Today I want to try and talk you into calming down. Don't believe everything you read or hear, even if it's provided by 'experts.' As a reminder, my expertise is in physics and electrical engineering. I did numerical modeling for both my MS and PhD. I am not a physician, virologist, or epidemiologist. Nor am I a statistician.
But let's start with an example of why you should not trust what you here. First, the Surgeon General is still insisting that masks won't help. Dr. Fauci and others are coming around. But this one is just common sense. The virus is spread through coughing and exhalation. Masks reduce the force and volume of air that gets past the mask. They also reduce the number of particles or airborne particulates, including viruses, that are propelled away from your face. Less force/kinetic energy and less particles mean less chance of spreading anything. Acting in reverse, a worn mask is going to cut down 'stuff' that gets into your airways. The WHO, the CDC, and the Surgeon General all lied to your faces about masks not helping.
Now let's turn to a 'simple' number thought experiment. The CDC and everyone else says wash your hands for 20 seconds to get rid of the virus on your hands and reduce the chance of spreading. Now how do you suppose they came up with that number of 20 seconds? Do you suppose they spread COVID-19 virus on tables, had everyone smear their hands, do a few handshakes, then had groups of 100 people wash for 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 and 30 seconds, then tested the amount of virus on their hands? No way. I can pretty much assure you no people were involved with any testing of live COVID-19 and hand washing.
They may have done some test tube experiments with soap and water to see how long it took to degrade the virus. They probably extrapolated from some previous tests with non-lethal virus-like entities. They probably also did a few modeling experiments. My guess is they came up with the number that 10 seconds almost always was enough to get rid of viruses in their 'experiments.'
No engineer (or scientist) is going to go with the figure that their calculations show is correct when safety is involved. They are going to throw in a fudge factor. So if you are building a bridge, you throw in a factor of 3 to 10 in terms of strength in case your calculations are off or you have an unexpected event. I cannot imagine for a pandemic, that they didn't throw in a fudge factor. So my guess is 10 seconds was considered safe, and they put out 20 seconds.
Now, like the virologists, I will wash my hands as close to 20 seconds as I can. I just know that if I'm accidentally short, the chances of not getting rid of the virus is still pretty good.
Now comes the important numbers. Curves were presented that show a range of 100,000 to 220,000 deaths in the US from COVID-19. I think that was cumulative deaths (area under the curve) rather than instantaneous deaths. Now how do you suppose they get those numbers? Dr. Birx says modeling and they both claim that the models/averages include New York numbers. New York city and to some extent New Jersey (in one big metropolitan area) have rapidly rising numbers that look like Italy. The rest of the country, for the most part, have gentle contagion/hospitalization/death curves that look more like South Korea. The task force were concerned that a handful of cities may become breakout regions like New York.
But what the chart seemed to show was an average/mean curve (most probable) in the middle of the chart with probably three sigma variations (standard deviations) that corresponded to the best and worse case curves. But they didn't say the best and worst were 3 sigma (confidence level of 99.9%) or 2 sigma (97% confidence) or 1 sigma (84% confidence) or something else. Even if they did, that just means the data points they used in their calculations spit out the value of a standard deviation.
And the standard deviation goes up if the data point values vary widely. Having a possible variation of 60,000 deaths from a mean of 160,000 (38%) is a vary broad range. It tells me the numbers don't mean much. They are ALL OVER THE PLACE.
Now think about the curve you saw--a rise, peak, then a gradual decrease. You know that they have not seen that curve anywhere in the US. So either they are using hypothetical models based on a variety of assumptions, or they are using data from elsewhere in the world with COVID-19.
But you saw China's data rise, peak, then stop. No gradual decrease. Of course, nobody believes their numbers anyway. Italy is still near the peak, and most European nations are still on the rise part. South Korea and Japan are maybe in the gradual decrease. But do you have any confidence they did a good job of testing broadly? And do you want to assume that nations using 100% masks are going to be representative of what we see here in the US? Which of those countries did they base their curve on?
Maybe they just used a simple model for all viruses with a rise, peak and gradual tail? And then did variations based upon the contagion value (R, how many people each infected person spreads the virus to). But who can measure the R value when different parts of our population are packed in differently and behave differently?
