Exactly a year ago I posted THIS in regard to Covid-19. The post was mostly spurred on by the notion that we should respond to the novel coronavirus no differently than any other bad flu season.
The comparisons drawn in March 2020 followed this type logic…
Consider a situation that might have something to do with a virus (a computer virus), but nothing to do with human illness.
- The first comparison is only valid in the sense that both my PC and my wireless printer are digital devices and both use the same Wifi source. Other than that, there is not much in common, but the caparison suggests the Wifi is working.
- The second is better; it suggests that not only is my Wifi working, but my PC is also able to connect because my email is OK.
- The third is best of the three. Only the web browser is distinctive. If other web browsers on my PC are OK, then perhaps my Chrome application is corrupt.
The objective of studying such contrasts is to get a better understanding of the whole reality or the proverbial “Big Picture”. Thinking carefully about what is in common and what is distinctive leads to better decision making about a problem, even with the understanding that no comparison is perfect.
Without getting too much into the biological detail of human virus and how they react in the body, my thinking for the current pandemic in the March 2020 post was (and still is) more like this…
- Comparing Covid to the Spanish Flu in the United States is valid in terms of being an international pandemic. But the culture, politics, demographics, medical system & technology of this country in 1918 is vastly different than today, not to mention the ability to gather & track data. So it makes sense that our response as a nation would be much different.
- The annual flu is better if comparing modern times, but other distinctions come to mind.
- Flu shots are available before each flu season which should keep numbers low.
- There is less death, perhaps because treatments for flu are already available.
- Based on 7 flu seasons (2010-2016) in the U.S. from this source, the average number cases/yr is 25,300,000 with 34,571 average deaths.
- That’s 0.14%.
- The third is best of the three I think. Swine flu (H1N1) was also an international pandemic and it happened in 2009, which is not too long ago. Also, no specific vaccine was available at first just like Covid, but I do not recall any serious mitigation to reduce the spread. In fact, my family was in Disney World in the summer of 2009 with no thoughts of any virus, but once again there are distinctions to consider.
- According to this source, the Covid virus is a novel (new) coronavirus that had no treatment when discovered, but H1N1 was a novel flu virus with other flu treatments available.
- Death rears its ugly head as a grim distinction once again. Swine Flu (H1N1) in 2009-2010 from this source had 60,800,000 cases with 12,469 deaths.
- That’s 0.02%.
- Contrast that with 29,834,734 Covid cases and 542,584 deaths from this source.
- That’s 1.8%.
Hindsight will be 20/20 when this is all said and done, but IF we acted as with did with in 2009 with H1N1 AND we ended up 60,800,000 Covid cases at a 1.8% death rate, that would be 1,094,400 deaths. Now let’s suppose Covid death numbers were inflated to make things look worse for political reasons… let’s say 20% inflated. Were still looking at 875,520 deaths
Since no comparison is perfect, it’s important to track assumptions.
Two key assumptions for this post:
- H1N1 from 2009 is just as contagious as current strains of the Coronavirus (my guess is that the later is more contagious).
- Rate of unreported/unknown cases of H1N1 is also about the same.
Hospitalization rates are not mentioned above because high death rates should naturally correlate to high hospitalization rates. People don’t normally drop dead at home from a virus; it takes time, so those who are in grave danger are likely to be in a hospital. Nevertheless, hospitalization rates are important to consider in case the medical system gets overwhelmed. After all, if you’re in some kind of accident, you don’t want to bleed-out waiting for help while the ER staff is desperately trying to save Covid patients.
In the last analysis, I don’t agree with closing schools completely and forcing business to close indefinitely, but some sort of mitigation policy seems more than reasonable and should be significantly greater than whatever is done during a bad flu season or whatever was done back in 2009 for H1N1.
Deciding precisely what to do is beyond me, but praying for those who make such decisions is certainly not.
