Different states have taken different approaches in dealing with the Wuhan Virus Pandemic. Some states have operated based on a working hypothesis that said extensive lockdowns, prolonged masking, and the like would provide better outcomes than states which began returning to normal life more quickly.
The various experiments have been run, the differing hypotheses tested.
Texas began reopening fairly early and reported no deaths from Covid-19 on Sunday.
Maryland, a smaller state which has followed a middle course, reported 3 Covid deaths for Sunday.
New York, which has taken one of the most restrictive approaches, reported 35 Covid deaths for Sunday.
The Gentle Reader may form his own conclusions as to which, if any, hypothesis has been shown false.
New York’s Senators Schumer and Gillibrand have announced that it’s time for Andrew Cuomo to resign. The reason they give is that a handful of the women who the governor may have sexually harassed have come forward with public complaints about his conduct. The Gentle Reader may wonder why the still intact lives a few people are of greater moral weight than thousands of the dead, but that’s not the question the senators are addressing.
Now that the Democrats have control of the White House and Congress, those with the top jobs are working to secure their positions and power bases—and to weaken and neutralize potential competitors. New York Democrats generally supported Cuomo’s handling of the Wuhan Virus Pandemic last year. They are vulnerable to being tagged as accessories or enablers to the granny killing. OTOH, if they can get Cuomo taken out for his personal behavior at times and places where they weren’t present, it may be possible for them to dodge any accountability for their Covid Collusion.
So Cuomo must go, and #MeToo serves the Inner Party’s interest.
On 10 March, 2020, I was told to go work from home for a couple of weeks to help flatten the Wuhan Virus curve. I’m still working from home and have only been called into work twice for a total of about three hours over the past year.
The fifty states have functioned as laboratories of democracy in their varied responses to the Wuhan Virus Pandemic. For the most part, it’s been the blue states who have done the most damage to their economies, and it’s these states that the Democrats in Congress want to bail out.
It might be wise for Congress to review some basic principles of planning and economics before they act. I’m providing a link to a basic economics text at Amazon that should be simple enough for most of the members of the House and Senate to understand.
Whether or not they have realized what they were doing, the political leaders of several states have been conducting a scientific experiment. Their implied hypothesis is that extended draconian restrictions on the activities of the people in their states would result in fewer deaths from the Wuhan virus pandemic. Simultaneously several other states took the opposite approach to managing the pandemic, effectively providing a control group for the restrictive state experiment. We now have data comparing the results of the two approaches. Has the restrictive state hypothesis been falsified?
Here’s a chart of the relative performance of the states plowing relative levels of restriction versus death rate. A higher number on the death rate axis corresponds to a higher death rate. A higher number on the restriction axis corresponds to tighter restrictions.Chart Source: Wallethub
While there are more restrictive states among the ten best performing states, restrictive states account for half of the ten worst. Thus, the data do not support the hypothesis that tight restrictions on the public’s activities necessarily will result in relatively lower death rates.
It’s possible that tight restrictions on public activity might be beneficial in some circumstance, but the data also suggest the possibility that many other factors have affected the variation in performance among the states. For example, Hawaii and Vermont have relatively high restrictions, but are their low death rates a result of their relative isolation from the nation’s large population centers or some other factor? Could such relative isolation have a part in Nebraska’s low death rate? Could California’s high poverty rate be affecting its poor performance?
The science isn’t settled on exactly why some states are doing better than others, but it does seem to show that lockdowns and other such measures weren’t and aren’t a magic bullet.
Oh, one more thing …
The average unemployment rate in the the most restrictive states is 7.1% (9% in California). The national rate is 6.7%. The rate in the least restrictive states is 4.7% (3.1 % in Iowa).
There are a couple of big civil rights lawsuits to comment on today.
The one that appears to be getting the most attention today is the Supreme Court’s grant of a preliminary injunction against further enforcement of Governor Cuomo’s arbitrary limits on attendance at houses of worship. Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, New York v. Cuomo. This is a significant First Amendment victory. The injunction also applies in Agudath Israel of America v. Cuomo.
