I have a question, and inasmuch as I am 86 and my wife is
87, I do not ask merely out of idle curiosity.
Roughly 2.8 million people die in the US each year. Obviously many of them are "people in their
eighties with underlying conditions.” A
significant proportion of the people living in my retirement community are in
their eighties with underlying conditions.
My wife is among them. Another significant
proportion are in their seventies or nineties with underlying conditions.
There is a great deal of rather terrifying talk about COVID
19 causing one million deaths in the United States, mostly among people "over seventy with underlying conditions."
Is that a prediction that the annual US death total during the Coronavirus
epidemic will be 3.8 million rather than 2.8 million? Or is it a prediction that some of those who
would have died from other causes will die of the virus, while others who would
not have died at all will die of the virus? If it is the latter, what is the estimate of the additional deaths?
30 comments:
I'm not an expert, but from what I've read and the statistics I've seen, countries such as China, South Korea, and Taiwan have gotten COVID-19 under control and the number of new deaths are in the single digits.
For China...
See this graph:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e5/2020_coronavirus_patients_in_China.svg/524px-2020_coronavirus_patients_in_China.svg.png
More details here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019%E2%80%9320_coronavirus_pandemic_in_mainland_China
Sadly, countries such as Italy & Spain (and now most of Europe and the US & Canada) have not taken the lessons to heart and they are late to the game in controlling the virus.
In fact in October 2019 a meeting of public health authorities around the world simulated a Corona virus pandemic at Event 201 at the Center for Health Security at Johns Hopkins University. Details here:
https://hub.jhu.edu/2019/11/06/event-201-health-security/
So, the actual deaths is unclear right now.
If you take a 2% mortality rate, then literally millions will die.
If you take the fact that the contagion can be controlled, then much much less death will occur.
And there are treatments (no vaccine "cure" for about a year), but there are anti-virals that appear effective:
https://www.healthline.com/health/coronavirus-treatment#potential-treatments
But the trouble is like the AID epidemic: can you get authorities to allow use of an "experimental" treatment in the face of a fatal disease?
I'm hopeful because I know it can be controlled.
I'm pessimistic because government always underperforms and leaves me incredulous at how they can botch things.
I haven't seen any estimates along these lines. You're obviously right that some people who die of COVID-19 would have died anyway of some other cause. How many? I'm guessing some intrepid researcher may take up that question after all this is over. But right now, it seems clear enough that the number of deaths that COVID-19 will add is high enough that it's worth talking about the estimates in the way we're now doing.
I wouldn't be surprised if more people start asking this question, with more or less veiled insidious intent, as the damage to our economy continues to grow.
Another potential problem is that the bad economic situation, especially if mishandled by the government, could itself cause or at least contribute to bad public health outcomes, including deaths. And of course some of these deaths might have happened anyway for other reasons, too.
The speed at which science & technology advance is utterly amazing and deserves the highest praise and gratitude. Case in point...
WHO announces the first test of a COVID-19 vaccine:
https://twitter.com/WHO/status/1240313328934756359
In my previous comment I echoed the "common knowledge" that a vaccine was a "year away". But it is here now.
The vaccine for Ebola broke records.
This establishes a new record. Instead of a year or two, it is now 3-4 months!
I graduated with a philosophy degree, but I have high respect for science. Sadly, the great majority don't. They would rather throw money at idiocy like "global warming" and "green this" and "green that". When in fact, the real progress of civilization is made not on Wall Street, or on pontificators on cable news, or in the humanities departments, but in the hard sciences (I make an exception for climate "science" which has been taken over by swindlers and fraudsters).
By the way, if you want to read an intelligent article on "global warming", read this by William Happer (I utterly detest Trump, but Happer was a sensible appointment):
https://thebestschools.org/special/karoly-happer-dialogue-global-warming/happer-major-statement/
or watch this by Patrick Moore, his "Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCrkqLaYjnc
I don't completely write off political science and economics, but I have a low opinion of them, somewhere down with the sociologists and psychiatric "profession". But I still think Marx is worth reading. I utterly abhor "state capitalism". I much prefer John Kenneth Galbraith's "mixed economy". I do believe that having state-run enterprises in key industries (but not monopolizing) acts as a key brake on greed and fraud. But I also recognize the capitalism and individual aspirations (and, yes, greed) can drive society forward. I do recommend Dean Baker for his insights into the flaws of the current economic regime:
https://cepr.net/staff-member/dean-baker/
But I have no time for the artsy fartsy humanities types. I spent far too much time getting advanced degrees around this puffed up "academics". I have a fondness for the arts, but if you want to see the engine of civilization and the furnace of the future: look to the sciences! (The "hard" sciences, not so so-called "soft" sciences.)
or read
Dr. Wolff,
If you have asthma you may be taking Alvesco. There is a link that talks something about it here:
https://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20200317/p2a/00m/0na/026000c
I'm saying this because there may be hoarding of Alvesco in the future.
Take Care,
Michael Llenos (Pasteur)
Just as an fyi for whoever might find it useful:
The WHO has recommended avoiding taking ibuprofen for COVID-19 symptoms.
