Being an engineer and scientist, I wondered if I could sit down and come up with some equations that might get me rough estimates of propagation parameters. This would allow me to predict what might happen in the future, given what's happened in the past.
[Note: I'm not doing this like a thesis. It's more than likely I make all kinds of mistakes. It's just a quick and dirty, back of the envelope thought experiment. Please don't laugh! If you read my conclusions at the bottom, I don't think you will laugh.]
So I got out my pen and paper, and made an attempt. I ended up initially with 4 variables and only 3 equations. Normally, to get the value of all variables in a set of equations, you have to have an equal number of equations. If you want to see my conclusions, skip over most of the calculations...
Here's my simple 'model.' You start with I number of infected people on day 1. Obviously, I am ignoring what happened before my hypothetical day 1. T is the number of infected people on day N. (If this was a thesis, I would be using subscripts and greek letters.) R is the number of people one infected person infects in one day. That is, it's kind of a contagion multiplier, it could very likely be less than 1. C is the number of cumulative reported infections (cases) on day N. D is the number of people that have died by day N. 'a' is the fraction of the total number of infected people that are reported as cases (infected). And 'b' is the fraction of the total number of infected people that have died by day N.
So, the propagation of the virus gives you:
Eq. 1: T = I (1 + R)^ N
The number of reported (testing confirmed) cases is simply
Eq. 2: C = a T
And the number of people that have died is
Eq. 3: D = b T
We know (or can pull from reports) given two data points where we pick day 1 and N, that reports give us I, C, and D. But our variables are R, T, a, and b.
Now suppose we pick a third data point. Somewhere in the middle at day N2, where we have a C2 and a D2. This gives us
Eq. 4: T2 = I (1 + R)^N2
Eq. 5: C2 = a T2
Eq. 6: D2 = b T2
Now we have six equations and we have the variables (unknowns): R, T, a, b, and T2. So now we have 6 equations and only 5 variables. That usually means either you have a duplicate (equivalent/extra) equation, or you have multiple possible solutions. I'll ignore those problems here.
Now there are two variables that seem to have the most meaning. R and a. With a, you can tell how big the infected population is at any moment given a total of positive tests.
The real problem is that R, a, and b are not actually constants. They vary over time and location. The model above just assumes that you can get a rough mean or average value for those variables assuming the simple model I created above.
Just think about R. If people are shaking hands, it would be high. If they stay 3 feet apart instead of 6, it would be higher. If people ignore social distancing in a region, it would be higher in that case. It obviously differs by region and who follows what practice. In fact, it probably varies for each individual.
Then too, you have to think about the increase in lock downs. Over time, R would theoretically go down in time.
Similarly, 'a' will vary depending on what proportion of the truly infected actually get tested. If you don't do a lot of tests in an area, you can omit counting a lot of asymptomatic and less severe cases.
Let's take a look at some numbers and see what our equations can provide in the way of understanding.
Assume day 1 was 30 days ago (N = 30). The initial count of infected (I) was 100. I'm assuming that the cases reported on day 1 included everyone infected--a really poor assumption. Today, we see 300,000 cases with 9,000 deaths. So the first three equations would be:
T = 100 (1 + R)^30
300,000 = a T
9,000 = b T
Since that gives us 4 variables and only 3 equations, let's pick another data point.
But I'm going to cheat a bit since I'm not pulling actually data down from the Internet. Let's say that a is hypothetically a constant 0.33. That would mean that only a third of the infected are actually identified, tested, and test positive. From our equations, that would mean T = 900,000, and R would then be 0.3546. Using those hypothetical values (this is NOT something you do in real life)...
Say N2 is 15 (15 days ago, 15 days after day 1). That would give a T2 of 9,486. This lets us create out of the air (ha, ha!)...
T2 = 100 (1 + R)^15
3,130 = a T2
100 = b T2 (I just made up the number 100)
Now we have 6 equations and 5 variables. Let's try and solve for a and R. That is, let's ignore the fact that we created the second data point assuming the equations were correct, and we had an 'a' of 0.33. Using the above equations, we can substitute for T and and T2 and get
300,000 / a = 100 (1 + R)^30
3,130 / a = 100 (1 + R)^15
Now getting rid of 'a', we get
300,000 / (100 (1 + R)^30) = 3,130 / (100 (1 + R)^15)
Which we can reduce down to
95.8466 = (1 + R)^15
Or R = 0.355, surprise! (Not so much, since we created the N2 data point). This doesn't seem unreasonable with social distancing. You wouldn't expect to infect more than one person per day.
Plugging R = 0.355 back into the last 'a' equation produces a value of a = 0.33. Surprise again!
Now we can plug R and a into equation 1 and get T = 900,000 (ha ha). This would mean that b = 0.01 or 1% of the actual sick have died. Remember this is NOT real data.
We can see if this is consistent with equations 4-6. T2 = 9,486 sick on day 15. Using 3,130 = a T2 gives an a = 0.33, as we expected. It also give a b = 100 / 9,486 = 0.01. So my number I pulled from the sky was pretty close.
AGAIN, these are NOT real numbers. But think about their implications. If you think of equation 1 as being reasonably correct, T, the total sick (or infected anyway) is going to keep growing until you infect everyone (that is not totally isolated). Only if you reduce R to 0 does the number stop growing.
And social distancing does reduce R, but in any infected area, it won't reduce R to 0 since people still have to go out for food, medicine and other necessities.
You can effectively reduce R to 0 for quarantined people or between an infected area and a non-infected area. The latter requires a total travel ban into and out of an infected area, or a 100% effective quarantine process for people traveling in/out of the infected area.
If China is not lying, they quarantined houses, apartment complexes, cities and regions that were infected until the sub-quarantined areas 'burned out' (achieved 100% infection) and recovered or died. Obviously, there may have been quarantined areas with no infections, such as an apartment house. With no virus left, they could somewhat safely remove the quarantines and allow people to move between previously infected and non-infected regions and areas.
The US's voluntary social distancing is NOT effective quarantining. China effectively achieved an R = 0 by mandatory and physically enforced quarantining. All the US is doing is reducing R to something above 0.
So how do you look at a large 50 state nation like the US? You have to start with seeds (infected travelers) in varying locations at varying times. Since we don't have mandatory quarantining or 100% testing, and some infected are asymptomatic, some 'seeds' in each area/region/state are going to start the spread of the virus. Those areas with better mitigation will have slow rises in cases. Those with ineffective mitigation will have quick rises. NY is one of the latter. And I suspect they started with a lot of seeds (infected travelers).
In the backwaters of the country (no offense intended), those with sparse populations and no interstates, the virus may actually not spread into their areas if they use good mitigation techniques. But all it takes is one asymptomatic traveler into their area. Once seeded, the spread will start, even if it's a very low R rate.
I think Dr. Birx finally realized she wasn't getting any R=0 effects from the current social distancing guidelines. Numbers were still going up everywhere, even in the remote areas with few seeds. She looked at the reality on the ground, and saw that going to pharmacies and groceries were places where R went up significantly. So she recommended NOT going to the grocery or pharmacy. I think she's overlooked other places and the reality of life in the US.
My take-away is that without China-like mandatory quarantines, or 100% testing with effective isolation like in South Korea, the virus is going to continue to spread. At some point in the future, you will see 'burn out' in your area (100% effective infections) where the mortality reaches it's maximum point where no one else is available to get infected and die.
We could do mandatory quarantines like China in some areas, enforced isolation like South Korea, or 100% testing, and hold the numbers down.