The other case worth talking about is C. J. Pearson, et al. v. Kemp, et al. This case is filed in the U.S. District Court in Atlanta, and it alleges that this month’s election was conducted fraudulently in Georgia. The federal causes of action are based in 42 U.S.C § 1983. Section 1983 is a Reconstruction Era law which authorizes civil actions against officials acting under color of state law deprive a citizen of any of his rights, privileges, or immunities guaranteed under the Constitution. C. J. Pearson is not the first black voter to sue the State of Georgia. Sidney Powell and L. Lin Wood are among the lawyers who signed the complaint.
The Federalist reports that Nancy Pelosi wants to keep churches closed. When asked to comment on her archbishop’s statement that the state and local governments’ restrictions on worship violate the First Amendment, the Speaker said,
With all due respect to my Archbishop, I think we should follow science on this. And again with faith and science, sometimes they’re countered to each other.
Mrs. Pelosi is wrong in multiple ways in her statement. First, there is less science involved the medical response to the Wuhan virus pandemic than many people imagine. Good medicine, like good engineering, uses scientific knowledge and principles to the extent they are available and applicable to the case at hand, but sometimes a new problem must be dealt with without existing good scientific knowledge available. Guesswork based on experience may or may not give an optimal solution, and some guesses will be wrong. Today’s news about Nashville’s wrongheaded response in closing certain business is just one example of how fallible public health officials, mayors, and governors have been. Continuing to act as if a failed hypothesis is correct in bad science.
Second, while her invocation of science is bad science, her theology is even worse. Without exception, apparent contradictions between what we think we understand from science and theology wind up being caused by a lack of clear understanding of what one or both of them are trying to tell us—or from asking one of them to answer questions about which it has no answers. Science tells us how. Religion tells us why. (See the posts under the Science and the Bible tab in the menu above for more on this point.)
Third, her due respect for the pastoral authority of her Archbishop requires that she submit to his spiritual leadership. If she can not or will not, she has a limited range of options. She can go full Karen and speak with his manager. The Pope would probably take her phone call. (Come to think of it, she might even get support from Pope Francis.) Her other honest choice is to leave the Catholic Church. I expect she will do neither.
The voters of San Francisco are getting what they voted for. Good and hard.
I don’t especially want to go to work. I’m doing just fine, sitting in my office at home and telecommuting. As long as I keep getting paid with money that has sufficient purchasing power in the economy, I’d just as soon not have to drive to someone else’s office to do what I can to across the hall from my kitchen. (And my coffee is better than the Folger’s junk that seems to infest so many workplace coffee pots.)
Looking around the neighborhood, I can see several other professionals who have moved their work into their homes and who are continuing to do well economically. Other neighbors aren’t doing so well. They normally engage in businesses, trades, and professions that require close one-on-one interactions with people. Some of them haven’t earned anything for weeks.
Gentle Reader, can you guess which group is more favorably disposed to reopening the economy quickly?
On the leading edge of the Wuhan virus pandemic, most Americans were willing to put up with some significant disruptions in their personal lives in order to protect the public health. There really was a sense of “we’re in this all together,” but that has dissipated as people who want to feed their families are told by a governor that they can’t buy seeds to plant in their gardens because of a virus lockdown. Another governor’s sending Covid19-infected patients to old folks’ homes has not increased the public’s trust in government’s competence either. Thus, we have a large group of Americans who are wanting to and are ready to go back to work—and who are losing or have lost patience with the “experts.”
Meanwhile, those of us doing “essential” work have been paid all along—at least so far—but now, the lack of tax revenue is eating away the ability of many states and localities to make payroll. Oh, and advertising is now down, resulting in media layoffs. It may be that some of the less protected members of the “essentials” may begin to favor reopening the economy as well.