I don’t have much confidence that a reasonable perspective will emerge in the public consciousness over time. I think the medical and health policy people have learned some lessons and won’t make some of the same mistakes next time. But some of the lessons are specific to this virus – if we knew it was super airborne but was hardly ever transmitted on surfaces, and that kids are practically immune, we would have charted a very different course.
The analogy I’ve been thinking about is Charles Murray talking about welfare. The system at the time was hard to get into and hard to get out of. What we needed, he said, was one that was easy to get into and out of. With covid, it was naturally going to take us a while to get things in gear. But it should have been as quick as possible in, and as quick as possible out. There’s simply no rational argument for the schools to still be closed.
If ever there was a time when slogans like “common sense” and “follow the science” should be applied, it’s now.
“but some sort of mitigation policy seems more than reasonable and should be significantly greater than whatever is done during a bad flu season or whatever was done back in 2009 for H1N1.” Reasonable left the discussion a long time ago. There are valid questions if any of the mitigation policies did anything to slow the spread of the virus and there is compelling evidence that the negative consequences of mitigation may outweigh any benefits.
think the medical and health policy people have learned some lessons and won’t make some of the same mistakes next time.
If ‘public health’ were an actual professional discipline rather than a label for a network of ineffective public bureaucracies, they’d have had contingency plans in place and made the right calls when the data arrived. It’s not as if epidemics are a novelty. We knew by the end of April 2020 that this virus is a threat to the old and to a selection of people in late middle age and hardly anyone else. We had a pretty good idea by the middle of the year the risk factors were age, body-mass-index, and a compromised immune system. We had a pretty good idea as well by that time that the virus spreads through air breathed indoors and not through outdoor air or touching surfaces. All of these understandings should have regulated public health advisories and diktats in real time. The restrictions should have been on those of us in the older age brackets, not on the public at large.
The analogy I’ve been thinking about is Charles Murray talking about welfare. The system at the time was hard to get into and hard to get out of.
It was neither.
All good points above.
Bear in mind that playing “armchair quarterback” is easier than facing the actual “blitz”.. Even the best quarterbacks can fumble.
Ben, the quarterbacks we have in place keep making the same bad passes and refuse to adjust to the defense and a majority continues to believe in them.
Art, every policy field is a “network of ineffective public bureaucracies”.
Some of the insanity I have experienced in the past month, from a virus that most people will live through:
-a masked mother with two masked children (roughly 3 & 5) at a park-In Illinois 16 people under the age of 20 have died from COVID.
-people (wearing masks) step into the street when passing me on a walk.
-being told to put on a mask at an outdoor soccer game with less then two dozen people in attendence and my wife and I standing 50 feet from any other person.
-going to my local hotdog joint with a sign “must wear mask unless seated”-I never knew the seated position gave you immunity!!!
Dr. Fauci has been in charge for forty years and spent billions (some millions in the Wuhan lab that developed the virus) and America was blind-sided by this bio-war attack.
However, Huge Pet Peeve – flying flags at half mast for people that died and tested positive for the China virus.
Biggest casualty of the Wuhan flu – public trust in experts.
T.Shaw- absolutely right. The word “expert” now generates in me a cringe rather than even one iota of presumptive respect.
“The restrictions should have been on those of us in the older age brackets, not on the public at large.”
Very good point Art.
When the epidemic started my local parish closed. My suggestion for our local KOC was to see how many members of the parish were at risk and develop a network for others at low risk to offer home delivery of food or other essential needs.
I don’t see criticism of the poor medical, public health and government response as second guessing but rather to develop lessons learned so that disasters rediscovered can be avoided.
A few months prior to the onset of the epidemic the book 3 seconds until midnight was published by a virologist who predicted a major epidemic and using the Spanish Influenza as a model wrote how inadequate the National response to a major pandemic could be.
https://www.judicialwatch.org/videos/on-watch-interview-of-dr-steven-hatfill-re-coronavirus-public-health-readiness/
No reasonable conclusions will be reached after this is over because there is no motivation for experts to reach reasonable conclusions.
