors who has respected me and supported me most of the time. Maybe because I was lucky (very dubious word here) to encounter less supportive and not so great boss behaviour early on, I have actively chosen places where I feel that the boss and I can have an open, honest and clear line of communication.

Some of my friends have not been so lucky. And it's very complicated (at least for me) to stand by idly when they start making these really weird decisions after a few years and you can clearly see that it is because they've adapted their behaviour to their boss. It's maybe more obvious looking at graduate students or post-docs since while you are a "trainee", you know that you are very dependent on your boss' opinion and network for future success. You also tie your success to their success, if they fail your chances of success are slim so you are going to look out for them, even if they might not look out for you. Talk about a dependence situation if there every was one. If your boss is a regular normal person, this is not an issue. If they are not, well - then it's a whole different ball of wax.

One of my friends is in a bad situation at the moment, and I can see how they ended up in this very big hole one step at a time. It's like a parallel situation of domestic abuse. Don't think that the bad abusive husband started out that way, there was some really great times in the beginning when the lure went out. Similar thing with the friend and their job. In the beginning in the lab their boss showered them with praise and let them know they were so good. After a few months though, small things started to appear that made me a little wary. I told my friend to set down their foot and say "not acceptable behaviour" before it went out of hand. My experience would say that this type of behaviour is a test balloon and if you accept the small first things, the boss will move on to bigger things and very soon you'll be stuck with accepting really strange things since 'you've already accepted some stuff'. Of course, it's hard to be the "grown up and say stop", especially when the emotional hooks sink in and the berating starts.

To make a long story very short, after a few years this is what has happened. I've heard some stories I don't understand how they can occur, but I realize it's all normalized in the very strange environment my friend works in. The only thing left now is for them to quit, and then hopefully find a good place where they can slowly build themselves up again. It's very hard to do this though, especially finding a new place to work considering that you not only have to sell your talents (when you are doubting yourself) and when you 'know' there will be no good references from the boss.

For everyone else, I would like to point out that there is a need to remember that at times people's actions will seem strange to the naked eye but after looking at their environment, it might be more obvious that they are driven by some underlying need for safety since they are indeed working for a ruthless person who has, lack of better terms, slowly acclimated them to something they never thought they'd agree to in the first place. And if you run into these "test balloons of behaviour", either to you or to a friend, you have to assess and not let the slippery slope become your friend. It will most likely end up way worse later on and much much messier to change course once it's started.


*I lived in Sweden for about years before moving away for 2 years. I think it's safe to say that I wouldn't lose my native tongue that quick. And still, after being away for a decade, I speak and write Swedish on a regular basis. Thanks to internet, this lovely thing.

smile! You're in a meeting

The last couple of months have been a little..... taxing. When pressure mounts on both sides of "inside work" and "outside work", it's not an ideal situation. The outside of work pressure, well it's something I'll have to deal with in my spare time and shouldn't affect work,. I don't share that with my coworkers, it's for my friends. However, work has been increasingly about emotions, managing not only expectations, managing up but also being the emotional support for a couple of peers, well - it's good to relearn one's limitations, right? Joke aside, it's not.

However, I can't but help think that part of what really has annoyed me is a little nagging feeling inside that a certain situation is in play because of the fact that I'm a woman. You see, I've been told repeatedly over the last couple of months that I need to manage my face in meetings. My regular face is not what one would say a "smiling complacent woman face eager to please". My regular face is neutral. Nothing wrong with that, and if it stayed as such, there wouldn't be a as much of a problem. However, I have a tendency to have a different face when trying to follow a thought process when someone is talking, or when I'm working out a problem, or when I'm mentally writing out a time line and making notes of all the potential issues that will come up when planning new projects.

This different face, let's call it "my thinking face", is the issue (like "resting bitch face"). It looks angry. Or maybe not exactly angry, "it's rather like you are malcontent or just scrunching up your eyes and it's a little unsettling". Or, as one person said "well, your face is not looking happy right now". [you bet it doesn't, your proposal has a lot of issues and I'm going to have to fix them all dude] In short terms, I have forgotten, due to trying to fix all these new tasks and extra stuff at work while navigating my outside life so it doesn't affect my job, that the most important part of my job is to smile and be a happy woman in every meeting I attend.

