Remember the failures for when it's time for fixes: COVID-19 | A Pragmatist's Take | Douglas Moran | Palo Alto Online |

Local Blogs

A Pragmatist's Take

By Douglas Moran

E-mail Douglas Moran

About this blog: Real power doesn't reside with those who make the final decision, but with those who decide what qualifies as the viable choices. I stumbled across this insight as a teenager (in the 1960s). As a grad student, I belonged to an org...  (More)

View all posts from Douglas Moran

Remember the failures for when it's time for fixes: COVID-19

Uploaded: Mar 27, 2020
I likely have COVID-19, but mine is so mild that I wouldn't have noticed if I were keeping a normal sleep schedule. But like so, so many others, I will never show up in the statistics. This experience along with my earlier experiences with disaster preparedness shaped my observations here about the response to the pandemic.

My experience: After several weeks of social distancing and minimizing shopping and other public exposure, I put myself in isolation on Friday March 13, three days before the Bay Area counties declared shelter-in-place. The next day I started having some symptoms suggestive of COVID-19. Four days later, a fever appeared. My temperature started rising in the evening, entering the 100.3 to 100.9 degree range after midnight. That persisted for a few hours, returning to near-normal by the time I awoke. My only daytime symptom was a (welcome) suppression of appetite. Only for a couple of hours on a couple of nights have I felt even slightly "under the weather". After 8 days of this, I have had two days with a temperature that is pretty much (my) normal.
Please: The comments are for discussion -- please don't clutter them with well-wishes, or the opposite.

Spreading the disease: Recognize that I am asymptomatic for most of the day. In various places in the US and around the world, people seeking to enter a building must pass a temperature scan. This test wouldn't have been identified me, illustrating the limitations of such testing. At the beginning of the outbreak in the US, the CDC downplayed, even rejected, that asymptomatic people could spread the disease.(foot#1)(foot#2) Only recently has it been acknowledged that asymptomatics have likely played a large role in the spread.

When am I no longer infectious? In the anecdotal reporting of cases, I found a few mentions of my circumstances, for example, "^'A slow burn': Coronavirus symptoms often linger before worsening: Some patients may feel better before winding up in the hospital^", NBC News, 2020-03-21. "Patients tend to have symptoms for about a week before either getting better or getting really sick". Others include that the transition to "really sick" is "rapid".
A possible analogy is that the body's defenses start out strong enough to keep the disease from growing. In one case, the virus slowly wears down the body's defense until they start collapsing and the disease takes off. In the other case, the body's defenses achieve a slight advantage and slowly suppress the disease to the point that the symptoms disappear. Notice that the person is now asymptomatic, but may well still be infectious.

So, when should such an asymptomatic person be reasonably confident that he could take a quick trip to the grocery store instead of relying on friends for fresh fruit and vegetables? The answers I got were few: from 3-5 days to 14 days, including from my doctor. I had expected it to be more than 14 days. Why? Because if you have tested positive for CORVID-19 and later test negative after being asymptomatic, you are encouraged, if not required, to self-quarantine for 14 days.(foot#3) So why should someone without the confirmation of a negative test have shorter self-isolation? Recognize that becoming asymptomatic only means that your viral load has been decreased below that threshold, not that your body has pushed your viral load down enough for there to be an acceptable risk of you infecting someone else.

It's easy for me to err on the side of caution: I am decently prepared and an introvert with lots that needs doing at home. However, I am worried that bad estimates will put still-infectious people back in public: shopping, ...

We're being asked to ^Triage^ ourselves, but we aren't being given adequate information to do so properly (foreshadowing). I had to do a lot of web searching because information about my symptoms was so thinly represented. I expected that there would be relatively consistent terminology since it would parallel that of other viral diseases. Wrong. Since any discussion with your doctor would likely occur over the phone and would be short, having a consistent terminology between you and her would help her organize your symptoms. For example, the symptom would be listed as a "dry cough" in one place and "dry coughing" elsewhere. A "dry cough" means that any cough you have is simply air and moist materials from your lungs. It says nothing about the quantity or frequency -- it could be a cough every now and then. On the other hand, "dry coughing" implies that you are doing a lot of it. Using the wrong terminology could cause your doctor to think your symptoms were worse or milder than they were. Think that this isn't a real distinction in normal life? Consider the case where you are dating someone but you describe it as having gone on some dates with that person, or vice versa. Would there be any future dates?

