So not too long ago a friend of mine shared this post on Facebook by someone who "just had a few questions." I thought to myself, well, shoot, I might just have a few answers. Two people, who really are the farthest thing from experts on the matter at hand, both waxing eloquent in a smug, faux plain-spoken, truth-telling fashion. Why not?
Q: Anyone out there who can tell me what our end game is with the covid 19? What is the magic formula that is going to allow us to sound the all clear? Is it zero cases? The only way that will happen is if we just stop testing and stop reporting.
A: Well, not exactly. There's a number of ways the end game could take shape. We have seen how the end game has played out in a number of other countries that have gotten the virus under control. New Zealand was able to go 102 days without a single new case, and then had an outbreak of four--four cases (at last check they're up to just over 100 cases in Auckland). Other countries, and even some states in the U.S. seem to have gotten the virus under control so that they can return to a semblance of pre-COVID normalcy. And then there's this fascinating piece on herd immunity by the New York Times. Here's a quote: "We’ve known from the beginning how the end will arrive. Eventually, the coronavirus will be unable to find enough susceptible hosts to survive, fading out wherever it briefly emerges." And then there's this article in The Atlantic that discusses the possibility that COVID never goes away but instead becomes more infectious but less lethal, essentially becoming not unlike the common cold.
So it appears that the scientific community understands a number of possible "end games" that could allow us to sound the all clear. It could be zero cases. But it doesn't have to be. And it certainly doesn't have to happen only as result of halting testing and reporting.
Q: Is it a vaccine? It took 25 years for a chicken pox vaccine to be developed. The smallpox inoculation was discovered in 1796 the last known natural case was in 1977.
A: This is a bit misleading, because there wasn't a concerted effort to eradicate small pox until 1967 and even then the diseased had already been gone from the U.S. and Europe for 15 years prior to that. The Western world had long moved passed smallpox being a serious threat, well before the virus was eradicated. Polio, technically, has not been eradicated but the threat of the disease is virtually non-existent. Setting complete eradication as the benchmark for return to normal life is something you seem to have set up (that's called a straw man argument, btw), not something that is being advocated by the experts.
Q: We have a flu vaccine that is only 40 to 60% effective and less than half of the US population choose to get one, and roughly 20,000 Americans will die of the flu or flu complications. Oh, you'll mandate it, like other vaccines are mandated in order to attend school, travel to some foreign countries, etc. We already have a growing number of anti vaxxers refusing proven, tested, well known vaccines that have been administered for decades but aren’t necessarily safe!
A: There's well. . a lot going on in this question. I'm not sure what your point is about the flu vaccine. Based on my research there were 34,000 people who died from the flu in the 2018-2019 flu season, so your 20,000 seems a bit low. For comparison, we've had over 170,000 people die of COVID or COVID complications in five months, so even if the "COVID season" were coming to a close, which it does not appear to be doing, we're already at five times the death rate of the flu. As for the vaccine mandated--I"m not at all certain that the vaccine will be mandated. At least that's not what they are saying right now. Also you refer to the anti-vaxxers but your statement is contradictory. You say the vaccines are proven and tested but then also aren't necessarily safe. That's a lot to throw out there without some support or clarification.
Q: Do you really think people will flock to get a fast tracked, quickly tested vaccine, whose long term side effects and overall efficacy are anyone's best guess?
A: Well, one such vaccine has already been released in Russia, and no one outside of Russia is rushing to get it. So no.
Q: How long are we going to cancel and postpone and reconsider?
A: That's a very good question. Given the disorganized approach in this country, probably for quite awhile longer. It's the way we've chosen to do things here. We prefer a half-measures to a serious, coordinated, and focused effort to deal with this pandemic.
Q: You aren't doing in person school until second quarter? What if October's numbers are the same as August's?
A: Well, no we aren't considering in person until second semester at the soonest so October's numbers are not an issue. But there's a good chance we'll be doing this for the school year. I don't know where you live but there are a good number of private schools here in Ohio that are already offering in person instruction and in Florida, the governor has mandated that schools must offer in person instruction.