Well, to be clear - I'm pretty good at the smiling face in project meetings with "the non-special people". The crux is that these comments are coming from the closer people at work. The ones I've worked with a long time and know me. My close work groups. The ones who have been talking about "we should all be close and so good friends" groups. The irony isn't lost on me. This whole time when we have "gotten to know each other" and it's been about "you need to learn how to trust close coworkers, drop your guard" I've been a smiling woman. Now when I'm relaxing in my interactions with them, the critique and disappointment has reared its head since my face isn't as nice [fake] as before and that bothers them.

I wish I could tell them this, but I won't. It's not going to be what they want to hear. It might be what they THINK they want to hear "let's be honest, everyone likes honesty". No, actually most people don't want 'honesty' and 'real' - they want 'convenient & affirmative'. And most of all the want "non threatening". And a non smiling woman [me] in a meeting not giving them constant affirmation is quite clearly not what they want. And especially not when part of the deal is that I'm there to help them figure out all the snags and issues that will come along in their projects.

So, back to neutral face with a slight smaller smile I go. Of course, it's interesting that I don't see this need of having a smile or being affirmative reflected in my male peers and their interactions with people. Nor have I heard any male peer being critiqued in a large group "you really need to smile more" as I've been admonished. It's quite alright for the male peers to sit with scowling faces in meeting after meeting, interrupting and throwing in "helpful critique" whenever suits their fancy.

Alas, I'll label this under "things I knew before, got persuaded for a while I was wrong and paranoid as a feminist, but it turned out I had the right idea all along so it would've saved a lot of energy just listening to my own perception". And then I'll move on.

Welcome to the world "Ms neutral face with a small smile". Adios real face where I actually use my time thinking about what you're saying instead of rearranging my face so you feel comfortable. I wonder if they ever realise how disappointed in them this made me? Most likely not. C'est la vie d'une femme, souriante tout le temps.

emotional overload - stress response

If I thought I was doing well lately, these last two weeks have shown me in too stark light that I'm on the verge of what I can do. After holiday break there was a change in the projects I am involved in and I got involved in some more hands-on-project with a new small group. I forgot that I've always been a little apprehensive in the beginning of working with new people. I am reserved and private, I put on a good smiley American face and go with "it's all so good and we can do it".

The difference now is that I presumed (which you should NEVER do) that these people whom I've known for several years knew me and could see beyond the "non smiley resting bitch face" that I have when I'm thinking over strategy and trying to sort out the best way to move forward etc. Since I'm the safe person that everyone knows, I'm also the one you can make fun of to make the group small talk.

Somewhere in here is a compliment I'm sure. That I have joked about myself earlier and have a sense of humour. That I am the person they all recommend and state all the time "she's the one who knows this, she is great at this". However, in times of emotional stress this is all getting to me a little too much and I'm having a tough time to smile at all the jokes all the time... (over sensitive, I know. Such a cliche for a woman.)

It doesn't help that I'm waiting for two things that take up my emotional capital and thoughts when trying to sleep. One is a personal medical result, one of the reasons I don't like taking tests at the doctor's since I map out the scenarios in my head - from the best one to the worst and work on steeling myself in case it is the bad outcome. (I know, most likely one should go with "wait for results and don't worry in vain".) Second is a phone call to tell me there is a funeral and this is the date for it. It's not my immediate family but it's never easy, especially not with someone who isn't that old.

I wish I could be like some others and not over think, to rest and be zen about it "what will happen, will happen", and i'm better now than I've been before in my life. However, it's the convergence of things that make it difficult. Especially since I am not the person who talk too much about my feelings and personal stuff at work. I've been open with a select few about parts of the issues, but that's as far as I am willing to go.

Though, considering what happened last week, I think I'm going to have a heart-to-heart with someone in power this week since things are, as we say in the north, cracking like ice when you glide over the lakes with the sun shining down. Let's hope it doesn't turn as bad as my brain has been stressing about this weekend. What's the worst thing that can happen really? That they say "I'm disappointed in you, you haven't done the A game lately"? Well, that happened two weeks ago so... it can only go up from here?