If they come up with a vaccine, we could get herd immunity (something I didn't put in my model where the virus stops spreading). In fact, they say that 30% to 50% of a community infected is enough for herd immunity. That would mean the upper limits on mortality using my model would be lower if a region achieved herd immunity just through normal virus spread.
Also, we could get effective therapeutic drugs (like hydroxychloroquine) that would reduce the mortality rate and maybe the R rate.
But with any opening up of the economy before we reach herd immunity, the R rate is going to start going up again. I think we are going to have to live with that to prevent Great Depression-like effects.
So my suggestion is start looking for ways to really quarantine your high risk family members, at least until the government allows vaccinations to start.
Monday, April 6, 2020
Sunday, April 5, 2020
Wuhan Virus - Government Idiocy 2
I didn't want to throw this story in with the previous blog. It deserves its own article.
There are news reports that Governor Cuomo of NY has ordered, or is planning to order, the National Guard to seize up to 20% of the ventilators from upstate NY.
In New York, the city dominates the state government, which is heavily liberal/democrat. Upstate NY is the rest of the state which is mostly republican and rural or smaller cities. Governor Cuomo and his democratic legislature have pretty much been killing the economy of upstate. As an example, banning fracking. Nearby Pennsylvania is prospering from fracking. Upstate New York is dying.
Now what law do you think allows a Governor to seize critical medical equipment from your local hospital during a medical crisis? The Constitution pretty much bans the taking of private property without due process and without reimbursement. So, Governor Cuomo's order is illegal and unconstitutional on its face.
A proper approach would have been to negotiate with local hospitals to share and shift any excess capacity as needed throughout the state. Though I don't think upstaters would have trusted him to live up to any agreement.
But there is a second problem. The National Guard has two functions. When Governors call them up for local disasters, the state pays most of the cost, and they are working for the Governors. But the President can also call up the National Guard for war or national emergencies. When he calls up the Guard the nation pays and the President is their commander. The Governors are not in the chain of command.
I suspect we have a weird situation here. It's my understanding the President called up the Guard and nationalized them to take the financial pressure off the states. He's in command. But I also think he's allowing the Governors to use the Guard pretty much as they see fit.
So here we have the NY Governor reportedly ordering the National Guard to take unconstitutional actions and seize private property.
Having retired from the US Air Force, I'm aware that any member of the armed forces is not supposed to obey an illegal order. Most people think of the Mai Lai massacres in Vietnam or the Nazi attempted genocide of Jews. But a member of the armed forces can be prosecuted for violating any law or treaty, and being given an order to do so by a superior is not a defense. You may not know it, but the military has LOTS of lawyers, and the commanders use them routinely.
So the National Guard commander that receives the Governor's order to seize ventilators from hospitals needs to think carefully before executing the order. I'm sure the National Guard commander and senior officers are all political appointees. You probably need to get down to colonels and below to get non-political officers. So I would suspect the state National Guard commander will try to execute.
The news articles suggest the seizure will occur using Black Hawks at night. If that is the process, it probably won't be local guard members seizing ventilators from their own community's hospitals. If the Black Hawk report is false news, it would normally be local guard members executing. Would they take ventilators knowing it would put their friends and families at risk?
Would the local guard units allow the seizures with the same concerns? Or would there be conflict?
Governor Cuomo would also have the state police as an option to the National Guard. But state police might end up confronting local police and sheriff deputies (and being outnumbered) if they tried to do the seizures.
To me, this is just plain stupid. Way too much chance of open conflict between local police and guard forces and state directed forces. Then too, there are the local civilians who might show up with their own firearms to defend their communities.
If Governor Cuomo actually executes, his best bet, if he can, is to use the Black Hawks in the dead of night.
As the title states, this is idiocy!
There are news reports that Governor Cuomo of NY has ordered, or is planning to order, the National Guard to seize up to 20% of the ventilators from upstate NY.
In New York, the city dominates the state government, which is heavily liberal/democrat. Upstate NY is the rest of the state which is mostly republican and rural or smaller cities. Governor Cuomo and his democratic legislature have pretty much been killing the economy of upstate. As an example, banning fracking. Nearby Pennsylvania is prospering from fracking. Upstate New York is dying.
Now what law do you think allows a Governor to seize critical medical equipment from your local hospital during a medical crisis? The Constitution pretty much bans the taking of private property without due process and without reimbursement. So, Governor Cuomo's order is illegal and unconstitutional on its face.
A proper approach would have been to negotiate with local hospitals to share and shift any excess capacity as needed throughout the state. Though I don't think upstaters would have trusted him to live up to any agreement.
But there is a second problem. The National Guard has two functions. When Governors call them up for local disasters, the state pays most of the cost, and they are working for the Governors. But the President can also call up the National Guard for war or national emergencies. When he calls up the Guard the nation pays and the President is their commander. The Governors are not in the chain of command.
I suspect we have a weird situation here. It's my understanding the President called up the Guard and nationalized them to take the financial pressure off the states. He's in command. But I also think he's allowing the Governors to use the Guard pretty much as they see fit.
So here we have the NY Governor reportedly ordering the National Guard to take unconstitutional actions and seize private property.
Having retired from the US Air Force, I'm aware that any member of the armed forces is not supposed to obey an illegal order. Most people think of the Mai Lai massacres in Vietnam or the Nazi attempted genocide of Jews. But a member of the armed forces can be prosecuted for violating any law or treaty, and being given an order to do so by a superior is not a defense. You may not know it, but the military has LOTS of lawyers, and the commanders use them routinely.
So the National Guard commander that receives the Governor's order to seize ventilators from hospitals needs to think carefully before executing the order. I'm sure the National Guard commander and senior officers are all political appointees. You probably need to get down to colonels and below to get non-political officers. So I would suspect the state National Guard commander will try to execute.
The news articles suggest the seizure will occur using Black Hawks at night. If that is the process, it probably won't be local guard members seizing ventilators from their own community's hospitals. If the Black Hawk report is false news, it would normally be local guard members executing. Would they take ventilators knowing it would put their friends and families at risk?
Would the local guard units allow the seizures with the same concerns? Or would there be conflict?
Governor Cuomo would also have the state police as an option to the National Guard. But state police might end up confronting local police and sheriff deputies (and being outnumbered) if they tried to do the seizures.
To me, this is just plain stupid. Way too much chance of open conflict between local police and guard forces and state directed forces. Then too, there are the local civilians who might show up with their own firearms to defend their communities.
If Governor Cuomo actually executes, his best bet, if he can, is to use the Black Hawks in the dead of night.
As the title states, this is idiocy!
Wuhan Virus - Government Idiocy
In general, I've liked President Trump's approach to the Wuhan crisis, but I've been rather unimpressed with the content of the press briefings. Even so, I try to watch them every day. I've kept most of my criticism to state and local leaders (and you'll see more below). But yesterday, the task force members stepped over the line.
First, we had the mask fiasco. Originally, the Surgeon General said that wearing masks would do more harm than good. By wearing them (if you weren't a health care worker), you had a better chance of giving yourself the virus. Now he says you should wear them because of asymptomatic cases. That is, you could be sick and spreading the virus and not know it. Well, he lied the first time, masks help everyone to some extent. Then he had to walk it back and try to make it look like he hadn't lied. Pitiful and BS.
Now we have the 'don't go to the grocery and pharmacy during the apex' from Dr. Birx. If you look at the healthdata.org site to see when the apex is, it's (estimated at) 10 days from now for the US. It's not until May 6 for Texas, where I live. This is the site that Dr. Birx has been referencing. So let me paraphrase. At the start of the crisis we were told don't hoard, the food supply won't be in danger, you can always go to the grocery. Now? Don't go the grocery, please hoard.