Similarly, "a fever" was indicative of COVIS-19, or it might need to be "a fever over 103 degrees". My guess is that the former was written by someone whose use of the term "fever" implied it was over 103. A potential example of "The Curse of Knowledge" in an earlier blog(foot#4)

Having several layers of seriousness of the symptoms would seem very useful for you in communicating with your doctor and for you to do narrower web searches. By now, you should not be surprised that this is not the case. Symptoms requiring hospitalization usually corresponds to "severe", or sometimes "serious". In some places, everything else is "mild", including cases where the patient describe the experience as worse than any flu they had ever had, one that largely confined them to their bed, and left them "wrung out" for days afterward. In places that have a "mild" classification, this non-mild week of misery is classified as a "moderate" illness. My very mild illness comes close to qualifying as a "moderate" based on the number of symptoms checked off. Reason: There was no ranking of the importance of the symptoms.(foot#5)
Aside: In bird identification books, a common practice is to have pointers to the most distinguishing features.

----A failure preordained by multi-administration failures----

The primary failures of the US response occurred among the professional staffs of various US agencies, most notably those of the ^Public Health Service^ division of the Cabinet-level ^Department of Health and Human Services^ (HHS), including CDC (^Centers for Disease Control and Prevention^), FDA (^Food and Drug Administration^), and ^National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease^ (NIAID) of the ^National Institutes of Health^ (NIH). Aside: Dr. Anthony Fauci, a fixture at Presidential briefings, is the head of NIAID.

You might expect that having these key agencies grouped together in the Organization Chart would facilitate coordination and cooperation. Apparently not. A national series of exercises -- code-named Crimson Contagion -- was held from January to August 2019 to assess the readiness of the US for a major flu outbreak. 12 states participated, California was not among them. Predictably, the exercise was an absolute failure -- over a decade of similar exercises(foot#6) had similarly failed to be followed up by little or no effort to fix the identified problems.

Way back when Federal emergency response was reorganized in the aftermath of ^Hurricane Katrina^ (2005), legislation designed HSS to be the lead agency for illness-related emergencies, but failed to give HHS the legal authority to function in that role. For most emergencies -- hurricane, earthquake, wildfire -- FEMA (^Federal Emergency Management Agency^) was given legal authority to be the lead agency.

An antidote to optimism: The unrestricted publication of the "Key Findings" of the Crimson Contagion exercise has not appeared, but an October draft was made available by the New York Times.(foot#7) The PDF of this document is 63 pages, but some are boilerplate wrappers. The body is essentially a topic list that I found easy to browse -- there aren't the details that would motivate a close reading.
A very few examples:
- Cooperation between agencies was impeded by the absence of common terminology.
- To facilitate inter-operation with the Feds, one state wanted to "mirror" the organization that the Feds would use. Problem: The Feds couldn't tell that state what it would be.
- They had problems organizing teleconferences. They had significant failings in determining who should be invited and in providing descriptions that would allow people to determine whether they should attend.

----Inexplicable errors----

At the federal level, inexplicable errors continue to pile up and are more than enough to convey the urgency of fixes before the next epidemic. Additional recountings serve only to provide daily doses of outrage. OK, just one: Despite having active COVID-19 cases onboard, a cruise ship disembarked its passengers in Miami without them having to go through any medical screening before going home. Initial reporting is that although the CDC knew of the problem, they failed to alert port officials.(foot#8)

At the county level, I was shocked by the March 24th news that the Santa Clara County (and others) was beginning to require reporting of not just positive tests for COVID-19, but also negative and inconclusive tests. (foot#9) Managing this outbreak depends upon statistics, but they hadn't been bothering to collect data that was easily available?

----The Failures of the National Media----

Polling data collected from 10 countries March 6-10 found journalists to be the least "trusted information source to tell the truth about the virus".(foot#10) A CBS/YouGov poll found that the national media was the second least trusted source of such information, ranking ahead of only Social Media.(foot#11)

A discussion of the causes of this situation would be pointless here: Speculation at best, but would more likely be dominated by ad hominem attacks. Instead, ask yourself how well have you been served by the national media.
- Did you get a good-enough presentation of what "exponential growth" meant in terms of how fast medical facilities could be overwhelmed?
- Did you get a good-enough explanation, or even any, of why "flattening the curve" was necessary to keep that from happening?
- Or that it also applied to not overtaxing stores with over-buying?
- Was the presentation good-enough to strongly persuade others to do what was needed?

Or did partisan sniping dominate the coverage, followed by statistics about the current situation that did little to help you respond to the epidemic?