/end of sad venting. It's been awhile for these.... normal blogging will resume shortly. I'm taking my mind off all the stuff and re-watching Battlestar Galactica since it's on hulu so I don't have to dig into my dvd discs ;)

let's talk H1Bs for a second

I had planned to write my thoughts on FDA and the upcoming selection of the new Director and what policy decisions have been flagged for this week. A lot of them stemming from what I can only think is a naivety and non-understanding/misconceptions what FDA actually does and what is meant by saying "FDA approved drugs".

However, plans don't always go as you want. This morning a Huffington post article made the rounds in my twitter feed and since H1B was an issue that was floated around last week as well ("there's a draft that the president will soon sign"), I thought I'd tackle it instead.

Mainly because while the article seems to make some sense - especially to people who want to think "immigrants are taking the jobs from Americans" and the people who think "immigrants on H1Bs are getting vastly underpaid and this will help them" - while in essence it is talking about a very specific subset of jobs and people and dragging it to an "over all conclusion" that is non correct (or to the very least should acknowledge that this is not the whole story).

Also note that the article doesn't mention the idea of H1Bs being the visa for a lot of other workers in other sectors; non-profits (NGOs), post-docs in academia, pharma or other places. These places doesn't have the same salaries as Silicon Valley Tech and are not of the authors main priority as coming from the computer science field. It is worth noting that the far reaching suggestions in the article doesn't take these various places into account though.

First of all, anyone who reads this blog knows I'm an immigrant and I grew up in a place where there were unions, collective bargaining and student representatives present with voting rights when hiring professors at universities. This also means that I read any type of suggestions for "this is for the best of workers" with extra interest, simply because I grew up hearing that the USA didn't really care that much about workers but about the companies/employers.

I wouldn't mind having salaries public, so everyone in a company knows what everyone makes. Nor would I dislike having "similar salaries for similar jobs" and a suggestion from the legislature/union on what the job should pay. Neither of which is a reality in my state of the USA and everyone negotiates on their own. It's one of those "nice American opportunities where you as a skilled worker can argue your case and get lots of money if you are good". (Used a lot in the private sector, especially in finance/law/tech.) And one of the reasons companies who want to attract the best of the best have a lot of freedom to do so.

This article is a prime example of such a thing as posing as "this is thinking about the American worker and their salaries and the future of the country" while muddling the waters with all these odd ball comments that don't line up apart from "blame the immigrants"*. While in reality one should look at what the companies are doing when they are hiring "the cheapest labor" rather than "the skills needed for the job" and look further than to blame the lowest person on the scale.

Let's start with facts. H1B visas are for skilled workers. This means that there has to be a degree specification in the job advert and that the level needs to claim required - required to perform said job, not preferred or "if you have it, that's nice" but "you NEED this to do the job". (Anecdotal story; I applied and got hired for an industry job where the job ad stated "PhD preferred" [since they wanted to hire the best fit for the job and keeping it open to many applicants]. Thus not making it possible for me or anyone else to apply for an H1Bvisa since that wasn't eligible for that category. This "required" is an important point and piece of the puzzle, as you will see if you read the article since the author wants to use this to argue how immigrants take away from American workers.

Second, there is no obligation to pay _only_ the salary that is the limit for the H1B. If you want to hire someone who wants more money than the H1B floor because they negotiate well and you find them worth it - and that person turns out to be American - that's your choice (you might have to argue with HR and make sure that you didn't mislabel the level of work, but that's not the H1B issue). There is no "we have to hire the person with the lowest bidder for salary" for companies, especially not for "for profit Silicon Valley Tech companies". You think they ask their higher level candidates who wants the least? This is mixing two different things together as seen in passage below, which is directly arguing these two points. Maybe you can see what I mean that there are some difficulties getting both the arguments working with each other? Adding in the middle is the idea that "Americans are out competed by immigrants from their own universities to do doctorate degrees [that might not even be needed - in the second part - my emphasis] and these doctorate degrees are also on a visa status that should be curbed.