If anyone searches on this, I'm sure the relevant links will appear. I've just seen a brief summary and have not gone into the evidentiary basis of the recommendation.
More good news:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/03/hydroxychloroquine-now-being-advocated-to-fight-coronavirus-trump-supporting/
This lines up with other stuff I read, i.e. that chloroquine and remdesivir are effective in treating COVID-19:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remdesivir#SARS-CoV-2
I realize many of your readers may not be aware of this. But there are treatments and apparently a vaccine as I pointed out in comments 1 and 4 of this blog posting. But I suspect your readers don't look at stuff from "the other side". Dr. Roy Spencer is an "warmist" which the fanatics translates as a "denier" because he is not whole-heartedly in the "climate emergency" camp:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_(scientist)#Climate_change
I find it odd that Wikipedia demotes him to the lowly classification of "meteorologist". He is a researcher and principal scientist for NASA responsible for the UAH satellite temperature dataset gathered over the years by various radiometers on satellites. He is the principal lead for the AMSR-E radiometer on the Aqua satellite.
I read his blog. I don't agree with his religion, but I agree with his science.
I read Dr. Wolff's Marxism, but I agree with a lot he says.
I don't watch Fox "news", but I'm willing to read stuff and view video clips.
I don't watch any of the cable news networks or the talking heads that run hour long "shows", but I'm aware of them and I appreciate some of them.
The point I'm trying to make: too many people are in an echo chamber and only listen to reinforcing ideas. I'm an anarchist and I'll read Marxist stuff, Trotskyist stuff, anarchist stuff, mainstream political science stuff, and even the odd idiocy from a "talking head" on a TV channel. The world has gone "sour" for me because too many people are far too ideological. There needs to be more pragmatism. More reaching across boundaries to see the other guy's point of view. I don't need to agree with a person to listen to him or her and pick out bits that I like and reject bits I don't agree with. But exposing myself to various points of views is a kind of "liberal education" fostered by the Enlightenment. We need to trust more in our own good sense and our ability to see all points of view and take responsibility for finding Truth among the many semblances and "appearances" that shimmer and promise "truth" but are in fact not the "real stuff". As a pragmatist I'm willing to admit that "Truth" may never be reachable by the human mind or the scientific community, but I deeply believe in the scientific method based on sharing and criticism, not on ideology and the pretense to a secret truth or a "higher" truth. The only truth is what we can find by a collaborative and open effort. I was heartened to see, as I point on in comment #4 above that it was "open" science that so quickly has gotten to a vaccine. Now, I only hope that it proves itself in tests. I don't accept the claim of scientists that "this works!". I want to see hard tests and I want to see vigorous debate and many viewpoints that examine the results and interpret them to find "the Truth". Sadly, the world of ideology, of political "thought", of "sociology", and of the so-called "soft" sciences, don't have an effective methodology like the hard sciences. As a student of philosophy I saw several thousand years of very intelligent thinkers claim "the Truth" but not expose their ideas to a critical methodology and a community critique that is the only real way to get at "objective" truth, at least insofar as humans can achieve that. I quit academia because I saw the fruitless waste of too many good minds in the humanities.
I wonder if anonymous would kindly explain away the isotopic evidence for anthropomorphic caused increases in atmospheric CO2 concentrations? What is causing the dilution of the C14 isotope?
Anonymous:
A vaccine is in the initial testing stage, not yet available; even on an expedited basis, it takes time. Your statement that "there is" a vaccine is therefore misleading at best.
I find it odd that when someone tell a child that "Christmas is coming" that one must be reprimanded for talking of something that is not "here" but in the future. I would think that responding to a concern posed "anxiously" it is perfectly proper to reply with a message of hope rather than add to the drumbeat of disheartening news.
I'm not stupid. I realize that with regulatory agencies dragging their feet "to protect the public" it could be years before a medicine is available. We have the experience of the late 1980s and 1990s where the FDA threw roadblock after roadblock to ensure that dying patients wouldn't "endanger" themselves by taken an unproven substance.
I would point to this interview of Dr. David Ho in addressing the possible new treatments of COVID-19. As a key person in bringing AIDS under control by pushing the FDA hard to allow the use of a combination of retroviral medicines to stop the scourge and bring that raging epidemic under control. But... as LFC days obviously Dr. Ho was "misleading" by pushing so hard. The FDA surely had to be allowed to ploddingly proceed with all its "safety" concerns. (Note: I'm not against "safety", but I think rules must be flexible given the exigency of the situation. Yes, a quaint view, but I'm a kinda quaint sort of guy!)
As for Terry and his tremulous concern over isotope evidence of anthropogenic CO2... he obviously didn't look at the links I provided. I'm not arguing that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. I'm not arguing that humans have no influence on climate. What I am arguing is that there are vested interests in selling fear and pushing a viewpoint past what the science actually says. Sadly, all those people screaming "denier" and refusing to debate can't be bothered to see that there might be another side to the issue. They are so puffed up with certainty, they can't be bothered with grubby facts. Reminds me of react to any change in science. The vested interests of the old guard deny the possibility of discussion/debate and use ad hominem attacks (think "denier") to squelch any rational discussion.