Let me start with the stupid pharmacy 'hoarding' concept. My wife uses the military's TriCare for health services. She is asthmatic, and needs meds regularly. They will not refill the meds until she is almost out of the previous prescription. She HAS to go to the pharmacy to get her meds. She cannot stay home and away. Maybe it's just the military, and regular doctors and clinics allow their patients to 'hoard' medicine?
Now the groceries. What the f**k? They allowed hoarding when the crisis started, and from what I can see, most of the shelves have stayed empty. Further, the idiots all reduced their hours, and some even create lines before people can enter. So you have to go to the grocery (unless you were a lucky hoarder) to find a few things that are on the shelves, but have to go back repeatedly to try and find things that are not on the shelves. EVERYONE is going, and the crowds are worse than before the crisis.
I agree your typical grocery now is a hell-hole of a virus incubator. The government stopped you from doing anything but going to the grocery and eating, forcing everyone into close quarters at a limited-hours grocery that doesn't have, at any one visit, much of what they need. And now they tell you don't go to the grocery, HOARD! I cannot write on here what I think of these people. Can they not think of a good way to minimize exposure?
Before I pivot to my second topic, local government, I want to mention Scott Adams, the Dilbert creator. He does a live stream every morning and evening, usually around 50-60 minutes each, on the crisis. He's 62 or 63 and also has asthma. So he feels, rightly, at high risk. He's self isolated so effectively that he doesn't go out and doesn't let anyone in.
He's pretty well off, what most people would call rich, and he is not concerned about any financial impact on his life. However, he lives in an urban area with delivery services for everything. I, and much of the country, live in a relatively rural area with delivery services for nothing but the local pizza. He can effectively self isolate; we cannot.
Scott is a smart guy, and I will continue to watch his live streams. And he is a Trump supporter. But there's a lot he does not consider. He has his own bubble.
Now to local idiocy. I just checked the local COVID-19 page for my county (April 5th). We have 21 cases total and 2 deaths. Out of the 19, six have recovered, leaving 13 sick in the county. According to the stats, 4 are hospitalized. We have a population of about 150,000 and one significant city. The age range is kind of interesting. The peak is in the 50-59 age group. 60-79 is next. Then 40-49. And finally, the 80+ group. But there are still 3 people below 40, spread all the way down through the 1-18 year group.
As I've said before, Texas allows county judges to overrule county and city emergency management directives. Peculiar. What it appears to me is that the legislature decided they didn't want local politicians to break the law or violate the Constitution during emergencies, so they let the courts do that. Maybe they thought the courts can make their own laws? Or would follow the law? Aren't all of us conservatives laughing?
Anyway, the Texas governor took pretty much the same approach as the feds. Recommendations, plus a directive disallowing in-restaurant dining. He let the local counties do more strict regulations in accordance with Texas law. Most of Texas is rural, but we have about 5 big cities. That law basically says localities or judges (with judges directives superseding conflicting local directives) may limit access to disaster areas. It also talks a lot about providing help to those areas. The areas are where significant loss of life or property occur or are imminent.
So the Dallas-Fort Worth area had an 'outbreak.' I think to date 19 people have died there. But almost immediately after the crisis started, the Dallas county judge issued a lock down directive, citing the Texas code and the need for safety for their residents. San Antonio followed soon after. I assume Houston did the same. I cite the Dallas judge because I read most of his order. From my reading of the Texas statute, the judge didn't have the authority to do what he did. But who's going to complain or sue? And if anyone does sue, what appeals court will overrule?
On April 3rd, our county issued a shelter-in-place order with a fine of $1,000 for violating it. Since March 27th, we've had orders closing most person-to-person businesses like beauty salons. Now anything non-essential is off limits, and the list of essential stuff is pretty explicit.
Our county judge's order is a little more respectable than the Dallas version. He actually cites the ability to restrict movement, even though he's violating the intent of the statute. He's got dozens of "Whereas..." where he cites earlier orders from everybody in the region, state, and nation. So he tried to use precedent and the text of the statute to make his order more legitimate.
So now in the future, if any disease kills 2 people and makes 13 sick in the county, any county judge can shut down all non-life-essential businesses in his/her county.
Apparently, the same precedent is available for any governor. Ohio did it with five cases. And the media wants the President to seize the same unconstitutional authority?
As far as I can tell, very few people in the media or online are concerned about the precedents we are setting. They all seem to think everything will go back to normal. Yeah.
First, we had the mask fiasco. Originally, the Surgeon General said that wearing masks would do more harm than good. By wearing them (if you weren't a health care worker), you had a better chance of giving yourself the virus. Now he says you should wear them because of asymptomatic cases. That is, you could be sick and spreading the virus and not know it. Well, he lied the first time, masks help everyone to some extent. Then he had to walk it back and try to make it look like he hadn't lied. Pitiful and BS.
Now we have the 'don't go to the grocery and pharmacy during the apex' from Dr. Birx. If you look at the healthdata.org site to see when the apex is, it's (estimated at) 10 days from now for the US. It's not until May 6 for Texas, where I live. This is the site that Dr. Birx has been referencing. So let me paraphrase. At the start of the crisis we were told don't hoard, the food supply won't be in danger, you can always go to the grocery. Now? Don't go the grocery, please hoard.
Let me start with the stupid pharmacy 'hoarding' concept. My wife uses the military's TriCare for health services. She is asthmatic, and needs meds regularly. They will not refill the meds until she is almost out of the previous prescription. She HAS to go to the pharmacy to get her meds. She cannot stay home and away. Maybe it's just the military, and regular doctors and clinics allow their patients to 'hoard' medicine?
Now the groceries. What the f**k? They allowed hoarding when the crisis started, and from what I can see, most of the shelves have stayed empty. Further, the idiots all reduced their hours, and some even create lines before people can enter. So you have to go to the grocery (unless you were a lucky hoarder) to find a few things that are on the shelves, but have to go back repeatedly to try and find things that are not on the shelves. EVERYONE is going, and the crowds are worse than before the crisis.
I agree your typical grocery now is a hell-hole of a virus incubator. The government stopped you from doing anything but going to the grocery and eating, forcing everyone into close quarters at a limited-hours grocery that doesn't have, at any one visit, much of what they need. And now they tell you don't go to the grocery, HOARD! I cannot write on here what I think of these people. Can they not think of a good way to minimize exposure?
Before I pivot to my second topic, local government, I want to mention Scott Adams, the Dilbert creator. He does a live stream every morning and evening, usually around 50-60 minutes each, on the crisis. He's 62 or 63 and also has asthma. So he feels, rightly, at high risk. He's self isolated so effectively that he doesn't go out and doesn't let anyone in.
He's pretty well off, what most people would call rich, and he is not concerned about any financial impact on his life. However, he lives in an urban area with delivery services for everything. I, and much of the country, live in a relatively rural area with delivery services for nothing but the local pizza. He can effectively self isolate; we cannot.
Scott is a smart guy, and I will continue to watch his live streams. And he is a Trump supporter. But there's a lot he does not consider. He has his own bubble.
Now to local idiocy. I just checked the local COVID-19 page for my county (April 5th). We have 21 cases total and 2 deaths. Out of the 19, six have recovered, leaving 13 sick in the county. According to the stats, 4 are hospitalized. We have a population of about 150,000 and one significant city. The age range is kind of interesting. The peak is in the 50-59 age group. 60-79 is next. Then 40-49. And finally, the 80+ group. But there are still 3 people below 40, spread all the way down through the 1-18 year group.