----Alternate Media----

I have long given up on national media as a worthwhile source of information. Its focus is on corporate objectives: its economic interests and its political agendas. However, I do scan it to see what others are seeing.

I have been depending heavily on alternative media, but many of these sites are small operations -- many only 2-3 people -- with a focus in a single area and weekly or semi-weekly postings. The weakness of this was reinforced by the coronavirus outbreak. Many of the sources I look to on this topic are on YouTube, but YouTube decided to suppress videos mentioning any of the virus' names. This included recognized journalists with many years on YouTube. While the videos were not being deleted, they were classified as ineligible for ads -- and the associated revenue -- and they would not be recommended to users and would not appear in search results. The YouTube channels that continued to post stories about coronavirus were ones supported by subscriptions and donations from viewers. Most of the best information I got on the virus came from these channels, especially how severe the situation was in China in January.

Why did YouTube choose to suppress news about coronavirus except from major corporate media sites? There is much speculation, and little more.


Now is the time to be noticing all the things that went wrong and things that were needed. When the situation becomes calmer, these are memories be dragged up to provide the anger and outrage to convince our political elite that things must change.

Perhaps we might start with changing the slogan of the infectious disease response from "Failure is not an option. It's a feature."

----My other blogs on coronavirus (COVID-19)----
"Is Palo Alto prepared for a Coronavirus outbreak?", 2020-01-30.
"Coronavirus (COVID-19): Underappreciated Unknowns & inexplicable failures", 2020-02-28.
"Preparing for COVID-19: An epidemic is not a hurricane. Panic buying harmful", 2020-03-03.
"COVID-19: Critiquing News Releases: What's missing + teachable opportunities", 2020-03-19.

1. CDC: who should be tested?
"^Infected people without symptoms might be driving the spread of coronavirus more than we realized^" - CNN, 2020-03-14.A related miscalculation -- that the virus was largely bypassing the young -- is now regarded as having provided a very large pool of infected asymptomatic people who interacted with many others, individually, in groups and crowds, and in crowded placed and events.

2. CDC: who shall be tested?
In section "Serious failures ..." of my earlier blog ^Coronavirus (COVID-19): Underappreciated Unknowns & inexplicable failures^, 2020-02-28, I cited a case where the CDC refused to authorize a test despite the patient having severe symptoms that strongly indicated COVID-19. In my readings since then, I have encountered many additional instances. From the Central Coast comes a report (^Women showing symptoms of coronavirus hasn’t been tested due to CDC guidelines^ - KSBW-TV) of a woman whose doctor requested she be tested was denied because she hadn't visited any hotspots, although she was reportedly in contact with many international tourists. Notice the problem, which the CDC doesn't: Being in contact with lots of potentially infected people is a substantial risk if you are a tourist and they are the locals, but not vice versa.

3. Origins of 14-day quarantine:
In January, reports from China claimed that most people became symptomatic within a few days (3-5?) of being infected, and few beyond 14 days with 24-days and more being observed. The neatness of the numbers and "few" made me curious. Although I couldn't find any citation, I did encounter a mention that said the numbers were those for another coronavirus, that 14-days was round-off for incubation in 95% of people and that 24-days was 99%. This is credible, but is it also speculation.

4. Curse of Knowledge discussed in an earlier blog:
^Preparing for COVID-19: An epidemic is not a hurricane. Panic buying harmful^, 2020-03-03.

5. Best explanation of Mild, Moderate and Severe:
^Defining Coronavirus Symptoms: From Mild To Moderate To Severe^ in Goats and Soda, NPR (2020-03-13).

6. Earlier federal exercises on epidemics:
^Biodefensive within the US Department of Health and Human Services^ (Wikipedia) provides some exercise names as a starting point.

7. Key Findings draft for Crimson Contagion: ^Crimson Contagion 2019 Functional Exercise Key Findings: Coordination Draft^ held January-August 2019.
I do not recommend the article introducing it: ^Coronavirus Outbreak: A Cascade of Warnings, Heard but Unheeded^, New York Times, 2020-03-19. Although it provides some useful historical context, the NYT is not credible on political and national news because of its well-established intense partisanship in these areas.
If you decide to read it, I recommend using an independent archive site: ^multiple revisions of this article^, but I didn't do a comparison.
Why? Because the NYT is one of many media outlets that silently makes substantial changes to the content and headlines of its articles, including fine-tuning the politics of the article.

8. Cruise ship with COVID-19 cases not checked:
^MSC passengers disembark in Miami without medical screenings^ - Miami Herald, 2020-03-16. ^Independent archive copy^.