I point you to the insanity of declaring a "climate emergency" when in fact there is no such thing. The hysteria over the climate is mind boggling. I remember the same "climatologists" vociferously crying about "global cooling" in the late 1970s. Indeed there had been a cooling since the Dirty Thirties, but there was no more threat of imminent catastrophe then than there is now. But what I've just said is purely opinion. If you really want to argue, you need to read the relevant scientific debate. Sadly, you will find that fear of losing their career has pushed "the debate" into the corners. I give you a few examples:
1) Judith Curry was head of the climatology department at Georgia Tech until her review of the facts pushed her from the mainstream opinion to a more nuanced view. Sadly, in the climate of today that is not permissible so she was pushed from her position. She discusses her situation in a 2017 posting on her blog:
https://judithcurry.com/2017/01/03/jc-in-transition/
2) Roger Pielke Jr., the son of a senior climatologist at Colorado State so "climate" is in his blood. He had a career in climate change, disaster mitigation, and public policy until the hounds of hell from the fanatics "global warming" crowd hounded him out of his field. He is now focused more on sports governance and public policy. He was forced to drop his job as a contributor at FiveThirtyEight. He became the subject of an attack by US Representative Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ) which demanded that the University of Colorado "turn over" all his correspondence for this "investigation". Details here:
https://business.financialpost.com/opinion/roger-pielke-jr-i-am-under-investigation
...my previous comment was too long: here is the remains...
As for "free and open" discussion? Wikipedia has shut down the page that identified those scientists who took various positions that were not sufficient "ideologically correct" for the global warming crowd. The following page was removed:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_who_disagree_with_the_scientific_consensus_on_global_warming
How odd.
We can have pages on snail darter and the northern spotted owl, but Wikipedia has "room" for a page that identifies various reputable scientists who disagree with the so-called "97% consensus"???
Sadly there is no much rational discussion about climate.
And I see efforts by the fanatics of global warming complaining that efforts to fight COVID-19 are "mistaken" because in their minds the "real threat" is the coming "climate disaster".
What I see is Lysenkoism gone mad with these climate fanatics. Reputable scientists are sent off to the gulag if they question the ideology.
I find it tragic that the West is going down a well trod path where political ideologues seize the high ground and enforce a "politically correct" view and suppress all discussion and debate.
Meanwhile... I happily view the future with the fact that current trials are already underway looking at existing retroviral medicines and that tests of a new vaccine for COVID-19 are underway. I'm not a fool. I realize getting the "health system" to change is like turning a aircraft carrier. But rather then wallow in the present, I lift my eyes to the highlands where the sun is already shining and a new day is promised.
Sorry... Roger Pielke Jr. and Judith Curry are not the only examples of academics penalized for taking a "politically incorrect" viewpoint.
Australian coral reef scientist Peter Ridd won a case against James Cook University for firing him because his "inconvenient truths" about the health of coral reefs:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/04/15/victory-climate-skeptic-scientist-peter-ridd-wins-big/
and more background:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/03/11/%EF%BB%BFthe-jcu-bad-riddance/
Canadian climatologist Tim Ball has won a court case where Michael Mann accused him of "defamation" for writing an article Ball wrote saying that the IPCC had diverted almost all climate research funding and scientific investigation to anthropogenic global warming (AGW)
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/08/22/breaking-dr-tim-ball-wins-michaelemann-lawsuit-mann-has-to-pay/
Canadian adjutant professor Susan Crockford was "let go" by the University of Victoria despite winning awards for her teaching. Why? Apparently she didn't toe party line on "endangered" polar bears:
https://business.financialpost.com/opinion/was-this-zoologist-punished-for-telling-school-kids-politically-incorrect-facts-about-polar-bears
Australian professor Murry Salby was fired while in Europe attending a conference and left stranded there.
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/08/murry-salby-responds-to-the-attacks-on-his-record/
MIT professor Richard Lindzen was an IPCC lead who stepped down because of all the "politics" involved. He simply didn't understand how you could write the "guide for policy maker" before the actual volumes on the science were finished!
There are many more examples. The above are "off the top of my head".
What ordinary people don't understand is how "office politics" and control of funding has skewed "climate science" into a kind of Lysenkoism.
Sorry to beat a dead horse, but there are so many voices that aren't being heard.