As I've said before, Texas allows county judges to overrule county and city emergency management directives. Peculiar. What it appears to me is that the legislature decided they didn't want local politicians to break the law or violate the Constitution during emergencies, so they let the courts do that. Maybe they thought the courts can make their own laws? Or would follow the law? Aren't all of us conservatives laughing?
Anyway, the Texas governor took pretty much the same approach as the feds. Recommendations, plus a directive disallowing in-restaurant dining. He let the local counties do more strict regulations in accordance with Texas law. Most of Texas is rural, but we have about 5 big cities. That law basically says localities or judges (with judges directives superseding conflicting local directives) may limit access to disaster areas. It also talks a lot about providing help to those areas. The areas are where significant loss of life or property occur or are imminent.
So the Dallas-Fort Worth area had an 'outbreak.' I think to date 19 people have died there. But almost immediately after the crisis started, the Dallas county judge issued a lock down directive, citing the Texas code and the need for safety for their residents. San Antonio followed soon after. I assume Houston did the same. I cite the Dallas judge because I read most of his order. From my reading of the Texas statute, the judge didn't have the authority to do what he did. But who's going to complain or sue? And if anyone does sue, what appeals court will overrule?
On April 3rd, our county issued a shelter-in-place order with a fine of $1,000 for violating it. Since March 27th, we've had orders closing most person-to-person businesses like beauty salons. Now anything non-essential is off limits, and the list of essential stuff is pretty explicit.
Our county judge's order is a little more respectable than the Dallas version. He actually cites the ability to restrict movement, even though he's violating the intent of the statute. He's got dozens of "Whereas..." where he cites earlier orders from everybody in the region, state, and nation. So he tried to use precedent and the text of the statute to make his order more legitimate.
So now in the future, if any disease kills 2 people and makes 13 sick in the county, any county judge can shut down all non-life-essential businesses in his/her county.
Apparently, the same precedent is available for any governor. Ohio did it with five cases. And the media wants the President to seize the same unconstitutional authority?
As far as I can tell, very few people in the media or online are concerned about the precedents we are setting. They all seem to think everything will go back to normal. Yeah.
Wednesday, April 1, 2020
Wuhan Virus and Numbers - Calm Down
Today I want to try and talk you into calming down. Don't believe everything you read or hear, even if it's provided by 'experts.' As a reminder, my expertise is in physics and electrical engineering. I did numerical modeling for both my MS and PhD. I am not a physician, virologist, or epidemiologist. Nor am I a statistician.
But let's start with an example of why you should not trust what you here. First, the Surgeon General is still insisting that masks won't help. Dr. Fauci and others are coming around. But this one is just common sense. The virus is spread through coughing and exhalation. Masks reduce the force and volume of air that gets past the mask. They also reduce the number of particles or airborne particulates, including viruses, that are propelled away from your face. Less force/kinetic energy and less particles mean less chance of spreading anything. Acting in reverse, a worn mask is going to cut down 'stuff' that gets into your airways. The WHO, the CDC, and the Surgeon General all lied to your faces about masks not helping.
Now let's turn to a 'simple' number thought experiment. The CDC and everyone else says wash your hands for 20 seconds to get rid of the virus on your hands and reduce the chance of spreading. Now how do you suppose they came up with that number of 20 seconds? Do you suppose they spread COVID-19 virus on tables, had everyone smear their hands, do a few handshakes, then had groups of 100 people wash for 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 and 30 seconds, then tested the amount of virus on their hands? No way. I can pretty much assure you no people were involved with any testing of live COVID-19 and hand washing.
They may have done some test tube experiments with soap and water to see how long it took to degrade the virus. They probably extrapolated from some previous tests with non-lethal virus-like entities. They probably also did a few modeling experiments. My guess is they came up with the number that 10 seconds almost always was enough to get rid of viruses in their 'experiments.'
No engineer (or scientist) is going to go with the figure that their calculations show is correct when safety is involved. They are going to throw in a fudge factor. So if you are building a bridge, you throw in a factor of 3 to 10 in terms of strength in case your calculations are off or you have an unexpected event. I cannot imagine for a pandemic, that they didn't throw in a fudge factor. So my guess is 10 seconds was considered safe, and they put out 20 seconds.
Now, like the virologists, I will wash my hands as close to 20 seconds as I can. I just know that if I'm accidentally short, the chances of not getting rid of the virus is still pretty good.
Now comes the important numbers. Curves were presented that show a range of 100,000 to 220,000 deaths in the US from COVID-19. I think that was cumulative deaths (area under the curve) rather than instantaneous deaths. Now how do you suppose they get those numbers? Dr. Birx says modeling and they both claim that the models/averages include New York numbers. New York city and to some extent New Jersey (in one big metropolitan area) have rapidly rising numbers that look like Italy. The rest of the country, for the most part, have gentle contagion/hospitalization/death curves that look more like South Korea. The task force were concerned that a handful of cities may become breakout regions like New York.
But what the chart seemed to show was an average/mean curve (most probable) in the middle of the chart with probably three sigma variations (standard deviations) that corresponded to the best and worse case curves. But they didn't say the best and worst were 3 sigma (confidence level of 99.9%) or 2 sigma (97% confidence) or 1 sigma (84% confidence) or something else. Even if they did, that just means the data points they used in their calculations spit out the value of a standard deviation.
And the standard deviation goes up if the data point values vary widely. Having a possible variation of 60,000 deaths from a mean of 160,000 (38%) is a vary broad range. It tells me the numbers don't mean much. They are ALL OVER THE PLACE.
Now think about the curve you saw--a rise, peak, then a gradual decrease. You know that they have not seen that curve anywhere in the US. So either they are using hypothetical models based on a variety of assumptions, or they are using data from elsewhere in the world with COVID-19.
But you saw China's data rise, peak, then stop. No gradual decrease. Of course, nobody believes their numbers anyway. Italy is still near the peak, and most European nations are still on the rise part. South Korea and Japan are maybe in the gradual decrease. But do you have any confidence they did a good job of testing broadly? And do you want to assume that nations using 100% masks are going to be representative of what we see here in the US? Which of those countries did they base their curve on?
Maybe they just used a simple model for all viruses with a rise, peak and gradual tail? And then did variations based upon the contagion value (R, how many people each infected person spreads the virus to). But who can measure the R value when different parts of our population are packed in differently and behave differently?
So it's all a guess. I can build you a numerical model that will give you any number you want. And I can defend it too. But simple logic is probably just as easy in this case. The Wuhan virus is more contagious than the flu and a portion of the infected group die at higher rates (the elderly and sick). So if the flue kills 25,000 to 60,000 people in the US annually, the COVID-19 virus is going to kill more than that.
But we don't do social distancing and close our economy down for the flu. That mitigation is going to have a lot of effect. Then too, how effective will treatments such as hydroxychloroquine be? We don't know. Do you think it will be as effective as the flu vaccine is in mitigating the effects of the flu?
Finally, I think it was Dr. Birx, or maybe Dr. Fauci, that said the old 2.2 million death prediction depended on 3 waves of COVID-19 over three years. And that was a worst case result with no mitigation.
Yesterday, they didn't mention any 3 waves, and I sure don't see any 3 waves in the curves. That suggests some kind of modeling disconnect with what they presented. Didn't they want to show the 3 waves? Did they assume a vaccine would be ready before wave 2 so the numbers for the 2nd and 3rd wave would fall below the numbers for the flu? Or have they manipulated the data?