9. Start reporting negative and inconclusive COVID-19 tests:
^Palo Alto Online's cumulative daily reporting on coronavirus with changing headline^: See the update for March 24.

10. Trust of sources of info on COVID-19:
Overview: ^Edelman Trust Barometer: Coronavirus Special Report^, 2020-03-16.
See ^page 9 of the results^ (PDF).

11. CBS-YouGov
^Most Americans don’t trust President Trump for accurate COVID-19 information says CBS/YouGov Poll^, 2020-03-24.
An alternative headline could have been "Americans trust the national media less than President Trump for accurate COVID-19 information". The difference is within the margin of error but the national media rarely bothers with such details.

An ^abbreviated index by topic and chronologically^ is available.

----Boilerplate on Commenting----
The ^Guidelines^ for comments on this blog are different from those on Town Square Forums. I am attempting to foster more civility and substantive comments by deleting violations of the guidelines.

I am particularly strict about misrepresenting what others have said (me or other commenters). If I judge your comment as likely to provoke a response of "That is not what was said", do not be surprised to have it deleted. My primary goal is to avoid unnecessary and undesirable back-and-forth, but such misrepresentations also indicate that the author is unwilling/unable to participate in a meaningful, respectful conversation on the topic.
A slur is not an argument. Neither are other forms of vilification of other participants.

If you behave like a ^Troll^, do not waste your time protesting when you get treated like one.
What is it worth to you?


Posted by home front for Corona, a resident of Green Acres,
on Mar 27, 2020 at 8:59 am

"Remember the failures"

There seems to many obvious, recent failures missing from this posting. Did I miss something?

Posted by Douglas Moran, a Palo Alto Online blogger,
on Mar 27, 2020 at 2:13 pm

Douglas Moran is a registered user.

Re: "missing failures"

The primary purpose of this and previous blogs is to encourage healthy skepticism and uses failures as examples. It is not my intent, nor within my capabilities, to provide more than that.

What I am encouraging here are "authentic" memories of failures - ones that register with them. Asking people to remember a list assembled by me would be pointless.

Posted by Michael O., a resident of Stanford,
on Mar 27, 2020 at 6:59 pm

Thanks for the blog post, Doug. It's probably a little early to learn most of the lessons. The biggest ones will be about how to anticipate and deal with infectious disease pandemics on a national basis. (But we're a Republic, so that won't be happening! States Rights!)

I would say this about what you wrote below:

11. CBS-YouGov
^Most Americans don't trust President Trump for accurate COVID-19 information says CBS/YouGov Poll^, 2020-03-24.
An alternative headline could have been "Americans trust the national media less than President Trump for accurate COVID-19 information". The difference is within the margin of error but the national media rarely bothers with such details.

is that if the public's trust of the President in only in within the margin of error of that of the press (which is not monolithic, so what is to trust, frankly -- if you include CNN and FoxNews as "the press" then what is there to trust? I'm sure you'll agree -- then that's a serious problem, as in, "OH MY GOD, people trust the President as little as the press? What kind of President is that?!?!?!" Don't blame the press for writing that few people trust the President on this pandemic. It's true that they don't.

Feel better. You probably didn't have COVID-19. There are a lot of other bugs going around.

Posted by Douglas Moran, a Palo Alto Online blogger,
on Mar 27, 2020 at 8:43 pm

Douglas Moran is a registered user.

> "a little early to learn most of the lessons..."
It was intended more as a reminder to remember to remember, that is, when you encounter one of these problems, you are encouraged to tell yourself "I should remember this for later."

> "... Don't blame the press for writing that few people trust the President on this pandemic. ..."

The press should be fulfilling a major communication role in a crisis. I wanted to point out the degree of that failure. The role of the President is rarely to provide information, but rather to put the spotlight on the most important information coming from the various agencies (and others).

Another measure of the failure of the press in the eyes of the public is that he daily press briefings being Emcee'd by the President have very high ratings despite the low density of useful information typically presented. That suggests to me that many people don't trust the press to provide its traditional filter-and-highlight role.

Instead, the press engages in "the pot calling the kettle black".

Posted by Michael O., a resident of Stanford,
on Mar 27, 2020 at 11:07 pm

Doug, there is no such thing as "the press" anymore. It's too diffuse and diverse to call it that. Walter Cronkite is long gone. Lots of press outlets are very straightforward in their reporting. Many are not. Let's not tar the good ones with the failings of the many. I'm perfectly capable of finding reliable resources. The Miami Herald article you link to seems very good. Do you think the author did something wrong in it? Not me.