Freeman Dyson, the distinguished mathematician/physicist (who never got a PhD but helped birth Richard Feynman's insights into a mathematical format that took the physics world by storm) has some very interesting, and very knowledgeable, things to say about climate:
From 2007 in an interview with the delightful site by John Brockman, Edge.org:
https://www.edge.org/conversation/freeman_dyson-heretical-thoughts-about-science-and-society
From 2009 in an article published by Yale's School of Forestry and Environmental Studies:
https://e360.yale.edu/features/freeman_dyson_takes_on_the_climate_establishment
Here is a less distinguished person, but someone who has made a career as a writer and journalist focused on science. This is a talk he gave at the Royal Society in Londonhttps://www.thegwpf.org/matt-ridley-global-warming-versus-global-greening/ in 2016:
Sadly, voices of dissent are drowned out much as news about hopeful developments in science & technology in battling COVID-19. The popular press & TV & social media would much rather show you panic buying of groceries or have brief interviews of "experts" delivering jeremiads or medical personnel hectoring you about "wash your hands!". I have nothing against these, but I do object when they overwhelm the channels of information. Similarly I have nothing against those who want to argue for concern over "global warming", but I'm fed up with them when they overwhelm the channels of information with their "climate alarmism". The real world is much more complex & nuanced that fits in sound bytes. And what gets overlooked by all these prognosticators of doom is that fundamentally climate is a chaotic complex dynamic system which means even if it truly were fully "deterministic", you can't predict too far into the future. Weather reporting is good for 7 to 10 days, but beyond that it quickly become useless. Climate predictions (which are based on the same GCMs, global circulation models) are good for
Chaos theory surfaced early with experiments with fluids. But the key demonstration was in the early 1960s when Edward Lorenz at MIT did the earliest climate modelling and discovered that rounding error in floating point numbers mean you couldn't take a snapshot of a run and then pick it up from the data dump because differences in the 7th digit and beyond were lost. That tiny difference when re-run soon gave you entirely different results. This is the famous "butterfly effect":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect
When climate scientists claim to "predict" the climate 50 or 100 years out (or even 10 years out), they are deceiving you. They can't. Their models are too coarse. Worse, they "parameterize" the models which is a sneaky way to "tune" the model to expected outputs. And even worse than that, they fail to model clouds and the details of solar interaction. The models simply don't handle this! But they don't tell you this because they want to believe, and they want you to believe, that their models are "perfect" (to just the jargon of Donald Trump). I worked in the high tech industry modeling computer performance for large systems we designed. Sure, I gave management wonderful documents spelling out computer response times and load factors, but I knew this was at best a WAG (wild-assed guess). Models are not science. I never had to do the requisite V&V (verification and validation) of my models to have any real assurance of the quality of the output. Climate modellers do no serious V&V.
OK, I admit it, I'm obsessive so I'm back again (even though I'm pretty sure nobody is reading this old post and especially not the long-in-the-tooth comments)...
Here is a good overview of the COVID-19 virus:
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2020/03/biography-new-coronavirus/608338/?utm_source=feed
What I like about old fashioned print is that it can be thoughtful and informed.
I refuse to engage with social media which is the Kool-Aid of our times.
I watch TV "news" only to surf topics. Originally in the US broadcasters got free rights to the airwaves because they supposedly accepted a "public responsibility" to educate and "the news" became their means to fulfill that obligation. But as time slipped by "the news" went from being a "loss leader" to being just another "profit center" and news went from being somewhat informative to being mostly razzle-dazzle and entertainment.
I read newspapers and magazines when I trust the quality of the journalism. But with cutbacks that quality is rapidly disappearing.
COVID-19 is demonstrating gaps and failures in our social institutions. Hopefully it will give rise to a re-think and not just public health departments get restructured and better funded, but many other aspects of the "social contract" need to be re-thought and re-organized.
I still adhere to the original vision of the Internet as a medium in which the "little guy" can have his/her voice heard. I was seriously disheartened when corporate types like Zuckerberg fenced off great swaths in order to "commercialize" the human urge to share and communicate. But I remain hopeful that people will wake up and learn to navigate the new landscape. There are jewels out there like Robert Paul Wolff's The Philosopher's Stone. And there are many others well worth monitoring and enjoying.
Good information sources are widely scattered and not in places you would expect.
I follow an economics blog, Calculated Risk, and he has a good graphic of the number of COVID-19 tests conducted in the US:
https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-LKKFSwSxjII/XnPWmJUdAHI/AAAAAAAA0PA/BPp3Ue0y2VQCUar1QfVHnEz6YhPH2WUqwCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/COVIDMar192020.PNG
I look at this and laugh at Trump's "we have millions of tests being made" and promises of "a million this week and 4 million next week" (given 4 or 5 days ago).
The graphic can be found in this post:
https://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2020/03/march-19-update-covid-19-tests-per-day.html
And today Bill McBride of Calculated Risk adds more insight into the failure of US testing for COVID-19:
https://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2020/03/the-next-phase-of-testing.html
I'm an anarchist. Governments disappoint me because they don't live up to their billing. They take authority by claiming responsibility, but then don't fulfill their responsibilities. In my view, most of the good things in life bubble up from the bottom. I wish good things could come top-down, but human failings, corruption, ignorance, and bureaucracy mean that governments are very poor at delivering the services they were built for.
The authoritarian left scares the bejeezus out of me. Not only are they top-down statists, but their are blind to their own failings and are ignorant of historical examples: the French Revolution under Robespierre, the Russian Revolution under Lenin/Stalin and the the dead hand of bureaucracy, the Chinese Revolution under the hand of Mao with his genocide of tens of millions in his "Great Leap Forward" and "Cultural Revolution". Not to speak of Pol Pot and innumerable other dictatorial wannabees!!!