Take schools. You can excuse shutting them down initially for health reasons because so much was unknown. But now we do know that children have a risk from the disease which is statistically equivalent to 0. We do know that children have no significant role in spreading the disease. At the same time we know that the “distance learning” methods have largely been ineffective, and that children hate them and are stressed/depressed as a result.
And yet in many places schools are still closed and in places where they are open they are subject to so many restrictions that there’s hardly any benefit for them being open. This is not a reasonable course of action at this point. But the people the “experts” in government answer to would prefer that schools remain closed for a variety of reasons, so we do not reach the reasonable conclusion.
Ken, “I never knew the seated position gave you immunity!!!”
I heard someone on the radio talk about how he ticked off his wife. As they walked thru the restaurant, with masks, he was saying, “We’re in danger…gotta keep the mask on.” Repeating over and over. Once they were seated, he changed it to “We’re safe now. We’re seated. We don’t have to wear the mask.” It must be the change in elevation… perhaps we need to all squat down as we walk? I wonder if there is a smaller “case” count for short people? Perhaps that explains why children don’t get it?
But on a more shameful matter: there was never a reason for masses to be closed to the public. Never. Even when we were worried that this might have been the black plague. Even at that time we could have had outdoor/car masses with masks or whatever else required during distribution of the Eucharist.
If the objection is that even that would have been too risky, it’s more than what we did in liquor stores. Is getting a case of beer really more essential than having access to the sacraments?
But the bishops rolled over for several months pretty much everywhere, even in remote places that still have not been hit much by COVID-19. To their credit some of them eventually fought back in places (such as MN) where it was clear that the government had no intention of ever allowing indoor masses. But at the same time some priests not only cancelled masses but also locked the doors to the church and disallowed access to any sacrament, including Confession and even Anointing of the Sick.
Art, every policy field is a “network of ineffective public bureaucracies”.
??
Sez who?
Sez me?
Name a field that isn’t. Policy involves tradeoffs and expectations. If you want to determine how fast a car can take a bend on a highway, that’s physics. If you want to find a balance between how slow people are willing to drive and how many deaths people are willing to tolerate, that’s policy. Policy is always going to be muddled in a fallen and undetermined world. You’re always going to be guessing at outcomes and secondary effects, and dealing with rules-gaming.
Rudolph – I think some of the commenters here are just in terrible dioceses. We had outdoor Adoration within a month, outdoor Confession within two, outdoor Masses within three, and regular indoor Masses within four.
Over two months without masses is still a terrible policy from a diocese. Going a month without confession is arguably worse, both due to the more urgent nature of the sacrament in times of mortal sin and because it is much easier to set up mitigation procedures for health issues.
The fact that some parishes decided to go even further does not make it less terrible.
You’re always going to be guessing at outcomes and secondary effects, and dealing with rules-gaming.
A statement that’s irrelevant to your assertion. The public health apparat have not been making errors while assessing trade-offs. They’ve been making statements and decisions so stupid the stupidity is manifest to laymen. See the unanimous decision of Peter Szilagyi’s committee at the CDC to give priority to considerations of ‘diversity’ in vaccine distribution.
OK, so every policy field is at best a “network of ineffective public bureaucracies”?
OK, so every policy field is at best a “network of ineffective public bureaucracies”?
Except that’s a nonsense statement.
Pinky,
I noticed, & am sure that you noticed that none of the folks disagreeing with your statements about policy fields & incompetent bureaucrats have been able to come up with a policy field that isn’t filled with incompetent bureaucrats. Your statement is dead on. I have worked in & with those type of bureaucracies for over 30 years.