"The industry especially asserts a need to hire H-1Bs with a PhD, citing the fact that 50 percent of computer science doctorates in the U.S. are granted to foreign students. What they are hiding in that claim is that it simply doesn’t pay for an American student (i.e. U.S. citizen or permanent resident) to pursue doctoral study, as the salary premium for a doctorate is too small. That small wage premium is due to the flooding of the market by foreign applicants,[my emphasis] something correctly forecase with approbation by the National Science Foundation years ago. The industry claim is doubly deceptive, as they are not very keen to hire PhDs because this level of study just isn’t needed. We actually have a surplus of computer science PhDs; 11.3 percent of them are involuntarily working in a non-computer science field."

and further down in the article:

Employers claim that they hire H-1Bs for rare skill sets or outstanding talent ― traits that they would need to pay a premium for on the open market. Yet current law requires only that they pay the average wage.

A lot of the article then moves on to argue that the immigrant workers are inferior/weaker to the American workers who are out competed for these jobs (due to salary and not wanting to apply for these jobs) and therefore the salary requirements for H1Bs should be raised. How do they argue "weaker"?

But research performed at the University of Michigan and Rutgers University, as well as my own work for the Economic Policy Institute, shows that the former foreign students now in the U.S. workforce tend to be weaker than their American peers. On a per capita basis, the former foreign students in computer science file fewer patents, are less likely to work in research and development and have degrees from less selective U.S. universities.

At this point I wonder; does the author know what it takes to apply for a patent? And how it's decided who gets to be on a patent? I can tell you straight up, it takes money to file and the backing of your company and your boss. Never mind the last comment "less selective US universities" or the self citation. Is the author really annoyed that American graduates from "more selective US universities" can't get jobs in Silicon Valley? Or how to interpret this since there surely would be some American workers with degrees from "less selective US universities" who could get these jobs when the immigrants are gone? Or would they also take the jobs from those from "more selective US universities". Should we really make tiers to state "applicants from tier A gets hired, then graduates from tier B" even more than is currently happening with pedigrees and whatnot?

All of this writing and not once approaching the idea that employers - these massive tech companies and venture capital driven start ups in Silicon Valley - have any responsibilities of looking over their requirements or that maybe they are overstating what they need in order to do the work. I mean, IF the jobs are over stated just to attract and hire H1B people (which sounds plausible), when the jobs then are downgraded to not be eligible for H1B since the salary would be too high - the specific people the author is worried about wouldn't
a)get more money (downgraded the job requirements, remember -> less salary)
b)might not even apply since they are overqualified (thus would make them underpaid and overqualified if they get the job)

Maybe what is needed for this to be "fixed" would be more oversight on "how do you level/grade your job adverts to be eligable for the H1B visas" from the government and not leave it to the companies to make this up on their own? (Not that I think this would solve too much but it would solve a little. It sure as mud would place the responsibility where it should be, at the company and the government level. I'm sure you can't get an H1B level application on a janitor job advert for example so there has to be some oversight already.)

But nothing really showed the true idea of the article until the last paragraphs, if anyone ever reads that far anymore?

This approach would give the visas to those who can truly make exceptional contributions to our economy and society. If there is real interest in draining the swamp, [my emphasis] this is a great place to start.

"draining the swamp" ... of all the immigrants? Or what? Really? And here I thought that the "swamp reference" was in regards to a comment made by President Trump while campaigning meaning "the upper echelon of politicians, law makers and lobbyists in Washington DC". But the author means it's the swamp of immigrants that needs draining. The swamp who are to blame for (quote directly from the article as seen above in my post) "small wage premium is due to flooding of the market by foreign applicants"**

Talk about missing the mark so completely, while stating where your political affiliations lie ever so clearly, author Dr Professor from UC Davis.



*I don't get why it's not even a whisper on how the companies, IF they want the best person and currently not getting that, could change how the look for talent. But I do understand it's easier to blame the immigrants for all of this. It's always easier to blame the little guy, especially is they're not even American.

**applicants - let's not get confused that they are even hired at this stage. They shouldn't even be allowed to apply to the position.