Categories
BW Member Blog

Bill had it right 12 days ago.

I paraphrase, but in one of the BWN episodes (I think it was “Unfearing” but may have been another) combined with TSL on 3/12 Bill emphasized the fact that we’re dealing with the wrong numbers, and that the best plan of action is actually to try to isolate those who are at higher risk, not the entire populace.

I extrapolate, and recognize that these are thoughts and ideas difficult to implement (as difficult as a national lock-down of Americans?) but if the message had been to help isolate those who are elderly or have conditions that make them susceptible to “critical” status instead of to try to isolate everyone, the virus would “run rampant” and burn itself out and (difficult to prove, I admit) possibly have a lessened impact on the people who are actually at risk.

I fall into a trap like anyone: I am an amateur statistician and know little about viruses and how they work. However, while I am willing to have my fear buttons pushed, I am also just enough a fan of math to look at the numbers and scratch my head. I am being asked to panic over an unproven, scary number. I am not seeing it materialize.

What I AM seeing is a constant and dubious, subtle interchange between the numbers of people who are likely to become infected and the number of people who are at serious risk of death. News stories focus on death tolls, yes. But they report such numbers without context (such as relative population samples let’s say between Italy and the USA). I see marching charts of how many new confirmed cases there are without reference (such as the fact that there are now testing capabilities where there weren’t before so of course you’ll have more confirmed cases and that the more confirmed cases we have, the more downward pressure there is on the case mortality rate). If the case mortality rate reduces to 0.6% (already possible if we are not confirming asymptomatic or mild cases or simply don’t have enough tests?) we are dealing with an illustration of what happens during a bad flu season. We do not take these measures during a bad flu season.

Next I see a circular firing squad where medical doctors point out that economists and politicians aren’t qualified to understand the impact of a virus (the implication being that all other people and professions are downplaying the serious, deadly nature of the virus), then turn around and make proclamations about how we (in turn) are clearly OVER stating the political and economic impact of the measures they’re suggesting we take to contain the virus. How can you claim that medical is requisite for credibility on medical impacts and not admit that economic training is requisite for understanding economic impacts?

My views are unpopular. They are grim, but I hope realistic. They are not based on medical acumen (I have been very healthy most of my life and have no medical training whatsoever). They are based on 50+ years of being alive and probably 35 useful years of observation. I may not know medicine, but I have been exposed to any number of genuine events and any number of sky-is-falling cries of wolf. Over that time you develop what is colloquially called “gut instincts”.

Bill said many of these things already so forgive me if I sound like him (I’ll take that compliment any day of the week). Containment is not possible. Nor is it even desirable for the vast, vast bulk of the population. Flattening the curve would have been better achieved by keeping the populace from panic and by focusing our attention on the much smaller portion of society that needs it. Spend $4 trillion on a stimulus package, or contract with several major hotel chains to buy out all their rooms for isolation of those at risk? Just one idea.

Is it too late for this to happen? I think not, but I think we have been handed a much more difficult task by an agenda-driven media that both empowers and is empowered by politicians more interested in control of constituents than coronaviruses. If it is unfair to think that politicians might have a power-gasm over the ability to impose martial law on their populace, perhaps those politicians might want to consider how our opinion of them dipped so low. If we have so little faith in the media that we are constantly second-guessing their sources or data, perhaps they might want to consider how our opinion of them dipped so low.

Sorry, I could not help getting in a dig at the end. Perhaps I should consider how I got to be so cynical.

I paraphrase, but in one of the BWN episodes (I think it was “Unfearing” but may have been another) combined with TSL on 3/12 Bill emphasized the fact that we’re dealing with the wrong numbers, and that the best plan of action is actually to try to isolate those who are at higher risk, not the entire populace.

I extrapolate, and recognize that these are thoughts and ideas difficult to implement (as difficult as a national lock-down of Americans?) but if the message had been to help isolate those who are elderly or have conditions that make them susceptible to “critical” status instead of to try to isolate everyone, the virus would “run rampant” and burn itself out and (difficult to prove, I admit) possibly have a lessened impact on the people who are actually at risk.

I fall into a trap like anyone: I am an amateur statistician and know little about viruses and how they work. However, while I am willing to have my fear buttons pushed, I am also just enough a fan of math to look at the numbers and scratch my head. I am being asked to panic over an unproven, scary number. I am not seeing it materialize.

What I AM seeing is a constant and dubious, subtle interchange between the numbers of people who are likely to become infected and the number of people who are at serious risk of death. News stories focus on death tolls, yes. But they report such numbers without context (such as relative population samples let’s say between Italy and the USA). I see marching charts of how many new confirmed cases there are without reference (such as the fact that there are now testing capabilities where there weren’t before so of course you’ll have more confirmed cases and that the more confirmed cases we have, the more downward pressure there is on the case mortality rate). If the case mortality rate reduces to 0.6% (already possible if we are not confirming asymptomatic or mild cases or simply don’t have enough tests?) we are dealing with an illustration of what happens during a bad flu season. We do not take these measures during a bad flu season.

Next I see a circular firing squad where medical doctors point out that economists and politicians aren’t qualified to understand the impact of a virus (the implication being that all other people and professions are downplaying the serious, deadly nature of the virus), then turn around and make proclamations about how we (in turn) are clearly OVER stating the political and economic impact of the measures they’re suggesting we take to contain the virus. How can you claim that medical is requisite for credibility on medical impacts and not admit that economic training is requisite for understanding economic impacts?

My views are unpopular. They are grim, but I hope realistic. They are not based on medical acumen (I have been very healthy most of my life and have no medical training whatsoever). They are based on 50+ years of being alive and probably 35 useful years of observation. I may not know medicine, but I have been exposed to any number of genuine events and any number of sky-is-falling cries of wolf. Over that time you develop what is colloquially called “gut instincts”.

Bill said many of these things already so forgive me if I sound like him (I’ll take that compliment any day of the week). Containment is not possible. Nor is it even desirable for the vast, vast bulk of the population. Flattening the curve would have been better achieved by keeping the populace from panic and by focusing our attention on the much smaller portion of society that needs it. Spend $4 trillion on a stimulus package, or contract with several major hotel chains to buy out all their rooms for isolation of those at risk? Just one idea.

Is it too late for this to happen? I think not, but I think we have been handed a much more difficult task by an agenda-driven media that both empowers and is empowered by politicians more interested in control of constituents than coronaviruses. If it is unfair to think that politicians might have a power-gasm over the ability to impose martial law on their populace, perhaps those politicians might want to consider how our opinion of them dipped so low. If we have so little faith in the media that we are constantly second-guessing their sources or data, perhaps they might want to consider how our opinion of them dipped so low.

Sorry, I could not help getting in a dig at the end. Perhaps I should consider how I got to be so cynical.

3 replies on “Bill had it right 12 days ago.”

I mostly agree with you, I think. I suspect Trump is going to open up the economy before Easter, in steps, continuing to emphasize social distancing, handwashing, etc., while recommending that vulnerable populations like nursing homes remain isolated for some further period of time.

Makes sense to me.More sense than what we’re doing anyway.I’m not trying to make light of the situation just trying to be a realist.

By Post Author

Me, too! I should have prefaced my comment with a bit more appreciation for your excellent essay, instead of just saying, “I agree.”

I’m getting a little tired of the so-called MSM’s horror at even the slightest hint of a suggestion of a sense of proportion or of re-assessment as time progresses. It really is Trump Derangement Syndrome at an unprecedented level.

Leave a Reply