So it's all a guess. I can build you a numerical model that will give you any number you want. And I can defend it too. But simple logic is probably just as easy in this case. The Wuhan virus is more contagious than the flu and a portion of the infected group die at higher rates (the elderly and sick). So if the flue kills 25,000 to 60,000 people in the US annually, the COVID-19 virus is going to kill more than that.
But we don't do social distancing and close our economy down for the flu. That mitigation is going to have a lot of effect. Then too, how effective will treatments such as hydroxychloroquine be? We don't know. Do you think it will be as effective as the flu vaccine is in mitigating the effects of the flu?
Finally, I think it was Dr. Birx, or maybe Dr. Fauci, that said the old 2.2 million death prediction depended on 3 waves of COVID-19 over three years. And that was a worst case result with no mitigation.
Yesterday, they didn't mention any 3 waves, and I sure don't see any 3 waves in the curves. That suggests some kind of modeling disconnect with what they presented. Didn't they want to show the 3 waves? Did they assume a vaccine would be ready before wave 2 so the numbers for the 2nd and 3rd wave would fall below the numbers for the flu? Or have they manipulated the data?
So here are my take aways. The numbers are BS. Sure, they represent the output from some model. But I have no reason to trust the numbers, either the input or the output. Sure, they are big enough to scare everyone into keeping the economy closed for another 30 days. But beyond that, why should I believe them? I do not. They are guessing, and guessing numbers that are high enough to scare, but low enough so people don't riot in the streets.
Instead of worrying about those numbers, go on about whatever life the government is allowing you. Enjoy it. Stay as safe as possible. Then watch the US statistics and events and see what happens.
Wednesday, April 1, 2020
Friday, March 27, 2020
Wuhan Virus - Testing Stigma and Virus Spread
Today I've got two topics to discuss (and zero readers (:-). The first is a national level testing stigma. Everyone around the world watches the number of cases in each country. You can test and accurately report deaths, or you can not test and inaccurately report deaths. When you don't test, you don't get Wuhan virus deaths reported to WHO and they don't get into the Johns Hopkins COVID19 map.
So the US did its usual world-leading effective testing regime. One that the press inadvertently forced by continually claiming we weren't testing adequately. So we now show more cases than any country in the world, including China. Our death rate is of course lower than countries with limited testing but honest reporting of deaths. Who knows what the situation is actually around the world.
The increasing number of positives in the US is going to limit travel for our people if the rest of the world 'effectively' shows virus die out. But that doesn't matter since they don't seem to be limiting shipment of goods. What will be bad is if the rest of the world stops testing and accurately reporting and we allow them to travel here again. But then again, they will probably be afraid to travel here. Maybe its a wash.
More importantly, how is the virus spreading? I suspected all along that China stopped accurately reporting cases. It makes them look good and it removes any stigma from their people and goods. What is the benefit of accurately reporting a spreading contagion?
But there is also the chance that China did actually stop the spread. They took some drastic measures separating out the sick (forced quarantine), locking people down in their apartments, allowing only food delivery (not take out or drive thru), and preventing entry and exit of people from virus breakout areas. I do not know how they got food and fuel into those regions. But if they did careful testing and protection of truckers, they would have had a pretty good way to stop virus breakouts from leaking to nearby regions.
Contrast that with the US. Only in the big cities do people live in large apartment complexes, and that is usually just a small percentage of the population. Groceries do not have the capability to deliver to their customers. China did it by requiring large orders where people grouped together to place orders. US mayors could have done something to work out voluntary delivery assistance (for pay), but they couldn't mandate it. Instead in US cities, we all mingle in a few large groceries trying to stock up for 'worse to come' where we enhance the spread of the virus by crowding and a stigma against using masks.
Likewise, when someone gets sick in the US, they aren't visited by HAZMAT dressed police or military that drag them to a communal quarantine area. Instead, they continue living with their family or friends with the serious chance of virus spread.
Perhaps worst of all, there is no limit on travel into or out of breakout areas. I think NY tried that with the Westchester breakout with a national guard cordon around a one mile radius. But NY now has about half our national cases. Their limited trial didn't do them much good.