So here are my take aways. The numbers are BS. Sure, they represent the output from some model. But I have no reason to trust the numbers, either the input or the output. Sure, they are big enough to scare everyone into keeping the economy closed for another 30 days. But beyond that, why should I believe them? I do not. They are guessing, and guessing numbers that are high enough to scare, but low enough so people don't riot in the streets.
Instead of worrying about those numbers, go on about whatever life the government is allowing you. Enjoy it. Stay as safe as possible. Then watch the US statistics and events and see what happens.
But let's start with an example of why you should not trust what you here. First, the Surgeon General is still insisting that masks won't help. Dr. Fauci and others are coming around. But this one is just common sense. The virus is spread through coughing and exhalation. Masks reduce the force and volume of air that gets past the mask. They also reduce the number of particles or airborne particulates, including viruses, that are propelled away from your face. Less force/kinetic energy and less particles mean less chance of spreading anything. Acting in reverse, a worn mask is going to cut down 'stuff' that gets into your airways. The WHO, the CDC, and the Surgeon General all lied to your faces about masks not helping.
Now let's turn to a 'simple' number thought experiment. The CDC and everyone else says wash your hands for 20 seconds to get rid of the virus on your hands and reduce the chance of spreading. Now how do you suppose they came up with that number of 20 seconds? Do you suppose they spread COVID-19 virus on tables, had everyone smear their hands, do a few handshakes, then had groups of 100 people wash for 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 and 30 seconds, then tested the amount of virus on their hands? No way. I can pretty much assure you no people were involved with any testing of live COVID-19 and hand washing.
They may have done some test tube experiments with soap and water to see how long it took to degrade the virus. They probably extrapolated from some previous tests with non-lethal virus-like entities. They probably also did a few modeling experiments. My guess is they came up with the number that 10 seconds almost always was enough to get rid of viruses in their 'experiments.'
No engineer (or scientist) is going to go with the figure that their calculations show is correct when safety is involved. They are going to throw in a fudge factor. So if you are building a bridge, you throw in a factor of 3 to 10 in terms of strength in case your calculations are off or you have an unexpected event. I cannot imagine for a pandemic, that they didn't throw in a fudge factor. So my guess is 10 seconds was considered safe, and they put out 20 seconds.
Now, like the virologists, I will wash my hands as close to 20 seconds as I can. I just know that if I'm accidentally short, the chances of not getting rid of the virus is still pretty good.
Now comes the important numbers. Curves were presented that show a range of 100,000 to 220,000 deaths in the US from COVID-19. I think that was cumulative deaths (area under the curve) rather than instantaneous deaths. Now how do you suppose they get those numbers? Dr. Birx says modeling and they both claim that the models/averages include New York numbers. New York city and to some extent New Jersey (in one big metropolitan area) have rapidly rising numbers that look like Italy. The rest of the country, for the most part, have gentle contagion/hospitalization/death curves that look more like South Korea. The task force were concerned that a handful of cities may become breakout regions like New York.
But what the chart seemed to show was an average/mean curve (most probable) in the middle of the chart with probably three sigma variations (standard deviations) that corresponded to the best and worse case curves. But they didn't say the best and worst were 3 sigma (confidence level of 99.9%) or 2 sigma (97% confidence) or 1 sigma (84% confidence) or something else. Even if they did, that just means the data points they used in their calculations spit out the value of a standard deviation.
And the standard deviation goes up if the data point values vary widely. Having a possible variation of 60,000 deaths from a mean of 160,000 (38%) is a vary broad range. It tells me the numbers don't mean much. They are ALL OVER THE PLACE.
Now think about the curve you saw--a rise, peak, then a gradual decrease. You know that they have not seen that curve anywhere in the US. So either they are using hypothetical models based on a variety of assumptions, or they are using data from elsewhere in the world with COVID-19.
But you saw China's data rise, peak, then stop. No gradual decrease. Of course, nobody believes their numbers anyway. Italy is still near the peak, and most European nations are still on the rise part. South Korea and Japan are maybe in the gradual decrease. But do you have any confidence they did a good job of testing broadly? And do you want to assume that nations using 100% masks are going to be representative of what we see here in the US? Which of those countries did they base their curve on?
Maybe they just used a simple model for all viruses with a rise, peak and gradual tail? And then did variations based upon the contagion value (R, how many people each infected person spreads the virus to). But who can measure the R value when different parts of our population are packed in differently and behave differently?
So it's all a guess. I can build you a numerical model that will give you any number you want. And I can defend it too. But simple logic is probably just as easy in this case. The Wuhan virus is more contagious than the flu and a portion of the infected group die at higher rates (the elderly and sick). So if the flue kills 25,000 to 60,000 people in the US annually, the COVID-19 virus is going to kill more than that.
But we don't do social distancing and close our economy down for the flu. That mitigation is going to have a lot of effect. Then too, how effective will treatments such as hydroxychloroquine be? We don't know. Do you think it will be as effective as the flu vaccine is in mitigating the effects of the flu?
Finally, I think it was Dr. Birx, or maybe Dr. Fauci, that said the old 2.2 million death prediction depended on 3 waves of COVID-19 over three years. And that was a worst case result with no mitigation.
Yesterday, they didn't mention any 3 waves, and I sure don't see any 3 waves in the curves. That suggests some kind of modeling disconnect with what they presented. Didn't they want to show the 3 waves? Did they assume a vaccine would be ready before wave 2 so the numbers for the 2nd and 3rd wave would fall below the numbers for the flu? Or have they manipulated the data?
So here are my take aways. The numbers are BS. Sure, they represent the output from some model. But I have no reason to trust the numbers, either the input or the output. Sure, they are big enough to scare everyone into keeping the economy closed for another 30 days. But beyond that, why should I believe them? I do not. They are guessing, and guessing numbers that are high enough to scare, but low enough so people don't riot in the streets.
Instead of worrying about those numbers, go on about whatever life the government is allowing you. Enjoy it. Stay as safe as possible. Then watch the US statistics and events and see what happens.
Friday, March 27, 2020
Wuhan Virus - Testing Stigma and Virus Spread
Today I've got two topics to discuss (and zero readers (:-). The first is a national level testing stigma. Everyone around the world watches the number of cases in each country. You can test and accurately report deaths, or you can not test and inaccurately report deaths. When you don't test, you don't get Wuhan virus deaths reported to WHO and they don't get into the Johns Hopkins COVID19 map.
So the US did its usual world-leading effective testing regime. One that the press inadvertently forced by continually claiming we weren't testing adequately. So we now show more cases than any country in the world, including China. Our death rate is of course lower than countries with limited testing but honest reporting of deaths. Who knows what the situation is actually around the world.
The increasing number of positives in the US is going to limit travel for our people if the rest of the world 'effectively' shows virus die out. But that doesn't matter since they don't seem to be limiting shipment of goods. What will be bad is if the rest of the world stops testing and accurately reporting and we allow them to travel here again. But then again, they will probably be afraid to travel here. Maybe its a wash.
More importantly, how is the virus spreading? I suspected all along that China stopped accurately reporting cases. It makes them look good and it removes any stigma from their people and goods. What is the benefit of accurately reporting a spreading contagion?
But there is also the chance that China did actually stop the spread. They took some drastic measures separating out the sick (forced quarantine), locking people down in their apartments, allowing only food delivery (not take out or drive thru), and preventing entry and exit of people from virus breakout areas. I do not know how they got food and fuel into those regions. But if they did careful testing and protection of truckers, they would have had a pretty good way to stop virus breakouts from leaking to nearby regions.