It still burns me that most of the bishops didn’t protest governors’ mandated numbers or percents for allowable in church attendance. The Baptists one town over held some sort of service in their church parking lot on Easter Sunday 2020 and continued to do so. Whereas no meeting in the parking lot of the Catholic church on Easter Sunday. Not even ringing of the outside church bells to acknowlege the Risen Christ. Two occasions of outdoor Penance and 4 Sundays of a Communion Service in a meadow. The layman diocesean liturgist convinced the bishop to prohibit outdoor Masses unless it was celebrated on a consecrated altar. Yet for the 125th anniversary of the missions founding celebrating outdoor Mass on 2 vestmented caffeteria style tables had been okay 5 years ago. Inside Masses are allowed now but the usual attendance at the 3 English Masses is usually about 12 people. The Hispanics have larger attendance but don’t wear masks or social distance.
There’s a reason the BLA is at 15% participation this year. It’s a message to our bishop and the USCCB who receives a percent.
I guess it could be worse; the Episcopalian churches are still padlocked.
I noticed, & am sure that you noticed that none of the folks disagreeing with your statements about policy fields & incompetent bureaucrats have been able to come up with a policy field that isn’t filled with incompetent bureaucrats. Your statement is dead on. I have worked in & with those type of bureaucracies for over 30 years.
Neither of you have offered a valid definition of ‘policy field’.
I haven’t been to a service at my parish since our bishop closed it down. I have attended mass at another parish. I tried to go to my parish one evening after the bishop opened the churches for mass. I walked in wanting to go to the restroom & then find a place to sit down to start my focus on worship—nope! 5 lay people let me know they were there to seat me. Before I could say a word, I was given a multi digit code to memorize as that was my seat number. The woman who told me to remember the seat code was going to seat me immediately. I told her that I had to go to the bathroom. She again emphasized my need to remember the seat code—which I had already forgotten out of shock of what I was experiencing. I told the whole bunch of them that this was the first time I had tried to attend my own parish since it had closed, and that I could not believe that I couldn’t even go to my church & worship in peace. I waved bye to them & left. I haven’t been back to my parish since. I have done some online Bible study with folks from my parish via Zoom which was very enjoyable considering we were never able to finish the in person Bible study that our bishop ended abruptly when he locked down/closed the diocese to people.
I had already had it up to my eyebrows with Covid restrictions at this point. And had been very hurt & disappointed about the shenanigans the bishop had pulled & had allowed our governor & department of health to pull—without any blowback or questioning as to the reasons their parishioners were being denied cancer screenings, having their businesses closed down, parishioners being banned from physical contact with others in nursing homes & hospitals, being banned to their homes for 14 days at a time because they “might” have been exposed to someone who later tested positive for Covid, etc. In our state, the churches’ compliance was purely “optional.”
Since I feel very close to God when I am worshipping Him in song, it was particularly painful to me to have our bishop ban singing.
I think the only reason our bishop finally opened the churches for any in person attendance was because of the money the parish was losing.
Art Deco said “Neither of you have offered a valid definition of ‘policy field.”
Art, I try to avoid communicating with you via this medium because in the past, in order to disagree with me, more than once you have said you did not believe or doubted my statements of personal experience. There is no point in defining anything for someone who calls me a liar. You may always look those words up in a dictionary and combine their meanings. But I suspect you would disagree with the dictionary as well. Have a good day.
To study science is to glimpse into the mind of God. To study policy is to stare into the mind of governments. It still can be rewarding, but, you know, kind of dumb.
Art, I try to avoid communicating with you via this medium because in the past, in order to disagree with me, more than once you have said you did not believe or doubted my statements of personal experience. There is no point in defining anything for someone who calls me a liar. You may always look those words up in a dictionary and combine their meanings. But I suspect you would disagree with the dictionary as well. Have a good day.
You talk about policy fields, he talks about them, but neither of you care to specify just what it is to what you’re referring.
I have no memory of any exchanges with you. Me thinking your personal experience isn’t definitive isn’t calling you a liar. Anyone’s personal experience is just that. It’s their’s, not anyone else’s.
I have no memory of any exchanges with you.
Haven’t followed this argument, but you’ve lit into his gut at least twice before now, with your customary vigor.