But take Texas, and our local experience as an example. We have a Super Walmart and a super HEB within 15 minutes of us in our county. Their shelves continue to be empty of any kind of disinfectant supplies. 30 minutes away, in Bexar Country (San Antonio) where they have a shelter-in-place order, is our closest Sams Club. We heard that yesterday they were allowing old folks early access. We went and stood in a tight line outside for 15 minutes, then shopped in an overly crowded store. They did have Clorox and Clorox wipes, the first we've seen since the pandemic started. But if anyone had the virus, there was a good chance it was spread.
My point is that even locals are going to shop a little farther from home to find goods they consider essential. No locked down city, the way the US does it, is going to stop the slow spread of the virus outside its borders. And there is nothing stopping a person in a breakout (locked down) area from traveling out into the 'country side.' If they have the means to do so, they are going to try and reduce their risk of the virus.
So in the US, unless something drastic changes, and I think it may be too late for that, the virus is going to spread outward from each breakout area. New breakout areas will form. It will move from the large cities to the smaller ones to the towns throughout the country.
The spread may not be fast, but it is going to happen. I guess it might disappear for summer weather. But if not, you are going to see waves spreading out from the big cities and hot spots. Each wave will have it's own 8 week curve. And like waves, they can go both ways. This will not be an 8 week hunker down and it's over.
There are three things that may mitigate the pandemic in the US: (1) therapeutic drug cocktails like hydro chloroquine and antibiotics may be effective enough to stop people from dying and slow down the spread and allowing the young and healthy to go back to work, (2) summer weather may nearly stop the spread as it does with the flu, and (3) social distancing and self-isolation may slow the spread enough that relatively few elderly and medically-at-risk persons will get sick, at least outside big urban centers.
There is a fourth measure that may help the situation. If the feds can convince people that the death rate is not much worse than the flu, they have a chance at heading off draconian measures. Just keep the elderly and sick protected. Unfortunately, I don't think the media will allow that to happen. It might help Trump.
Like the President said, I think the economy needs to get back to work. But if the death rate keeps going up drastically, the US is going to need to rethink its approach.
So the US did its usual world-leading effective testing regime. One that the press inadvertently forced by continually claiming we weren't testing adequately. So we now show more cases than any country in the world, including China. Our death rate is of course lower than countries with limited testing but honest reporting of deaths. Who knows what the situation is actually around the world.
The increasing number of positives in the US is going to limit travel for our people if the rest of the world 'effectively' shows virus die out. But that doesn't matter since they don't seem to be limiting shipment of goods. What will be bad is if the rest of the world stops testing and accurately reporting and we allow them to travel here again. But then again, they will probably be afraid to travel here. Maybe its a wash.
More importantly, how is the virus spreading? I suspected all along that China stopped accurately reporting cases. It makes them look good and it removes any stigma from their people and goods. What is the benefit of accurately reporting a spreading contagion?
But there is also the chance that China did actually stop the spread. They took some drastic measures separating out the sick (forced quarantine), locking people down in their apartments, allowing only food delivery (not take out or drive thru), and preventing entry and exit of people from virus breakout areas. I do not know how they got food and fuel into those regions. But if they did careful testing and protection of truckers, they would have had a pretty good way to stop virus breakouts from leaking to nearby regions.
Contrast that with the US. Only in the big cities do people live in large apartment complexes, and that is usually just a small percentage of the population. Groceries do not have the capability to deliver to their customers. China did it by requiring large orders where people grouped together to place orders. US mayors could have done something to work out voluntary delivery assistance (for pay), but they couldn't mandate it. Instead in US cities, we all mingle in a few large groceries trying to stock up for 'worse to come' where we enhance the spread of the virus by crowding and a stigma against using masks.
Likewise, when someone gets sick in the US, they aren't visited by HAZMAT dressed police or military that drag them to a communal quarantine area. Instead, they continue living with their family or friends with the serious chance of virus spread.
Perhaps worst of all, there is no limit on travel into or out of breakout areas. I think NY tried that with the Westchester breakout with a national guard cordon around a one mile radius. But NY now has about half our national cases. Their limited trial didn't do them much good.
But take Texas, and our local experience as an example. We have a Super Walmart and a super HEB within 15 minutes of us in our county. Their shelves continue to be empty of any kind of disinfectant supplies. 30 minutes away, in Bexar Country (San Antonio) where they have a shelter-in-place order, is our closest Sams Club. We heard that yesterday they were allowing old folks early access. We went and stood in a tight line outside for 15 minutes, then shopped in an overly crowded store. They did have Clorox and Clorox wipes, the first we've seen since the pandemic started. But if anyone had the virus, there was a good chance it was spread.