Contrast that with the US. Only in the big cities do people live in large apartment complexes, and that is usually just a small percentage of the population. Groceries do not have the capability to deliver to their customers. China did it by requiring large orders where people grouped together to place orders. US mayors could have done something to work out voluntary delivery assistance (for pay), but they couldn't mandate it. Instead in US cities, we all mingle in a few large groceries trying to stock up for 'worse to come' where we enhance the spread of the virus by crowding and a stigma against using masks.
Likewise, when someone gets sick in the US, they aren't visited by HAZMAT dressed police or military that drag them to a communal quarantine area. Instead, they continue living with their family or friends with the serious chance of virus spread.
Perhaps worst of all, there is no limit on travel into or out of breakout areas. I think NY tried that with the Westchester breakout with a national guard cordon around a one mile radius. But NY now has about half our national cases. Their limited trial didn't do them much good.
But take Texas, and our local experience as an example. We have a Super Walmart and a super HEB within 15 minutes of us in our county. Their shelves continue to be empty of any kind of disinfectant supplies. 30 minutes away, in Bexar Country (San Antonio) where they have a shelter-in-place order, is our closest Sams Club. We heard that yesterday they were allowing old folks early access. We went and stood in a tight line outside for 15 minutes, then shopped in an overly crowded store. They did have Clorox and Clorox wipes, the first we've seen since the pandemic started. But if anyone had the virus, there was a good chance it was spread.
My point is that even locals are going to shop a little farther from home to find goods they consider essential. No locked down city, the way the US does it, is going to stop the slow spread of the virus outside its borders. And there is nothing stopping a person in a breakout (locked down) area from traveling out into the 'country side.' If they have the means to do so, they are going to try and reduce their risk of the virus.
So in the US, unless something drastic changes, and I think it may be too late for that, the virus is going to spread outward from each breakout area. New breakout areas will form. It will move from the large cities to the smaller ones to the towns throughout the country.
The spread may not be fast, but it is going to happen. I guess it might disappear for summer weather. But if not, you are going to see waves spreading out from the big cities and hot spots. Each wave will have it's own 8 week curve. And like waves, they can go both ways. This will not be an 8 week hunker down and it's over.
There are three things that may mitigate the pandemic in the US: (1) therapeutic drug cocktails like hydro chloroquine and antibiotics may be effective enough to stop people from dying and slow down the spread and allowing the young and healthy to go back to work, (2) summer weather may nearly stop the spread as it does with the flu, and (3) social distancing and self-isolation may slow the spread enough that relatively few elderly and medically-at-risk persons will get sick, at least outside big urban centers.
There is a fourth measure that may help the situation. If the feds can convince people that the death rate is not much worse than the flu, they have a chance at heading off draconian measures. Just keep the elderly and sick protected. Unfortunately, I don't think the media will allow that to happen. It might help Trump.
Like the President said, I think the economy needs to get back to work. But if the death rate keeps going up drastically, the US is going to need to rethink its approach.
So the US did its usual world-leading effective testing regime. One that the press inadvertently forced by continually claiming we weren't testing adequately. So we now show more cases than any country in the world, including China. Our death rate is of course lower than countries with limited testing but honest reporting of deaths. Who knows what the situation is actually around the world.
The increasing number of positives in the US is going to limit travel for our people if the rest of the world 'effectively' shows virus die out. But that doesn't matter since they don't seem to be limiting shipment of goods. What will be bad is if the rest of the world stops testing and accurately reporting and we allow them to travel here again. But then again, they will probably be afraid to travel here. Maybe its a wash.
More importantly, how is the virus spreading? I suspected all along that China stopped accurately reporting cases. It makes them look good and it removes any stigma from their people and goods. What is the benefit of accurately reporting a spreading contagion?
But there is also the chance that China did actually stop the spread. They took some drastic measures separating out the sick (forced quarantine), locking people down in their apartments, allowing only food delivery (not take out or drive thru), and preventing entry and exit of people from virus breakout areas. I do not know how they got food and fuel into those regions. But if they did careful testing and protection of truckers, they would have had a pretty good way to stop virus breakouts from leaking to nearby regions.
Contrast that with the US. Only in the big cities do people live in large apartment complexes, and that is usually just a small percentage of the population. Groceries do not have the capability to deliver to their customers. China did it by requiring large orders where people grouped together to place orders. US mayors could have done something to work out voluntary delivery assistance (for pay), but they couldn't mandate it. Instead in US cities, we all mingle in a few large groceries trying to stock up for 'worse to come' where we enhance the spread of the virus by crowding and a stigma against using masks.
Likewise, when someone gets sick in the US, they aren't visited by HAZMAT dressed police or military that drag them to a communal quarantine area. Instead, they continue living with their family or friends with the serious chance of virus spread.
Perhaps worst of all, there is no limit on travel into or out of breakout areas. I think NY tried that with the Westchester breakout with a national guard cordon around a one mile radius. But NY now has about half our national cases. Their limited trial didn't do them much good.
But take Texas, and our local experience as an example. We have a Super Walmart and a super HEB within 15 minutes of us in our county. Their shelves continue to be empty of any kind of disinfectant supplies. 30 minutes away, in Bexar Country (San Antonio) where they have a shelter-in-place order, is our closest Sams Club. We heard that yesterday they were allowing old folks early access. We went and stood in a tight line outside for 15 minutes, then shopped in an overly crowded store. They did have Clorox and Clorox wipes, the first we've seen since the pandemic started. But if anyone had the virus, there was a good chance it was spread.
My point is that even locals are going to shop a little farther from home to find goods they consider essential. No locked down city, the way the US does it, is going to stop the slow spread of the virus outside its borders. And there is nothing stopping a person in a breakout (locked down) area from traveling out into the 'country side.' If they have the means to do so, they are going to try and reduce their risk of the virus.
So in the US, unless something drastic changes, and I think it may be too late for that, the virus is going to spread outward from each breakout area. New breakout areas will form. It will move from the large cities to the smaller ones to the towns throughout the country.
The spread may not be fast, but it is going to happen. I guess it might disappear for summer weather. But if not, you are going to see waves spreading out from the big cities and hot spots. Each wave will have it's own 8 week curve. And like waves, they can go both ways. This will not be an 8 week hunker down and it's over.
There are three things that may mitigate the pandemic in the US: (1) therapeutic drug cocktails like hydro chloroquine and antibiotics may be effective enough to stop people from dying and slow down the spread and allowing the young and healthy to go back to work, (2) summer weather may nearly stop the spread as it does with the flu, and (3) social distancing and self-isolation may slow the spread enough that relatively few elderly and medically-at-risk persons will get sick, at least outside big urban centers.
There is a fourth measure that may help the situation. If the feds can convince people that the death rate is not much worse than the flu, they have a chance at heading off draconian measures. Just keep the elderly and sick protected. Unfortunately, I don't think the media will allow that to happen. It might help Trump.
Like the President said, I think the economy needs to get back to work. But if the death rate keeps going up drastically, the US is going to need to rethink its approach.
Thursday, March 26, 2020
China Decoupling
Lots of people online seems to think the US will start bringing back critical item production from China after the Wuhan pandemic is over. I find it unlikely that companies will return significant pharmaceutical manufacturing to the US. And I’m using pharmaceuticals as an example.
The driver for decoupling at the moment is that the realization that masks, gowns, and most meds or med components are produced in China. China stopped exports of some things like N95 masks, and threatened stopping exports of meds if we didn’t stop ‘blaming’ them for the virus. India just stopped the export of hydro chloroquine from their country.
So yes, decoupling would be the wise, smart and obvious thing to do. Bring that manufacturing back! But it’s easy to prophesy decoupling, it’s another to actually execute...