The President does not seem to be at these briefings to convey information. He's there for the ratings and he's good at getting them, but he may be in the way of the provision of direct, non-politicized information to the public by people who are interested and capable of doing that. Other recent polls, though, find less trust in him than in the press: Web Link You will notice that there is a partisan divide. Take that as you will.

Posted by Douglas Moran, a Palo Alto Online blogger,
on Mar 28, 2020 at 4:06 am

Douglas Moran is a registered user.

> "there is no such thing as 'the press' anymore. ..."

For the purpose of the cited polling and similar polling, "the press" is a useful level of abstraction. For the people in the polling sample, it can represent their reaction to trying to get the information they want from their choice of news outlets, with unlimited retries.
The reporting on Trump's credibility is largely irrelevant, except for the hypocrisy/obliviousness of "the pot calling the kettle black".

Recognize that politicians come and go. To deal with their weaknesses and faults, institutions such as the press and the professional civil service are needed to inform and constrain them. For the press as an institution to warrant trust, it must continually demonstrate that it can and will self-police its members. This is very different from some of its members being trustworthy.

Aside: When there is a major news event outside of WDC, NYC or US government, I ignore the national news outlets and do a web search for local ones. It is not uncommon for the best coverage to come from a local/nearby TV station, with the newspaper (if any) being mediocre.

Posted by Hank, a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland,
on Mar 28, 2020 at 9:16 am

You write:
"Aside: When there is a major news event outside of WDC, NYC or US government, I ignore the national news outlets and do a web search for local ones. It is not uncommon for the best coverage to come from a local/nearby TV station, with the newspaper (if any) being mediocre."

I don't ignore national news, but I think that strategy is very good. I read multiple versions of the same topic or incident, all from different but consistent sources. Example, watch any news cast of the President's press briefings. Ideally, switch it around. First watch the CNN version, then flip to Fox. Then add in NBC or MSNBC. Finally try and find the long version of the complete press briefing from CSPAN or some other non biased outlet. What did you learn? Mostly, you will have learned each outlet's bias's and agenda. Do the same with some topic that has zero politics in it. Bias identification is key to info consumption.

You can do this with you friends also. Certain people can only "see" things in a filter or perspective of "Orange Man Bad", even in totally apolitical topics. These same people had a bad case of BDS 19 to 11 years ago, and now they have the similar TDS. Other of your friends can only spew Orange Man Good, he's the best, the media all hate him.

Don't ignore national news, just filter and file under: consider the source!

Posted by mauricio, a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland,
on Mar 28, 2020 at 9:45 am

mauricio is a registered user.

[[ Deleted. The commenter's core claim is based upon ignoring key, well-known facts. Because this commenter has an established history of hyper partisanship that involves misrepresentations and other violations of the guidelines, I am judging these omissions to be intentional. Otherwise, I would have posted a comment pointing out those facts.]]

Posted by Douglas Moran, a Palo Alto Online blogger,
on Mar 28, 2020 at 3:06 pm

Douglas Moran is a registered user.

My comment about how I handed news from outside WDC/NYC/USG did not mean that I ignored national news. It just meant that I ignore national news stories on those outlets because their articles are almost certain to have been taken from the national media, so why not go to their source.

BTW, on wire services, I trust Reuters and distrust AP.

Posted by Michael O., a resident of Stanford,
on Mar 28, 2020 at 3:13 pm

Local news would be nice. Unfortunately: Web Link

This is also a terrific book by local professor, James Hamilton, about changes in how journalism is financed and what that means for what we see, hear, and read: Web Link

Posted by Midtown Resident, a resident of Midtown,
on Mar 30, 2020 at 2:32 pm

My Intent is not to get political here - too many lives are at stake. [[deleted: same anti-Trump talking points that have been re-iterated endlessly since 2015.]]

Posted by Roy M, a resident of Downtown North,
on Mar 30, 2020 at 7:11 pm

Roy M is a registered user.

One example of failures not yet talked about come from the World Health Organization (WHO). This is the group that tweeted in January that based on what the Chinese government told them that the virus does not pass from person to person. They tweeted that even though Taiwan authorities told them quite the opposite in December, something that WHO did not share with its members. For more of what WHO thinks of Taiwan (no doubt due to Chinese government pressure), check out this video from over the weekend. Web Link

Posted by village fool, a resident of another community,
on Mar 31, 2020 at 12:28 am

Thank you!