My point is that even locals are going to shop a little farther from home to find goods they consider essential. No locked down city, the way the US does it, is going to stop the slow spread of the virus outside its borders. And there is nothing stopping a person in a breakout (locked down) area from traveling out into the 'country side.' If they have the means to do so, they are going to try and reduce their risk of the virus.
So in the US, unless something drastic changes, and I think it may be too late for that, the virus is going to spread outward from each breakout area. New breakout areas will form. It will move from the large cities to the smaller ones to the towns throughout the country.
The spread may not be fast, but it is going to happen. I guess it might disappear for summer weather. But if not, you are going to see waves spreading out from the big cities and hot spots. Each wave will have it's own 8 week curve. And like waves, they can go both ways. This will not be an 8 week hunker down and it's over.
There are three things that may mitigate the pandemic in the US: (1) therapeutic drug cocktails like hydro chloroquine and antibiotics may be effective enough to stop people from dying and slow down the spread and allowing the young and healthy to go back to work, (2) summer weather may nearly stop the spread as it does with the flu, and (3) social distancing and self-isolation may slow the spread enough that relatively few elderly and medically-at-risk persons will get sick, at least outside big urban centers.
There is a fourth measure that may help the situation. If the feds can convince people that the death rate is not much worse than the flu, they have a chance at heading off draconian measures. Just keep the elderly and sick protected. Unfortunately, I don't think the media will allow that to happen. It might help Trump.
Like the President said, I think the economy needs to get back to work. But if the death rate keeps going up drastically, the US is going to need to rethink its approach.
Thursday, March 26, 2020
China Decoupling
Lots of people online seems to think the US will start bringing back critical item production from China after the Wuhan pandemic is over. I find it unlikely that companies will return significant pharmaceutical manufacturing to the US. And I’m using pharmaceuticals as an example.
The driver for decoupling at the moment is that the realization that masks, gowns, and most meds or med components are produced in China. China stopped exports of some things like N95 masks, and threatened stopping exports of meds if we didn’t stop ‘blaming’ them for the virus. India just stopped the export of hydro chloroquine from their country.
So yes, decoupling would be the wise, smart and obvious thing to do. Bring that manufacturing back! But it’s easy to prophesy decoupling, it’s another to actually execute...
First, companies are out there to make money for their owners. If they don’t, the owners/investors move their money somewhere else. Suppose a company wants to bring back a pill production line to the US. Costs for the pill will go up since the labor costs will be higher. Plus they will have to invest in the product line in the US and will want to recoup those costs. Now they are competing with the other Chinese manufactured pill that is still sold at the old price. Which pill does the hospital or pharmacy buy?
To bring back production, you are either going to have to make it illegal to buy non-US or you need to impose tariffs. Both require, in most cases, laws being passed by the US Congress. Have you seen any democratic cooperation with republican initiatives in the last few years? Remember, this is after the pandemic is over. My guess is ‘when hell freezes over.’
However, companies also don’t want their supply chains compromised in bad situations. So they may move production from China to another low labor cost country, e.g. Taiwan, Vietnam or Mexico. They might even split production and leave half in China. Maybe they think that will assuage their corporate consciences in case of another pandemic.
But we just saw India stop the export of hydro chloroquine. Countries are going to do what’s best for them. If they need the product, it is not going to be exported—back to the US.
There’s another aspect to the problem. Manufacturing anything requires ‘raw’ materials. I don’t necessarily mean mined rock. But you usually need piles of stuff that you feed into the machine process to get the output product. If China is the one that mines or makes that stuff, even a US factory is limited to the pile of stuff on hand in an emergency.
Somehow the US or US companies need to produce that stuff in the US. Now the manufacturer could fund US production of that stuff, but that’s a bigger investment. Again, US incentives created by law are going to be needed. And again, do you think that is going to be a priority for democrat politicians?
I’m not saying Congress won’t take up this kind of law. But I don’t think it is likely. I also don’t think pharmaceutical manufacturing will return to the US without those laws.