First, companies are out there to make money for their owners. If they don’t, the owners/investors move their money somewhere else. Suppose a company wants to bring back a pill production line to the US. Costs for the pill will go up since the labor costs will be higher. Plus they will have to invest in the product line in the US and will want to recoup those costs. Now they are competing with the other Chinese manufactured pill that is still sold at the old price. Which pill does the hospital or pharmacy buy?
To bring back production, you are either going to have to make it illegal to buy non-US or you need to impose tariffs. Both require, in most cases, laws being passed by the US Congress. Have you seen any democratic cooperation with republican initiatives in the last few years? Remember, this is after the pandemic is over. My guess is ‘when hell freezes over.’
However, companies also don’t want their supply chains compromised in bad situations. So they may move production from China to another low labor cost country, e.g. Taiwan, Vietnam or Mexico. They might even split production and leave half in China. Maybe they think that will assuage their corporate consciences in case of another pandemic.
But we just saw India stop the export of hydro chloroquine. Countries are going to do what’s best for them. If they need the product, it is not going to be exported—back to the US.
There’s another aspect to the problem. Manufacturing anything requires ‘raw’ materials. I don’t necessarily mean mined rock. But you usually need piles of stuff that you feed into the machine process to get the output product. If China is the one that mines or makes that stuff, even a US factory is limited to the pile of stuff on hand in an emergency.
Somehow the US or US companies need to produce that stuff in the US. Now the manufacturer could fund US production of that stuff, but that’s a bigger investment. Again, US incentives created by law are going to be needed. And again, do you think that is going to be a priority for democrat politicians?
I’m not saying Congress won’t take up this kind of law. But I don’t think it is likely. I also don’t think pharmaceutical manufacturing will return to the US without those laws.
In my opinion, decoupling is another good idea that will be forgotten the moment the media moves on from this emergency.
The driver for decoupling at the moment is that the realization that masks, gowns, and most meds or med components are produced in China. China stopped exports of some things like N95 masks, and threatened stopping exports of meds if we didn’t stop ‘blaming’ them for the virus. India just stopped the export of hydro chloroquine from their country.
So yes, decoupling would be the wise, smart and obvious thing to do. Bring that manufacturing back! But it’s easy to prophesy decoupling, it’s another to actually execute...
First, companies are out there to make money for their owners. If they don’t, the owners/investors move their money somewhere else. Suppose a company wants to bring back a pill production line to the US. Costs for the pill will go up since the labor costs will be higher. Plus they will have to invest in the product line in the US and will want to recoup those costs. Now they are competing with the other Chinese manufactured pill that is still sold at the old price. Which pill does the hospital or pharmacy buy?
To bring back production, you are either going to have to make it illegal to buy non-US or you need to impose tariffs. Both require, in most cases, laws being passed by the US Congress. Have you seen any democratic cooperation with republican initiatives in the last few years? Remember, this is after the pandemic is over. My guess is ‘when hell freezes over.’
However, companies also don’t want their supply chains compromised in bad situations. So they may move production from China to another low labor cost country, e.g. Taiwan, Vietnam or Mexico. They might even split production and leave half in China. Maybe they think that will assuage their corporate consciences in case of another pandemic.
But we just saw India stop the export of hydro chloroquine. Countries are going to do what’s best for them. If they need the product, it is not going to be exported—back to the US.
There’s another aspect to the problem. Manufacturing anything requires ‘raw’ materials. I don’t necessarily mean mined rock. But you usually need piles of stuff that you feed into the machine process to get the output product. If China is the one that mines or makes that stuff, even a US factory is limited to the pile of stuff on hand in an emergency.
Somehow the US or US companies need to produce that stuff in the US. Now the manufacturer could fund US production of that stuff, but that’s a bigger investment. Again, US incentives created by law are going to be needed. And again, do you think that is going to be a priority for democrat politicians?
I’m not saying Congress won’t take up this kind of law. But I don’t think it is likely. I also don’t think pharmaceutical manufacturing will return to the US without those laws.
In my opinion, decoupling is another good idea that will be forgotten the moment the media moves on from this emergency.
Tuesday, March 24, 2020
Wuhan Virus - Statistics and the Economy
I've got two topics I wanted to discuss this morning. The first is statistics. What I get out of the Johns Hopkins statistics map is pretty useless. It shows total US cases of the virus and the total number of deaths, and what appears to be a highly inaccurate tracking of recoveries (almost nil). The number of deaths initially were by county then went to state for several weeks, and now it's back to counties.
You know how many counties there are in the US? I don't either, but it's a lot. By county data may be of use to Dr. Birx on the president's task force, but it's not very useful to me. It does help to tell me how many got sick in my county (three), but I know where maybe 5 counties, by name, are located in the US.
But the real problem I have with the data is it doesn't tell me a thing about the severity of the cases (except for the small number that have died). I really want to know how many cases are requiring hospitalization and how many of those are requiring ventilators. Plus, I want them to tell me how many beds and ventilators are available. That will tell me whether the hospital system is near to getting overtaxed. Better yet, they should show that data by state and then for Dr. Birx, by county.
I hate all of 'the sky is falling' about hospitals about to be overwhelmed when nobody is giving me any data that supports the claim. I want to see a curve showing the progressions of the number of hospital patients, and patients on ventilators, over time.
And then there's the anxiety people have about their personal risk of dying if they get sick. People will take risks and go about their lives if the risk is equivalent to the flu. But who knows with this situation?
They tell me the average age of people dying in Italy is above 80 and that they have 2.7 underlying conditions. So what? What does the curve look like? Especially here in the US where we have a different situation. Is the age distribution a tall thin peak in the 80's or is it spread down into the 60's? How about the distribution by underlying condition?
In my own family, I'm 64 and my wife is under 60 but has an underlying condition. Where on the distribution curves do we sit? I don't have a clue. And apparently either no one is collecting that information or they don't think the public deserves to get it. My suspicion is the former. If it's the latter, I would be even more worried.
Now I will turn to our economy. If you have read my previous posts, you will see that I was pretty alarmed. Doing state lock downs or shelter-in-place will kill almost every small business in the region. If they are down for two weeks, those who sell consumables (restaurants and bars) will have to restock. If they didn't have a big cash reserve, and most small businesses don't, they probably will require loans to start back up. Nearly EVERY small business will require loans. Unless of course, as soon as business fell, they let off all of their employees and stopped paying rents, leases, mortgages, utilities and taxes.
The business community, with some good will and understanding, could probably take 2 weeks without help. 4 weeks would bring it all down.
A couple of days ago, it looked like the Senate would pass a bill that would provide funds to unemployed individuals and families. Do you want them all going to the unemployment insurance office to file in a lock down? Do you think those offices dispense cash? Or do they take a week or more to send checks?
The small business, many of which would still be paying off their initial loans for start up and operation through the growth stage won't want to take on any more debt burden. And I'm not sure giant (or local) banks would want to take the risk they could handle bigger payments. But the bill in the Senate looked like it would provide grants rather than loans to get small businesses back on their feet.
But then the democrats balked. The market tanked yet again. Now there's talk that they may have resolved their differences. My guess is the republicans caved to the pork and social justice/abortion/climate change giveaways the democrats wanted to add.
I hope not. It seems to me that there are two options for the future situation. In one, after the President's 15 day social distancing period, the feds recommend reopening business for the young and low to moderate risks and further isolating the high risk people. At 15 days, except for the democrat run state holdouts, that will allow the economy to recover on its own. The other approach requires or recommends another two weeks of lock downs. This approach requires a Senate/US bill similar to what I've mentioned above, or the chance of societal and economic breakdown becomes high.