Remembering/analing failures == System analysis?

Things cannot be fixed before the faluiresare understood, to the tiniest details. Such grasp calls for input from ALL involved parties. ALL observers.
Same as medical field? No cure can be offered before situation is understood.

I will note here (and probably will be removed) that usually no one wants to what went wrong. Local culture where pointing to failures == Negativity?
All is so very great. All was.

And so it continues?

Posted by home front for Corona, a resident of Green Acres,
on Apr 1, 2020 at 3:12 pm

This blog was on the 'front page' for a day - what happened?

Posted by Douglas Moran, a Palo Alto Online blogger,
on Apr 1, 2020 at 3:54 pm

Douglas Moran is a registered user.

@home front

Thank you for the implicit support for the value of the content of the blog.

Details on publicity for blogs:

PAOnline has several formulas for what appears where. I believe that the cycle of articles at the top of the front is determined manually and includes news articles, announcements and blogs.

"Local Blogs" -- in the middle of the front page (left hand column) -- has the four most recent blogs. I believe that the cycle of articles at the top of the front is determined manually.

When you are reading a blog, there is a list of five blogs to the right under "Top Blogs". Of the blogs that have been published in the last N days, these are the ones with the most views.

The "Express" email that you can sign up for includes some recent blogs. I believe it is manually selected.

Posted by Liz Gardner, a resident of Mayfield,
on Apr 2, 2020 at 12:27 pm

I am continue to look to the City's daily Covid-19 response communication which daily negates transparency regarding our most vulnerable, low-income, disabled, un-sheltered -- including include those living in RVs on our streets and sheltering in place at temporary shelters. These are people of our community yet, Palo Alto is pushing the problem fix to the County jurisdiction as responsive help as if this vulnerable population with our city's borders. Where might someone in this vulnerable circumstance with serious symptoms het medical attention?

I understand parks are keeping their bathrooms available and open, at this time, yet how often are they being wiped and sanitized a day to mitigate spread? Temporary hand washing stations like the one set up at Molly Stones is already quite dirty.

Now is the time to approve and relax low-income, affordable housing for the long haul.

Posted by Anneke, a resident of Professorville,
on Apr 2, 2020 at 3:57 pm


I just sent a professional and factual response, and when I added the verification code and hit the submit button, it completely disappeared. I had done a lot of research on my response. Was it somehow deleted?


Posted by Douglas Moran, a Palo Alto Online blogger,
on Apr 2, 2020 at 4:09 pm

Douglas Moran is a registered user.

I suspect that it failed to post for some reason. I didn't get a notification that it had posted, nor do I see it from the administrative interface -- whenever I or the PAOnline admins delete a post, it remains visible through the admin interface.

I am forwarding your message to the PAOnline webmaster.

Posted by Samuel, a resident of Midtown,
on Apr 2, 2020 at 5:45 pm

"Now is the time to approve and relax low-income, affordable housing for the long haul."

Fix a failure?

Posted by home front for Corona, a resident of Green Acres,
on Apr 3, 2020 at 11:11 am

I thought I posted a comment and a question, but it disappeared. In fact, up on the net, it's still there.
[[Blogger: I deleted them because they seemed to be the equivalent of email to me that would be anonymous. Because off-topic comments can cause people to stop reading subsequent comments, my policy is to try to minimize off-topic comments.]]

Are there 'like' buttons for blog posts, or just for comments?
[[No "like" button for the blog post itself, and I have been unsuccessful in finding a substitute, such as having an initial comment to serve that purpose (readers ignored it).

[[Deleted: comment on the highlighting process.]]

Follow this blogger.
Sign up to be notified of new posts by this blogger.



Post a comment

Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Stay informed.

Get the day's top headlines from Palo Alto Online sent to your inbox in the Express newsletter.

Backhaus in Burlingame finally opens for the holiday rush
By The Peninsula Foodist | 0 comments | 2,586 views

Fun Things to Do Around the Bay This Holiday – Peninsula Edition
By Laura Stec | 8 comments | 2,202 views

Burning just one "old style" light bulb can cost $150 or more per year
By Sherry Listgarten | 8 comments | 1,993 views

Banning the public from PA City Hall
By Diana Diamond | 20 comments | 1,564 views


Palo Alto Weekly Holiday Fund

For the last 30 years, the Palo Alto Weekly Holiday Fund has given away almost $10 million to local nonprofits serving children and families. 100% of the funds go directly to local programs. It’s a great way to ensure your charitable donations are working at home.