Q: You moved football to spring? What if next March is worse than this one was? When do we decide quality of life outweighs the risks?
A: I find it a little odd that, in your estimation, if next March is worse than this one, somehow that should be the point where we decide quality of life outweighs the risks. Shouldn't it go the other way around? As our numbers decline, quality of life outweighs the risk?
Q: I understand Covid can be deadly or very dangerous for SOME people, but so are strawberries and so is shellfish.
A: Well, no. Those aren't comparable to COVID. If you are not allergic to strawberries and shellfish then there is essentially zero risk. If you are severely allergic, you're guaranteed to be in potentially life-threatening distress if you consume them. COVID can be deadly or very dangerous for ANYONE, but the likelihood increases with age and other health factors. If we could determine for certain with a simple test that COVID presents zero risk to a person like we can with allergy testing, then I think our problem would be solved. If only it were that simple.
Q: We take risks multiple times a day without a second thought. We know driving a car can be dangerous, we don't leave it in the garage.
A: My friend, what you seem to be having trouble with is understanding that not all risks are the same. I think the real question is: How serious is the threat of the coronavirus? Driving is quite risky but we also have a significant amount of control over how risky that behavior is (though probably less control than we think, which is why people tend to fear flying more than driving even though it's infinitely safer; it's the illusion of control). If we can be sure we are awake and alert, not intoxicated or distracted, avoid driving recklessly, follow the rules of the road, and practice safety measures like wearing our seat belts we can manage our risk considerably. It would be interesting to learn how many people die in car wrecks that were taking all of the mentioned precautions. Not only that, but car accidents aren't infectious. Now it's a fair point that we can also manage our COVID risk but something tells me you're probably not interested in any kind of risk management either.
Q: We know the dangers of smoking, drinking and eating fried foods, we do it anyway. We speed, we don't buckle our seatbelts, we take more than directed. Quite a few people don't think twice about unprotected sex, they just hop right to it.
A: OK, now. I'm not sure what your point is here. People do dangerous things and often they pay the consequences in cancer, heart disease, deadly car wrecks, overdoses, venereal disease and unwanted pregnancy. What's the moral here? Live fast, die young? I suppose people can--and do--make those choices but in most of these situations the only people who suffer are the ones who made the choice (well, them and the people who mourn them). Not so with the coronavirus.
Q: Is hugging Grandma really more dangerous than rush hour on the freeway? Is going out with friends after work more risky than 4 day old gas station sushi? Or operating a chainsaw?
A: I'm guessing these are supposed to be rhetorical questions to which we all are supposed to know the answer is "no." But I suspect you don't know the answer to any of these questions anymore than I do. Thus the appropriate answer is "I don't know."
Q: When and how did we so quickly lose our free will?
A: Last I checked our free will is still alive and well across this great land, perhaps to our own detriment. Our absolute commitment to free will has made us the world leader in COVID cases and deaths. I don't think our independent streak is a bad thing. Neither is it inherently and always a good thing. It simply is. And in this case, it's probably not compatible with this particular kind of crisis. It is what it is.
Q: Is there a waiver somewhere I can sign that says, "I understand the risks, but I choose a life with Hugs and Smiles, and the State Fair and Concerts and Homecoming."
A: There a number of organizations that offer waivers. The president's Tulsa rally offered them. I think we all choose life with hugs and smiles and the state fair and concerts and homecoming. Of course those things aren't always on offer. Adults understand that we can't always have what we want. Children throw a fit because the ice cream store is closed.
Q: I understand that there is a minuscule possibility I could die, but I will most likely end up feeling like crap for a few days.
A: I'm wondering if you truly understand. Because it's not necessarily either death or "feel like crap for a couple of days."
Q: I understand I could possibly pass it to someone else, if I'm not careful, but I can pass any virus onto someone else.