In my opinion, decoupling is another good idea that will be forgotten the moment the media moves on from this emergency.
The driver for decoupling at the moment is that the realization that masks, gowns, and most meds or med components are produced in China. China stopped exports of some things like N95 masks, and threatened stopping exports of meds if we didn’t stop ‘blaming’ them for the virus. India just stopped the export of hydro chloroquine from their country.
So yes, decoupling would be the wise, smart and obvious thing to do. Bring that manufacturing back! But it’s easy to prophesy decoupling, it’s another to actually execute...
First, companies are out there to make money for their owners. If they don’t, the owners/investors move their money somewhere else. Suppose a company wants to bring back a pill production line to the US. Costs for the pill will go up since the labor costs will be higher. Plus they will have to invest in the product line in the US and will want to recoup those costs. Now they are competing with the other Chinese manufactured pill that is still sold at the old price. Which pill does the hospital or pharmacy buy?
To bring back production, you are either going to have to make it illegal to buy non-US or you need to impose tariffs. Both require, in most cases, laws being passed by the US Congress. Have you seen any democratic cooperation with republican initiatives in the last few years? Remember, this is after the pandemic is over. My guess is ‘when hell freezes over.’
However, companies also don’t want their supply chains compromised in bad situations. So they may move production from China to another low labor cost country, e.g. Taiwan, Vietnam or Mexico. They might even split production and leave half in China. Maybe they think that will assuage their corporate consciences in case of another pandemic.
But we just saw India stop the export of hydro chloroquine. Countries are going to do what’s best for them. If they need the product, it is not going to be exported—back to the US.
There’s another aspect to the problem. Manufacturing anything requires ‘raw’ materials. I don’t necessarily mean mined rock. But you usually need piles of stuff that you feed into the machine process to get the output product. If China is the one that mines or makes that stuff, even a US factory is limited to the pile of stuff on hand in an emergency.
Somehow the US or US companies need to produce that stuff in the US. Now the manufacturer could fund US production of that stuff, but that’s a bigger investment. Again, US incentives created by law are going to be needed. And again, do you think that is going to be a priority for democrat politicians?
I’m not saying Congress won’t take up this kind of law. But I don’t think it is likely. I also don’t think pharmaceutical manufacturing will return to the US without those laws.
In my opinion, decoupling is another good idea that will be forgotten the moment the media moves on from this emergency.
Tuesday, March 24, 2020
Wuhan Virus - Statistics and the Economy
I've got two topics I wanted to discuss this morning. The first is statistics. What I get out of the Johns Hopkins statistics map is pretty useless. It shows total US cases of the virus and the total number of deaths, and what appears to be a highly inaccurate tracking of recoveries (almost nil). The number of deaths initially were by county then went to state for several weeks, and now it's back to counties.
You know how many counties there are in the US? I don't either, but it's a lot. By county data may be of use to Dr. Birx on the president's task force, but it's not very useful to me. It does help to tell me how many got sick in my county (three), but I know where maybe 5 counties, by name, are located in the US.
But the real problem I have with the data is it doesn't tell me a thing about the severity of the cases (except for the small number that have died). I really want to know how many cases are requiring hospitalization and how many of those are requiring ventilators. Plus, I want them to tell me how many beds and ventilators are available. That will tell me whether the hospital system is near to getting overtaxed. Better yet, they should show that data by state and then for Dr. Birx, by county.
I hate all of 'the sky is falling' about hospitals about to be overwhelmed when nobody is giving me any data that supports the claim. I want to see a curve showing the progressions of the number of hospital patients, and patients on ventilators, over time.
And then there's the anxiety people have about their personal risk of dying if they get sick. People will take risks and go about their lives if the risk is equivalent to the flu. But who knows with this situation?
They tell me the average age of people dying in Italy is above 80 and that they have 2.7 underlying conditions. So what? What does the curve look like? Especially here in the US where we have a different situation. Is the age distribution a tall thin peak in the 80's or is it spread down into the 60's? How about the distribution by underlying condition?
In my own family, I'm 64 and my wife is under 60 but has an underlying condition. Where on the distribution curves do we sit? I don't have a clue. And apparently either no one is collecting that information or they don't think the public deserves to get it. My suspicion is the former. If it's the latter, I would be even more worried.