What I like about a functioning democracy is that it gives people a mechanism to bring down tyranny and incompetence. But as the upcoming 2020 US election may well demonstrate: "the people" don't know what they are voting for and don't even really know what they want. I laugh at Rousseau's philosophical piece The Social Contract where he believes in a mystical thing called "the Will of the People". Typical philosophical castles in the air. In fact "the people" is nothing more than an ideological construct. In the real world you have real people, busy people, who don't want to be political beasts 24/7 so they delegate to "leaders" and then fail to really understand what their "representatives" are doing. Add in a corrupt press, toss in ideological posturing and "information engineering", and you get a public like the throngs of adulatory "fans" at a Trump rally.
I hope COVID-19 is one of those turning points in history where people wake up from their slumber and ideological illusions. In the words of a great thinker/historian and propagandist (but miserable human being): "The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win."
This may not calm your anxiously posed question but...
I find this historiography of the name "Chinese virus" interesting:
https://www.dcreport.org/2020/03/20/why-trump-the-radical-republicans-and-fox-news-are-calling-it-the-chinese-virus/
It proves again just how good a showman Trump and his cronies are. They can deflect and obfuscate and inflame and ultimately bury any real discussion of the COVID-19 infection and the problems of managing it.
This is exactly why I fear that bumbling "feel good" Joe Biden will fumble away the 2020 election just like "glass ceiling" Hillary Clinton did. Lenin defeated the alliance of liberals and socialists who gained control of Russia in February 1917 by using tricks like Trump to persuading Mensheviks, left Social Revolutionary party members, and elements of the anarchists in Russia. His slogan of "Peace, bread, and land" sold the majority to go along just as Trump's "MAGA, Make America Great Again". What a wonderful slogan. Who is against peace, bread, land, making America great again, Mom, and apple pie?
Watching the ideologues haggle over the nuances of their "500 point plan" or the "purity of their vision" scares the bejeezus out of me. And the "settling" on Joe Biden was a tragedy, but I sure hope people vote for him. He isn't the cure for the disease, but it is like cutting a leg off to stop gangrene.
History turns on some strange confluences. Maybe Trump & COVID-19 form the basis of just such a "turning point". My rational self says "probably not". But my optimistic self says "maybe".
So these are times for posing many many questions "anxiously"...
Humor in the midst of COVID-19 "anxiety"...
Here is a bit from The American Prospect that notices that the Treasury Department has hastily corrected this cut-and-paste job put forward as the "Stage Three Proposal":
https://prospect.org/coronavirus/unsanitized-ghost-bailouts-past-means-testing-present/
To see the "metadata" referred to in this article. Click on the link in your brower to call up the PDF. Then right-click on the PDF and select "Inspect Element (Q)". Then use the top area named "Search HTML" enter the text "title". The first hit should show HTML with the tag (in angle brackets) saying "title" and the very next line will say:
MEMORANDUM FOR SECRETARY PAULSON
The "ghosts of Christmas past" are rising up to humor us in this dark hour!
Sadly, this only confirms my worst fears about incompetence and sloppiness that is being passed off as "governance" under the Trump regime.
...oops
I got side-lined.
I should have also mentioned that if you look at The American Prospect article and ponder what Nancy Pelosi has done by demanding that there be "means testing".
I love politicians. They are like passengers on the Titanic arguing about deck chair arrangements just as the huge hulk is lifting out of the water bow forward preparing to break and go under! Why pass out cash immediately when you can quibble and argue for weeks and "win points" for your side!
Oh... and schemes to give people payroll deductions or give cash to the "unemployed" shows just how out of touch the politicians are. A server lives on tips. Their "income" is less than half their official "earnings". So giving a cash amount based on "unemployment insurance" misses the need. And the homeless? Which pay check? What income tax return? Just where are they enrolled as "unemployed"?
I like states like New York which are demanding that banks and landlords give people a payment "holiday".
What amazes me is all the supposedly high-powered people with the elite educations (and big pay packets) in Washington who are so out of touch with average people. They don't understand who needs what, how much, or how you can even reach these people.
Why not a new WPA to employ anybody who applies with a minimal salary and tell them their job is to "stay home", clean up their street, sing from the balconies, etc. Anybody with a real job and a real pay check wouldn't apply (you can check tax records after the fact and imprison the miscreants). But this would get cash to people who are willing to "work" for say $5/hour and maybe build a community network where you create local community reps whose job it is to check on people and sign off on their "work" and ensure the the sick and lonely and aged are being "looked in upon" so nobody dies needless in the dark.
I'm no expert. The above is off the top of my head. But there are people who understand the poor and work and the real sociology of the bottom 50% who have no savings and are in dire straits during a quarantine. There are real academics who know this stuff and should be able to whip something up in 24 hours. (Too bad this wasn't started a month ago!)
The job of government is to manage society and its needs. I see precious little of that going on.
Here is a "true picture" of what is going on with COVID-19:
https://delong.typepad.com/.a/6a00e551f0800388340240a518b449200b-600wi
It lines things up by starting at their 100th case.
Clearly the US is on a very bad trajectory!
China, South Korea, and Japan have clearly "flattened the curve".
Hong Kong and Singapore have done a good job of "social distancing" and "tracing" so they have kept the exponential curve from doing what exponential curves do: EXPLODE!
But while Chin, South Korea, and Japan have successfully flatted out.