A: Again I'm really not sure you do understand. While you can pass any virus on to someone else, not all viruses are the same. In your eagerness to hug grandma, you might pass on a cold virus which she will likely recover from, or you might pass on the coronavirus which might have much more severe consequences for Gram. But the important thing is that you got to live in a world of hugs. And I'm sure she--and you will--be glad for that hug as she fights for her life in the ICU before expiring maybe a few years sooner than she otherwise would have.
Q: I'm struggling to see where or how this ends.
A: I get it. It's hard to see when you're head is in the sand. It's right there, if you want to see it. However I would agree with you that the prognosis for the U.S. moving past this any time soon is not very good.
Q: We either get busy living or we get busy dying.
A: So. .. taking measures to combat the spread of the virus would be. .. "busy dying"? That doesn't quite make sense. You seem to be fond of smug, snappy questions and declarations that sound impressive and compelling when delivered rapid-fire, one after the other (Dang, he's just telling it straight!). But they don't bear up so well under examination, one at a time. It seems like busy living is what we are all trying to do, and busy dying is what is happening to us all anyway, despite our best efforts. We want to extend the living and postpone the dying. Yet we don't want to become so obsessed with staying alive that we forget to live. And we also don't want to live so recklessly that we cut short that living sooner than we're prepared for. Striking that balance is the essential task of mortal life. I think statements like yours oversimplify the complex calculus we all use to try to achieve that goal.
Q: When God decides it's your time, you don't get any mulligans, so I guess I would rather spend my time enjoying it and living in the moment and not worrying about what ifs and maybes, and I bet I'm not the only one.
A: You certainly are not. Screw it, whatever happens, happens is one way to approach this pandemic. Many have chosen that route. For most it works out, for a few it does not. I suppose it's your right. But if you or one of your like-minded fellows brings suffering or death to someone I love, I'm going to have something to say. And it won't be near as polite as this little Q & A session.
Q: (I copied this from a friend. Feel free to do the same.)
A: Maybe that's part of the problem. Maybe a little less copying from a friend and a little more thinking for yourself might be in order.
Q: I am over this I plan on moving forward with my life and enjoying it again. I feel a trip in my future.
A: Best of luck to you.
**smugly dusts hands, rolls eyes**
Well, now that's out of the way here's where we stand today. Our numbers are falling across the board and that's heartening. As of today, we've had a total of 5,780,595 total cases of COVID-19, of which 100,830 were added in the past three days. That's about 47,000 fewer cases than I predicted and the lowest number of new cases in a three day period since mid-June. Deaths are down as well, with only 1,779 new deaths out of a total of 178,008. This is approximately 500 deaths less than I predicted and considerably less than the September 11-every-three-days we faced during the height of this recent surge. We are now at a 1% increase in deaths, and if the downward trend continues we could see a rate of increase below 1% for the first time since the pandemic began! Based on these rates, I expect to see a total of 5,884,645 total cases by Friday, August 28 and 179,788 deaths.
Florida continues to decline in new cases, reaching it's lowest numbers since mid June. Ohio new cases are now lower than they were at their spring peak. And Nebraska's numbers are down too. Perhaps we are looking at a genuine decline in the virus!
Total Cases
Florida: 605,494 total cases, 2.8% of the population.
Ohio: 116,495 total cases, 1% of the population (actually, 0.996% but I'm rounding up)
Nebraska: 32,256 total cases, 1.7% of the population.
Florida appears to be defying the usual up and down pattern of deaths that have marked the data since the beginning of the pandemic. Today marks the fifth straight period of decrease--15 days, just over two weeks--in deaths in the state. This is exceedingly good news. Ohio and Nebraska are down in deaths for the second straight three-day period as well.
Total Deaths
Florida: 10,579, a rate of 1.7%
Ohio: 3,996, a rate of 3.4%
Nebraska: 387, a rate of 1.2%
No comments:
Post a Comment