So, who is still in favor of broad, non-targeted lockdowns? Cui bono?
That should be an interesting topic for research by a good investigative reporter.
You know, I once saw a movie about investigative reporters. The line in the film that helped them put their big story together was the advice, “Follow the money.” I’ll bet that would be good advice for this story.
So what is this “herd immunity” that people keep talking about?
It works something like this:
Adam becomes infected with some disease. We’ll call it Batpox for this example. It turns out that the statistics of Batpox’s transmissibility are such that it is about as contagious as measles. Measles has a basic reproduction number (R0) of about 12. When Adam goes to visit his friends Betty and Chuck, the odds are high that they will both become infected as well—unless they are already immune because of a previous encounter with the disease or a vaccine. OTOH, if enough of the people Adam contacts while he’s sick are immune to Batpox, the disease isn’t likely to spread any further. A population has reached herd immunity for a disease when enough of the population is immune to prevent the disease from easily spreading.
The percentage of population required for herd immunity is greater for larger values of R0. The formula for the approximate percentage of immune individuals necessary for herd immunity is
X = (1 – 1/Ro) X 100
For measles X is about 92 %. That’s why it’s important for kids to be vaccinated in order to get the number of immune individuals as high as possible.
The initial estimate of R0 for the Wuhan virus was around 2.7. That would imply that we’d need about 63 % of the population to be immune in order to achieve herd immunity. However, the Real World data for Covid-19 shows much lower values for R0. That’s values, plural, because different places have different factors that affect transmissibility.
Take a look at these charts of how R0 has varied over time in various states. (Source: rt.live) The solid lines represent the calculated values for R0 and the shaded areas around the lines show the confidence intervals for the calculations based on the amount and quality of the data. These plots are for entire states; the New York and Michigan numbers would be even lower with the effects of New York City and Detroit removed.
Note that these states have all achieved an R0 of about 1. Plugging that value into our formula for herd immunity gives a required immunity percentage of … pokes at calculator … zero.
Now, I’ve been engaged in modeling here, and we know how problematic that can be, but I believe this gives us a hint about why people are ready to get back to their normal lives in large swaths of the country. Certainly, a value of R0 below 1 explains why the death toll hasn’t spiked in Georgia.
There are still places in the country struggling to contain the Wuhan virus outbreak, and they should be supported in their efforts. However, the data support letting the rest of the country get on with our lives.
… I remember when they taught this sort of stuff in ECON 101.
What happens when people are out of work and lots of stores are closed? Income tax and sales tax revenue drops. Bloomberg is reporting that New York’s tax collections have dropped by over two-thirds. Meanwhile, over on the left coast KPIX reports that Governor Hairgel is proposing pay cuts for California state workers because state revenues are down over 20 percent.
As the old Russian proverb says, “Го́лой овцы́ не стригу́т. (One doesn’t shear naked sheep.)” I suspect that we’re about to see a large portion of the bureaucracy begin to favor an expeditious reopening of the economy.
There’s an old adage which states that most armies are prepared to fight the last war. It has a deep basis in Reality. After our 1892 medium-power Krag rifles were outclassed by the full-power Mausers used by the Spanish in 1898, we adopted the Mauser-clone 1903 Springfield for World War I. The lessons learned about firepower in that war led to the adoption of the M1, which would have been a superior weapon in WW1, but was outclassed by the German Strumgewehr 44 (the original assault rifle) by the end of WW2. We entered the Viet Nam War armed with the M14, which would have been a great weapon for WW2, only to be outgunned by the other side’s AK47s, true assault rifles. I went through basic training with an M14, but was finally issued an M16 in Viet Nam.
Armies aren’t the only bureaucracies that cling to outdated “solutions.” The public health response to the Wuhan virus pandemic is a case in point.
The 1918 influenza pandemic was worse than it had to be, in part, because of the failure of some communities to take proper measures to prevent rapid spreading. The proper lesson from that pandemic is that dangerous communicable diseases must be contained by reducing interpersonal contact until other means of fighting it are available.