Now I will turn to our economy. If you have read my previous posts, you will see that I was pretty alarmed. Doing state lock downs or shelter-in-place will kill almost every small business in the region. If they are down for two weeks, those who sell consumables (restaurants and bars) will have to restock. If they didn't have a big cash reserve, and most small businesses don't, they probably will require loans to start back up. Nearly EVERY small business will require loans. Unless of course, as soon as business fell, they let off all of their employees and stopped paying rents, leases, mortgages, utilities and taxes.
The business community, with some good will and understanding, could probably take 2 weeks without help. 4 weeks would bring it all down.
A couple of days ago, it looked like the Senate would pass a bill that would provide funds to unemployed individuals and families. Do you want them all going to the unemployment insurance office to file in a lock down? Do you think those offices dispense cash? Or do they take a week or more to send checks?
The small business, many of which would still be paying off their initial loans for start up and operation through the growth stage won't want to take on any more debt burden. And I'm not sure giant (or local) banks would want to take the risk they could handle bigger payments. But the bill in the Senate looked like it would provide grants rather than loans to get small businesses back on their feet.
But then the democrats balked. The market tanked yet again. Now there's talk that they may have resolved their differences. My guess is the republicans caved to the pork and social justice/abortion/climate change giveaways the democrats wanted to add.
I hope not. It seems to me that there are two options for the future situation. In one, after the President's 15 day social distancing period, the feds recommend reopening business for the young and low to moderate risks and further isolating the high risk people. At 15 days, except for the democrat run state holdouts, that will allow the economy to recover on its own. The other approach requires or recommends another two weeks of lock downs. This approach requires a Senate/US bill similar to what I've mentioned above, or the chance of societal and economic breakdown becomes high.
I expect one of those two approaches to work out. And society won't break down. But there's still going to be state holdouts. Three states needed lock downs. NY is the only one that seems to have quickly rising cases, and that's in NY city. I have a fear that democratic governors (and mayors) see this not just as a crisis to be overcome, but one where they have an opportunity to damage President Trump.
First, they do the shelter-in-place (lock downs) statewide because that protects people, and when people are worried or panicking, that helps their ratings. It doesn't matter that it's overkill for the 2/3 or more of the state that is rural and has almost no chance of worst case predictions. But unless they are bigger idiots than they appear (and that's got to be impossible), they know they are causing serious economic damage. And that will hurt Trump in the election. Those rural folks probably weren't going to vote democrat, so what's the down side for a democratic governor?
A democratic mayor is in basically the same position, except that they don't have a rural segment of voters and economy. If the city is big enough, they are going to do a lock down to prevent loss of life.
During this period, there is another factor. The feds always come to the rescue in a disaster. They have to expect a rescue bill for any damage done to the economy.
Now consider the situation after a change. Either the feds recommend starting up the economy because too much damage is being incurred. Or the numbers show the hospitals in a city, region or state won't be overwhelmed. As I said in the first part of this blog, the statistics aren't there to allow assessing hospital risk. All you can get is anecdotal information from local reporters talking to a hospital administrator that is trying to prevent economic business as usual. They know their limits and they fear what will happen if cases surpass those limits. They are not going to say everything is good and the hospital can handle whatever comes its way.
But my point is, in either case, there is evidence that the city mayor or state governor should back off on their total shelter-in-place orders. If their citizens/voters agree, they are probably pretty soon going to allow some relief. Those whose motives lean towards damaging Trump, and that believe the feds will step in with relief funds, will keep their lock down orders in place longer than others.
Of course, there are still likely to be hot spots, like NY city, where you need to keep a lock down in place. I would guess any city over 500,000 people, ought to be very careful.
So I'm not as pessimistic now as I was a few days ago about a serious depression. But I still think state autonomy, combined with democratic governors and mayors that want to damage Trump, is going to make this worse than it should be. Of course, I'm still for state autonomy!
You know how many counties there are in the US? I don't either, but it's a lot. By county data may be of use to Dr. Birx on the president's task force, but it's not very useful to me. It does help to tell me how many got sick in my county (three), but I know where maybe 5 counties, by name, are located in the US.