It isn't clear to me that Hong Kong and Singapore have succeeded. They still show growth.
I've found it!
I've found the answer to your "A Question Posed Anxiously"...
https://theintercept.com/2020/03/20/what-evangelical-leaders-told-their-congregations-about-coronavirus/
My grandfather worked the "trade" of preaching and I heard innumerable stories of how he exploited credulous & lonely farm wives and how he sexually abused the women around him.
One thing that attracted me to anarchism was its attack on "organized religion" which gives power over to sociopaths.
Obviously Trump, as a narcissistic sociopath found another path to power, domination, and gratification. But there is an excellent book by Robert Hare, inventor of the Hare Psychopathy Checklist, that points out that socipaths/psychopaths are very successful climbing to the top of business because of their psychopathic traits:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snakes_in_Suits
I just read an interesting book by Bandy Lee which gathers essays from academics and practitioners of psychiatry/psychology/therapy who look at Trump and give their "informed understanding" of his mental deficiencies:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dangerous_Case_of_Donald_Trump
Some of the essays are quite good. Some are fairly mediocre. But it is interesting to see the array of comments and insights into Trump.
There is a whole publishing industry built around Trump.
I'm currently reading:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Warning_(book)
It is surprising good. I have a low opinion of Republicans, but "anonymous" shows intelligence, a good history of history, and a real look at how the White House operates. I didn't think I would like it. But I recommend it.
One thing I do, since as an anarchist I'm ideologically indifferent, is that I read from literature from left to right. There is much to learn. Those opposed to you are not always idiots. There is much thoughtful conservative, liberal, and socialist literature out there.
And I believe you can always find light at the end of the tunnel... and humor everywhere!
Words of wisdom to assuage your anxiety from:
John P.A. Ioannidis is professor of medicine, of epidemiology and population health, of biomedical data science, and of statistics at Stanford University and co-director of Stanford’s Meta-Research Innovation Center.
https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/17/a-fiasco-in-the-making-as-the-coronavirus-pandemic-takes-hold-we-are-making-decisions-without-reliable-data/
Some bon mots from the good doctor:
At a time when everyone needs better information, from disease modelers and governments to people quarantined or just social distancing, we lack reliable evidence on how many people have been infected with SARS-CoV-2 or who continue to become infected. Better information is needed to guide decisions and actions of monumental significance and to monitor their impact.
The data collected so far on how many people are infected and how the epidemic is evolving are utterly unreliable. Given the limited testing to date, some deaths and probably the vast majority of infections due to SARS-CoV-2 are being missed. We don’t know if we are failing to capture infections by a factor of three or 300.
This evidence fiasco creates tremendous uncertainty about the risk of dying from Covid-19. Reported case fatality rates, like the official 3.4% rate from the World Health Organization, cause horror — and are meaningless. Patients who have been tested for SARS-CoV-2 are disproportionately those with severe symptoms and bad outcomes. As most health systems have limited testing capacity, selection bias may even worsen in the near future.
Projecting the Diamond Princess mortality rate onto the age structure of the U.S. population, the death rate among people infected with Covid-19 would be 0.125%. But since this estimate is based on extremely thin data — there were just seven deaths among the 700 infected passengers and crew — the real death rate could stretch from five times lower (0.025%) to five times higher (0.625%).
A population-wide case fatality rate of 0.05% is lower than seasonal influenza. If that is the true rate, locking down the world with potentially tremendous social and financial consequences may be totally irrational. It’s like an elephant being attacked by a house cat. Frustrated and trying to avoid the cat, the elephant accidentally jumps off a cliff and dies.
In an autopsy series that tested for respiratory viruses in specimens from 57 elderly persons who died during the 2016 to 2017 influenza season, influenza viruses were detected in 18% of the specimens, while any kind of respiratory virus was found in 47%. In some people who die from viral respiratory pathogens, more than one virus is found upon autopsy and bacteria are often superimposed. A positive test for coronavirus does not mean necessarily that this virus is always primarily responsible for a patient’s demise.
...I got cut off again by the "word limit"
...so I'll pick up my rant:
Call me a curmudgeon, but I believe the "cure" is worse than the "disease".
I see a lot of people in the lowest echelons of society going hungry and depressed and dying because of an idiotic "lock down" in the fact of an unknown. While I'm A-OK with "social distancing". I do believe that scaring people and closing whole segments of the economy with a poorly thought out "quarantine" is pointless.
The proper control point was when the new disease emerged. Nations should have immediately begun close screening and quarantining of people coming from known regions of infestation. Contact tracing rigorously enforced at the beginning makes sense. But once you have a pandemic, then trying to "control" an infection by closing down an economy is counter-productive.
What I see is a whole bunch of nations doing "monkey see, monkey do".
Where are the real public health experts?
Who is in charge that can do the appropriate cost-benefit analysis for various public health strategies at this stage of the game?
I just don't see governments "governing". I see self important people freaking out (of in the case of the early Trump, discounting things as "fake news"). Where are the real leaders? Do the people have to (yet again) save themselves from their leaders?