I expect one of those two approaches to work out. And society won't break down. But there's still going to be state holdouts. Three states needed lock downs. NY is the only one that seems to have quickly rising cases, and that's in NY city. I have a fear that democratic governors (and mayors) see this not just as a crisis to be overcome, but one where they have an opportunity to damage President Trump.
First, they do the shelter-in-place (lock downs) statewide because that protects people, and when people are worried or panicking, that helps their ratings. It doesn't matter that it's overkill for the 2/3 or more of the state that is rural and has almost no chance of worst case predictions. But unless they are bigger idiots than they appear (and that's got to be impossible), they know they are causing serious economic damage. And that will hurt Trump in the election. Those rural folks probably weren't going to vote democrat, so what's the down side for a democratic governor?
A democratic mayor is in basically the same position, except that they don't have a rural segment of voters and economy. If the city is big enough, they are going to do a lock down to prevent loss of life.
During this period, there is another factor. The feds always come to the rescue in a disaster. They have to expect a rescue bill for any damage done to the economy.
Now consider the situation after a change. Either the feds recommend starting up the economy because too much damage is being incurred. Or the numbers show the hospitals in a city, region or state won't be overwhelmed. As I said in the first part of this blog, the statistics aren't there to allow assessing hospital risk. All you can get is anecdotal information from local reporters talking to a hospital administrator that is trying to prevent economic business as usual. They know their limits and they fear what will happen if cases surpass those limits. They are not going to say everything is good and the hospital can handle whatever comes its way.
But my point is, in either case, there is evidence that the city mayor or state governor should back off on their total shelter-in-place orders. If their citizens/voters agree, they are probably pretty soon going to allow some relief. Those whose motives lean towards damaging Trump, and that believe the feds will step in with relief funds, will keep their lock down orders in place longer than others.
Of course, there are still likely to be hot spots, like NY city, where you need to keep a lock down in place. I would guess any city over 500,000 people, ought to be very careful.
So I'm not as pessimistic now as I was a few days ago about a serious depression. But I still think state autonomy, combined with democratic governors and mayors that want to damage Trump, is going to make this worse than it should be. Of course, I'm still for state autonomy!
You know how many counties there are in the US? I don't either, but it's a lot. By county data may be of use to Dr. Birx on the president's task force, but it's not very useful to me. It does help to tell me how many got sick in my county (three), but I know where maybe 5 counties, by name, are located in the US.
But the real problem I have with the data is it doesn't tell me a thing about the severity of the cases (except for the small number that have died). I really want to know how many cases are requiring hospitalization and how many of those are requiring ventilators. Plus, I want them to tell me how many beds and ventilators are available. That will tell me whether the hospital system is near to getting overtaxed. Better yet, they should show that data by state and then for Dr. Birx, by county.
I hate all of 'the sky is falling' about hospitals about to be overwhelmed when nobody is giving me any data that supports the claim. I want to see a curve showing the progressions of the number of hospital patients, and patients on ventilators, over time.
And then there's the anxiety people have about their personal risk of dying if they get sick. People will take risks and go about their lives if the risk is equivalent to the flu. But who knows with this situation?
They tell me the average age of people dying in Italy is above 80 and that they have 2.7 underlying conditions. So what? What does the curve look like? Especially here in the US where we have a different situation. Is the age distribution a tall thin peak in the 80's or is it spread down into the 60's? How about the distribution by underlying condition?
In my own family, I'm 64 and my wife is under 60 but has an underlying condition. Where on the distribution curves do we sit? I don't have a clue. And apparently either no one is collecting that information or they don't think the public deserves to get it. My suspicion is the former. If it's the latter, I would be even more worried.
Now I will turn to our economy. If you have read my previous posts, you will see that I was pretty alarmed. Doing state lock downs or shelter-in-place will kill almost every small business in the region. If they are down for two weeks, those who sell consumables (restaurants and bars) will have to restock. If they didn't have a big cash reserve, and most small businesses don't, they probably will require loans to start back up. Nearly EVERY small business will require loans. Unless of course, as soon as business fell, they let off all of their employees and stopped paying rents, leases, mortgages, utilities and taxes.
The business community, with some good will and understanding, could probably take 2 weeks without help. 4 weeks would bring it all down.
A couple of days ago, it looked like the Senate would pass a bill that would provide funds to unemployed individuals and families. Do you want them all going to the unemployment insurance office to file in a lock down? Do you think those offices dispense cash? Or do they take a week or more to send checks?
The small business, many of which would still be paying off their initial loans for start up and operation through the growth stage won't want to take on any more debt burden. And I'm not sure giant (or local) banks would want to take the risk they could handle bigger payments. But the bill in the Senate looked like it would provide grants rather than loans to get small businesses back on their feet.
But then the democrats balked. The market tanked yet again. Now there's talk that they may have resolved their differences. My guess is the republicans caved to the pork and social justice/abortion/climate change giveaways the democrats wanted to add.
I hope not. It seems to me that there are two options for the future situation. In one, after the President's 15 day social distancing period, the feds recommend reopening business for the young and low to moderate risks and further isolating the high risk people. At 15 days, except for the democrat run state holdouts, that will allow the economy to recover on its own. The other approach requires or recommends another two weeks of lock downs. This approach requires a Senate/US bill similar to what I've mentioned above, or the chance of societal and economic breakdown becomes high.
I expect one of those two approaches to work out. And society won't break down. But there's still going to be state holdouts. Three states needed lock downs. NY is the only one that seems to have quickly rising cases, and that's in NY city. I have a fear that democratic governors (and mayors) see this not just as a crisis to be overcome, but one where they have an opportunity to damage President Trump.
First, they do the shelter-in-place (lock downs) statewide because that protects people, and when people are worried or panicking, that helps their ratings. It doesn't matter that it's overkill for the 2/3 or more of the state that is rural and has almost no chance of worst case predictions. But unless they are bigger idiots than they appear (and that's got to be impossible), they know they are causing serious economic damage. And that will hurt Trump in the election. Those rural folks probably weren't going to vote democrat, so what's the down side for a democratic governor?
A democratic mayor is in basically the same position, except that they don't have a rural segment of voters and economy. If the city is big enough, they are going to do a lock down to prevent loss of life.
During this period, there is another factor. The feds always come to the rescue in a disaster. They have to expect a rescue bill for any damage done to the economy.
Now consider the situation after a change. Either the feds recommend starting up the economy because too much damage is being incurred. Or the numbers show the hospitals in a city, region or state won't be overwhelmed. As I said in the first part of this blog, the statistics aren't there to allow assessing hospital risk. All you can get is anecdotal information from local reporters talking to a hospital administrator that is trying to prevent economic business as usual. They know their limits and they fear what will happen if cases surpass those limits. They are not going to say everything is good and the hospital can handle whatever comes its way.
But my point is, in either case, there is evidence that the city mayor or state governor should back off on their total shelter-in-place orders. If their citizens/voters agree, they are probably pretty soon going to allow some relief. Those whose motives lean towards damaging Trump, and that believe the feds will step in with relief funds, will keep their lock down orders in place longer than others.
Of course, there are still likely to be hot spots, like NY city, where you need to keep a lock down in place. I would guess any city over 500,000 people, ought to be very careful.
So I'm not as pessimistic now as I was a few days ago about a serious depression. But I still think state autonomy, combined with democratic governors and mayors that want to damage Trump, is going to make this worse than it should be. Of course, I'm still for state autonomy!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)