But the real problem I have with the data is it doesn't tell me a thing about the severity of the cases (except for the small number that have died). I really want to know how many cases are requiring hospitalization and how many of those are requiring ventilators. Plus, I want them to tell me how many beds and ventilators are available. That will tell me whether the hospital system is near to getting overtaxed. Better yet, they should show that data by state and then for Dr. Birx, by county.
I hate all of 'the sky is falling' about hospitals about to be overwhelmed when nobody is giving me any data that supports the claim. I want to see a curve showing the progressions of the number of hospital patients, and patients on ventilators, over time.
And then there's the anxiety people have about their personal risk of dying if they get sick. People will take risks and go about their lives if the risk is equivalent to the flu. But who knows with this situation?
They tell me the average age of people dying in Italy is above 80 and that they have 2.7 underlying conditions. So what? What does the curve look like? Especially here in the US where we have a different situation. Is the age distribution a tall thin peak in the 80's or is it spread down into the 60's? How about the distribution by underlying condition?
In my own family, I'm 64 and my wife is under 60 but has an underlying condition. Where on the distribution curves do we sit? I don't have a clue. And apparently either no one is collecting that information or they don't think the public deserves to get it. My suspicion is the former. If it's the latter, I would be even more worried.
Now I will turn to our economy. If you have read my previous posts, you will see that I was pretty alarmed. Doing state lock downs or shelter-in-place will kill almost every small business in the region. If they are down for two weeks, those who sell consumables (restaurants and bars) will have to restock. If they didn't have a big cash reserve, and most small businesses don't, they probably will require loans to start back up. Nearly EVERY small business will require loans. Unless of course, as soon as business fell, they let off all of their employees and stopped paying rents, leases, mortgages, utilities and taxes.
The business community, with some good will and understanding, could probably take 2 weeks without help. 4 weeks would bring it all down.
A couple of days ago, it looked like the Senate would pass a bill that would provide funds to unemployed individuals and families. Do you want them all going to the unemployment insurance office to file in a lock down? Do you think those offices dispense cash? Or do they take a week or more to send checks?
The small business, many of which would still be paying off their initial loans for start up and operation through the growth stage won't want to take on any more debt burden. And I'm not sure giant (or local) banks would want to take the risk they could handle bigger payments. But the bill in the Senate looked like it would provide grants rather than loans to get small businesses back on their feet.
But then the democrats balked. The market tanked yet again. Now there's talk that they may have resolved their differences. My guess is the republicans caved to the pork and social justice/abortion/climate change giveaways the democrats wanted to add.
I hope not. It seems to me that there are two options for the future situation. In one, after the President's 15 day social distancing period, the feds recommend reopening business for the young and low to moderate risks and further isolating the high risk people. At 15 days, except for the democrat run state holdouts, that will allow the economy to recover on its own. The other approach requires or recommends another two weeks of lock downs. This approach requires a Senate/US bill similar to what I've mentioned above, or the chance of societal and economic breakdown becomes high.
I expect one of those two approaches to work out. And society won't break down. But there's still going to be state holdouts. Three states needed lock downs. NY is the only one that seems to have quickly rising cases, and that's in NY city. I have a fear that democratic governors (and mayors) see this not just as a crisis to be overcome, but one where they have an opportunity to damage President Trump.
First, they do the shelter-in-place (lock downs) statewide because that protects people, and when people are worried or panicking, that helps their ratings. It doesn't matter that it's overkill for the 2/3 or more of the state that is rural and has almost no chance of worst case predictions. But unless they are bigger idiots than they appear (and that's got to be impossible), they know they are causing serious economic damage. And that will hurt Trump in the election. Those rural folks probably weren't going to vote democrat, so what's the down side for a democratic governor?
A democratic mayor is in basically the same position, except that they don't have a rural segment of voters and economy. If the city is big enough, they are going to do a lock down to prevent loss of life.
During this period, there is another factor. The feds always come to the rescue in a disaster. They have to expect a rescue bill for any damage done to the economy.
Now consider the situation after a change. Either the feds recommend starting up the economy because too much damage is being incurred. Or the numbers show the hospitals in a city, region or state won't be overwhelmed. As I said in the first part of this blog, the statistics aren't there to allow assessing hospital risk. All you can get is anecdotal information from local reporters talking to a hospital administrator that is trying to prevent economic business as usual. They know their limits and they fear what will happen if cases surpass those limits. They are not going to say everything is good and the hospital can handle whatever comes its way.