Here are some comments by Wolfgang Wodarg, chairman of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe Health Committee. His video has some interesting comments about the current panic over COVID-19:
https://youtu.be/p_AyuhbnPOI
Here is the Wikipedia page for Dr.Wodarq who is a memeber of Germany's SPD party. He has a medical degree but as far as I can tell he has no expertise in infectious diseaeses, public health, virology, or of this particular COVID-19:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfgang_Wodarg
The annotation to his video says:
The corona hype is not based on any extraordinary public health danger. However, it causes considerable damage to our freedom and personal rights through frivolous and unjustified quarantine measures and restrictions. The images in the media are frightening and the traffic in China's cities seems to be regulated by the clinical thermometer. Evidence-based epidemiological assessment is drowning in the mainstream of fear mongers in labs, media, and ministries.
I think his points are worth considering.
I ask: where is the cost-benefit analysis for the current "lock downs" and decimation of the economy?
I know that for sensitive souls a "cost benefit analysis" sounds cold hearted. But the idea that "a human life cannot be measured in money" is simply false. The insurance industry does that every day. And each worker who takes on a risky occupation is either consciously (or more likely unconsciously) making just such a cost-benefit analysis in taking on that job! Life is full of risk! The trick is to use intelligence to minimize risk while gaining maximum benefit (and from a moral point of view: sharing those benefits widely since society is an "organism" and we are "all in this together" and nobody climbs to the top by their own efforts... as Newton jokingly said "standing on the shoulders of Giants" is how civilization advances so our collective action must be collectively intelligence and not based on panic or shoddy science).
I've always been deeply saddened by how academics and politicians can make assertions that blindly ignore the physical & daily reality of the bottom 50% and especially the "lumpen proletariat". As far as I can tell, only the anarchists ever took this bottom layer of society seriously. And I don't see policy makers in the current crisis showing any real intelligence or insight into the plight of the bottom 50% and especially the "lumpen proletariat".
Here is an intelligent discussion of Remdesivir and Chloroquine:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/03/20/wuhan-coronavirus-therapies-scientific-background/
Ignore the provocative nomenclature "Wuhan virus".
The proper name for the virus is SARS-CoV-2:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severe_acute_respiratory_syndrome_coronavirus_2
COVID-19 is the disease caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
It bothers me that ideologues want to play games with "names" to confuse or distract people. But that is politics and what the "political animal" loves to do even in a serious emergency or war. (I never got over the idea of people dancing and partying as World War II raged on. I'm a fool in that I take social needs of the group seriously. But I'm the oddball. The great majority live life blissfully ignorant of "what's out there" until it hits them over the head and then they rage because "nobody told me about this!" or "why didn't somebody do something about this?").
The key bit about Chloroquine:
Since safety is well known (the main side affect is retinopathy [vision problems] in 25% of patients over 50 that resolves [slowly] after discontinuation), the main FDA legal issue (FDCA Act of 1906 as amended) issue is to determine dosing and duration for this new indication. But for starters, the standard RA 250mg once a day generic cheap pill should suffice for emergency use authorization (EUA). As a ‘Big Pharma’ goodwill gesture, today (3/19) Bayer announced it donated 3 million 250mg chloroquine phosphate pills to the US to get started.
The key bit about Remdesivir:
Patient worsened (proving viral pneumonia), so attending physicians consulted with FDA then had Gilead rush the experimental drug by air, with intravenous treatment starting day 10. Patient improved in 24 hours, was saved, and has since been discharged. For those interested, there is this NEJM case report providing a very hopeful proof of principle.
...so professor Wolff, there is reason to assuage your anxiety. There are off-the-shelf treatments that "show promise" and on top of that there is a vaccine that is already being tested. While LFC above wants to throw cold water on this, I would rather be an optimist. I think "good news" is a good antidote to anxieties!!!
Here is a nice overview of the problems with "fast cash" to help those thrown out of work (and who have no work):
https://econofact.org/challenges-of-equitable-rapid-response-cash-payments
Taking 2 minutes to read that gives you an idea of the complexity of the problem.
I seriously suspect that the legislators in Washington DC won't take the 2 minutes to review the above. Call me a cynic. But that is why I have very little faith in government. (I like the idea of democracy and I accept that it can't be "direct" democracy and must be some kind of "representative" democracy. But I've seen nothing as thoughtful as the Federalist Papers that reviews the current governing structure of the US. Sadly it is long overdue!)
Here is something to worry about other than "anxiety"... behavioural fatigue:
https://mindhacks.com/2020/03/20/do-we-suffer-behavioural-fatigue-for-pandemic-prevention-measures/
I particularly like this graph that shows elements of the problem:
https://mindhacksblog.files.wordpress.com/2020/03/epidemic_prog.jpg
Here is the key bit:
In fact, this topic is almost a sub-field in some disciplines. Epidemiologists have been trying to incorporate behavioural dynamics into their models. Economists have been trying to model the ‘prevalence elasticity’ of preventative behaviours as epidemics progress. Game theorists have been creating models of behaviour change in terms of individuals’ strategic decision-making.
The lessons here are two fold I think.
The first is for scientists to be cautious when taking public positions. This is particularly important in times of crisis. Most scientific fields are complex and can be opaque even to other scientists in closely related fields. Your voice has influence so please consider (and indeed research) what you say.