The initial restrictions imposed as public health measures dealing with Covid-19 were reasonable and cautious responses to a potentially catastrophic situation. They would have been excellent in combating the 1918 flu, but it appears that they’ve been overkill in vast swaths of America with disastrous unintended (I hope) consequences. For many the cure is worse than the disease.
Most Real World situations don’t track well with our attempt to model them because we never seem to be able to understand all of the ways that things interact. Experience and common sense and a willingness to take risks are necessary live in the Real World. Credentials are not the same thing as experience, and non-expert expertise has failed. It’s time to get back to living in the Real World. That will require that public health concerns take their rightful place among other factors to balances with economic realities and civil rights.
Governor Larry Hogan has announced the Maryland will begin dialing back Wuhan pandemic restrictions at 5 pm of Friday evening. The Gentle Reader may remember I reported a few days ago that the state’s new case and death rates began to flatten around 23 April. Over the past few days, deaths have shown a noticeable decline. Hmmm, things are beginning to proceed a bit faster than i had foreseen. I had expected Maryland to wait another week before loosening up.
Here’s the Wuhan virus stats for Maryland as found around noon today at the State Department of Health’s Covid web page. These show for confirmed cases and confirmed deaths.Note that the moving average death rate has been flat at roughly 46 (±2) per day for the past two weeks. It will be useful to learn what factor or factors caused that abrupt downward bend (from the +2 deaths/day slope of the previous three weeks), and why deaths have plateaued rather than falling as initial modeling predicted.
Reason has a post up about what happened in St. Louis when the identities of the tipsters who had reported businesses operating in violation of a shutdown order were posted on Facebook. Their complaints were matters of public record and were obtained under Missouri’s sunshine law by Jared Totsch, who was interviewed by a local TV station.
“I’d call it poetic justice, instant Karma, a dose of their own medicine,” he responded. “What goes around, comes around. They are now experiencing the same pain that they themselves helped to inflict on those they filed complaints against.”
The station also interviewed one of the tipsters, a woman named Patricia.
“I saw a lot of businesses that were non-essential that were open and had lines outside, parking lots filled as if the order didn’t matter to them,” she explained to the station. “And that was kinda frustrating.”
Patricia says she has lupus and is particularly at risk during the Wuhan virus pandemic. She may be, but lots of other people are also especially at risk, including me. I’m elderly and have heart problems. However, I need to weigh my risks against the risks of the people around me; I need to take reasonable precautions for my own health while imposing the least possible bother on others.
People like me may have special risks, but everyone has general risks caused by curtailing “non-essential” activities for too long.
People are being impoverished by layoffs and business shutdowns, and that artificially induced poverty is stealing away resources required for healthy living. Children are missing well-child medical visits, delaying vaccinations and increasing their risk of childhood diseases. Taxes needed to finance the operation of public health infrastructure won’t be paid on income that isn’t generated. The list goes on.
The time has come to begin moving to more targeted responses to the pandemic. There are probably communities and activities that still should remain locked down, but most of the country is ready for less heavy-handed measures.
The Karens have had a nice run for the past couple of months. It’s time for them to let go.
Earlier this week, I posted day-by-day graphs of the Wuhan virus cases and deaths reported for Maryland by the state’s Department of Health. Here are updated charts.
First, the daily new confirmed cases—Over the past few days the curve was trending downward, but the large spike of new confirmed cases on 1 May has pushed the moving average up again. I don’t have any information about the 1 May data other than the raw number. It may have been caused by the state’s testing program finding a large at-risk population, or it there may have been a burst of new cases.
OTOH, the number of confirmed COVID-19 deaths is beginning to trend down.
If the spike in new cases is just noise in the data, then Maryland may have turned the corner on the pandemic.
I went over the the Maryland Department of Health’s coronavirus website and found the daily numbers for confirmed new Wuhan virus cases and deaths. Here’s the data. The green bars are the daily raw numbers. That data is rather noisy. The blue lines are the 5-day moving averages.