The second is for all of us. We are currently in the middle of a pandemic and we have been asked to take essential measures.
In past pandemics, people started to drop their life-saving behavioural changes as the risk seemed to become routine, even as the actual danger increased.
This is not inevitable, because in some places, and in some outbreaks, people managed to stick with them.
...you have to go to the above link to find and follow the embedded links in the above.
I do appreciate an article that cites real scientific studies and presents material for the public in a format that is easily understood.
Seems to me when I was a kid (back in the 1950s) there was a lot more "popular science" writing that let an interested outsider get a fairly good sense of "what's going on" in the real science. I miss that. Mind you science has broadened and deepened greatly during my lifetime, but I do believe that writing science in a manner accessible to the public is the way you draw in the next generation of scientists.
There are studies of treatment for COVID-19. Dr. Fauci may call this "anecdotal" but they sure seem "real" to me:
clinical tests for Hydroxychloroquine:
6 Studies found for: Hydroxychloroquine | SARS-CoV-2
Go here: https://clinicaltrials.gov/
click "All Studies"
in the "Condition or disease" field enter: SARS-CoV-2
in the "Other Terms" field enter: Hydroxychloroquine
clinical tests for Chloroquine:
6 Studies found for: chloroquine | SARS-CoV-2
Go here: https://clinicaltrials.gov/
click "All Studies"
in the "Condition or disease" field enter: SARS-CoV-2
in the "Other Terms" field enter: Chloroquine
clinical tests for Remdesivir:
7 Studies found for: remdesivir | SARS-CoV-2
Go here: https://clinicaltrials.gov/
click "All Studies"
in the "Condition or disease" field enter: SARS-CoV-2
in the "Other Terms" field enter: Remdesivir
Here is a discussion of the status of possible treatements for COVID-19 by David Kaiser, a historian, not a medical expert, but I trust him. From his article, which has the appropriate cautions, he states:
There is already a run on Hydroxycholoroqine as people beg their doctors to prescribe it, and arthritis and other patients who already relied on it are having trouble getting it. In this as in so many other issues of public policy, we obviously need to proceed cautiously on the basis of real science, while looking for answers as thoroughly and quickly as we can. With Donald Trump at the helm--a man who seizes upon the answers most convenient to him and refuses to study any data--this is not easy. Now, more than ever, we have to try to read beyond headlines and use the tools available to us all to check important information out. That is what I have tried to day.
As far as a "vaccine", I indicated the WHO announced it:
But LFC made this comment:
A vaccine is in the initial testing stage, not yet available; even on an expedited basis, it takes time. Your statement that "there is" a vaccine is therefore misleading at best.
This reminds me of Bill Clinton in his lawyerly was saying "it depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is".
Clearly a vaccine exists. I treat that as a "there is". It has been developed. I didn't say it was in distribution or even in mass manufacture or even had passed clinical tests. I was merely pointing out that there is hope because WHO is happy to announce the existence of a "vaccine". It may be a dud. But at least the knowledge that an "open" research group is collaborating to expedite a vaccine is welcome new to me. Maybe not to LFC, but it is to me.
...in my previous post (above) I failed to include the link to the WHO announcement:
https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/nih-clinical-trial-investigational-vaccine-covid-19-begins
Here is a Guardian article from 3 days ago announcing "trials" will begin with this vaccine "next month":
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/mar/19/uk-drive-develop-coronavirus-vaccine-science
I notice that you cannot yet "sign up" for the trial. The Oxford group put out this notice at their web site:
https://www.ovg.ox.ac.uk/news/covid-19-vaccine-development
We are not currently recruiting participants for a COVID-19 vaccine clinical trial. The team are very busy with vaccine development, so please do not contact us regarding this at the moment. We will provide updates about the progress of the study through this website, including a link to sign up, once the trial is open.
Today this article identifying 15 companies working on COVID-19 treatments:
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/these-nine-companies-are-working-on-coronavirus-treatments-or-vaccines-heres-where-things-stand-2020-03-06
Here is a cautionary note about vaccines in an article in the UK's Telegraph newspaper:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-disease/coronavirus-vaccine-update-when-covid-19-cure-how-long-uk/
Here is the key worry: Covid-19 has also mutated into two strains, one which appears to be far more aggressive, scientists have said, in a discovery which could hinder attempts to develop a vaccine.
On the other hand, here is good news from the CDC: Information for Clinicians on Therapeutic Options for COVID-19 Patients
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/therapeutic-options.html
The above site gives links to sign up for clinical trials.
...I have faith in men of good will, in science & technology, and in the future being brighter than the past. I find it funny that there are always "experts" who want to throw up objections and quibbles and doubts and douse any enthusiasm. The way open is always an open road. But sadly, for most, their fears and worries hold them frozen in the face of a terror. I say: Move out! Seize the future!
...oops!
I failed to provide the link to the David Kaiser article:
https://historyunfolding.blogspot.com/2020/03/drug-treatments-for-covid-19.html
Sadly there is no way for the author to go back and edit a "comment".
For a person like myself who types faster than he thinks, that is a real problem.
Sorry!
Post a Comment