First, the confirmed new cases day by day—
Second, the daily deaths—Eamining the case data, it looks as if the number of cases hasn’t diverged far from a linear rising slope. Projecting the trend present around the first of this month onward yields about the same rate as we actually have now. If the was exponential growth, the exponent wasn’t much more than 1. Maryland hasn’t turned the corner on new cases yet, but it appears that we’ve kept the rate of increase from exploding as it did in New York City.
The downward bend in the death rate over the last few days is a hopeful sign.
Maryland’s response to the pandemic hasn’t been perfect, but we have achieved better results than some without having to go to full-tilt, nanny-state fascist as have some jurisdictions. Now comes the hard part. We need to reengage the economy without reinvigorating the virus.
I’ve watched the White House briefings most evenings this week, and when I read the accounts published by many of the media outlets and repeated by the blue check crowd on Twitter, I’m reminded of how facts get twisted when they’re transmitted through non-reliable channels.
The elderly (like me, I’m 72) are particularly at risk during the Wuhan virus pandemic. However, it turns out that children maybe especially at risk from the side effects of the worldwide lockdown response. Issues & Insights has a post up about some of the ways kids may be vulnerable.
The U.N. report notes, for example, that polio vaccination campaigns have been suspended. The crippling childhood disease has not been eradicated from Afghanistan and Pakistan, and there have been outbreaks in Africa, East Asia and the Pacific.
Measles immunization campaigns have been suspended in at least 23 countries that had targeted more than 78 million children, the report says, which will lead to more measles oubreaks. Keep in mind that more than 140,000 people died from measles in 2018, according to the World Health Organization. Most of them were under age 5.
Such problems initially may seem more acute in the third world, but as impoverishment increases in America because of suspended economic activity, it may indeed be our children who are hardest hit by poor nutrition, missed vaccinations, etc.
Johns Hopkins University has a site up that is tracking the spread of the Wuhan virus pandemic. Some of the data are very detailed. For example, county by county confirmed case and death numbers for the U. S., and the data is well presented.
One page I found interesting shows the cumulative case and death rates for the ten hardest hit countries. These graphs are of five day moving averages. Note that all of curves in both graphs (except for China’s, but they’re lying about their data) seem to be converging into a single, but broad, band. Some countries are doing better than others, but cases seem to be settling down at about 100 to 300 per 100,000 and deaths around 3 to 30 per 100,000.
The data show that America’s performance versus the virus is about average. They also show that countries that did not take proper public heath precautions (Iran, Italy, Spain, Belgium) have seen the most rapid onset of the disease, but that taking proper measures does begin to arrest the spread and perhaps constrain the total cases and deaths to within only about 3 to 10 times what could have been achieved with earlier prevention. That’s a lot of unnecessary illnesses and deaths, but not as bad as it could have been.
So it appears that we got enough ahead of the Wuhan virus pandemic to prevent it from becoming a public health disaster on the order of the 1918 Spanish flu pandemic. That’s good. Now, we need to act wisely and prevent those public health measures from provoking an economic and social decline on the order of the 1930’s Depression.
Beginning at 7 am on Saturday morning, the answer to that question here in Maryland could be anyone riding on mass transit or patronizing a food service or retail establishment. Governor Hogan has ordered that a face covering that covers both the nose and mouth shall be worn by anyone using public transportation or by anyone older than 7 in a food service or retail establishment until the end of the current Wuhan virus emergency. Willful failure to comply will be a misdemeanor punishable by a year in jail and/or a $5,000 fine.
It seems to me that this sort of public health intervention makes more sense than some parts of the stay-at-home order, particularly as we pass the peak in the pandemic curve. Going to about our business wearing masks will be less economically disruptive than hiding. Perhaps this can be a first step to easing up on some restrictions as it becomes more obvious that some are doing more overall harm than good.