But my point is, in either case, there is evidence that the city mayor or state governor should back off on their total shelter-in-place orders. If their citizens/voters agree, they are probably pretty soon going to allow some relief. Those whose motives lean towards damaging Trump, and that believe the feds will step in with relief funds, will keep their lock down orders in place longer than others.
Of course, there are still likely to be hot spots, like NY city, where you need to keep a lock down in place. I would guess any city over 500,000 people, ought to be very careful.
So I'm not as pessimistic now as I was a few days ago about a serious depression. But I still think state autonomy, combined with democratic governors and mayors that want to damage Trump, is going to make this worse than it should be. Of course, I'm still for state autonomy!
Saturday, March 21, 2020
Wuhan Virus - A Governor's Crisis Meeting, Somewhere in America
The following transcript was verified as accurate by multiple sources high in state government. However, the text was provided on the assurance of anonymity, not just for the sources, but also for the state.
Governor (G): Thanks for your quick response in joining today's video teleconference. My chief of staff (COS) would like us to consider taking further, strong action in this ongoing crisis. And I would like your input.
Chief of Staff/Political Adviser (COS): Thanks Mr. G. Our focus groups have provided new results. The voters will strongly support leaders that provide strong action against the Wuhan virus and will strongly disapprove of those leaders who take minimal action. They believe a total state lock down is the right approach to save lives, and that voluntary social distancing is just inadequate. I think we should follow California and New York's example and order a full lock down immediately.
Attorney General (AG): Unfortunately, our state law does not permit us to legally order widespread, indiscriminate business closures where there has not been a disaster or imminent disaster with significant loss of life or property. Likewise, we do not have the authority to curtail citizen movement.
COS: Well, that's one opinion. Mr. G's political advisers all believe that the media are going to tear into President Trump for only making recommendations when martial law could have saved lives. We know how effective the media is when it acts in concert against a politician. We also believe they will blame Mr. G if significant numbers of people die or they see deaths in an overcrowded hospital and G has not ordered a full lock down. Mr. G, and all of you, won't be able to get enough votes to win your local dog catcher election.
AG: Well, I guess we can quote the State Disaster Code title and number, and make the pronouncement look official. I think Dallas County in Texas did that. We just leave out quotes on relevant passages--that is, the measures we make up that don't exist in the law. Even if somebody files in court against the order, I doubt any judge is going to risk their position and halt our actions. And I doubt any journalists will even bother reading the code.
Secretary of Health (Health): Like our Disaster Response Laws, the Health Emergency Laws only allow shutdowns and quarantines when there is evidence or expectation of serious contagion. Besides that, we've only had a few tens of cases, mostly in our few cities, and a single death. Nearly 90% of our counties are rural. Because of existing social distancing and hygiene actions, I and our other doctors believe the spread of the virus will be slow. We don't anticipate high deaths or hospitals being overwhelmed. If we see a surge of cases in a city, it should be enough to lock down that city.
COS: Again, that's one opinion. News reports have indicated up to half our population could catch the virus and up to 1% of everyone that catches it could die....
Health: Interrupting... Those were worst case projections and not likely to happen...
COS: Interrupting... It doesn't matter what is likely to happen. The voters fear the worst, and expect strong measures to stop it. Fear, emotion and appearance matter in politics, not truth and reality.
Secretary of State (State): But our studies show a total lock down will bankrupt 80% of the farms and businesses in the state, cause up to 75% temporary unemployment and maybe 30% permanent unemployment. Our economy will tank, and our citizens will blame us. We won't have enough resources in the state to restart those businesses. The voters will take it out on us at the next election.
COS: That's a common misconception. The media, and of course most of the public, will blame Trump first for taking a weak stand and avoiding strong measures. If the $1,000+ payments to workers and loans for small businesses don't work, the media (and of course most of the public) will blame Trump for not accepting the more draconian measures Pelosi and Schumer are pushing. If there is a deep recession or depression after the crisis is over, they will blame Trump, whether he wins or loses the November election. We'll be in the clear.
G: So, in the short term, we think a statewide lock down is necessary to calm the voters' fears and assure general approval of the way our administration handles this crisis. If it tanks our economy, we hope the fed's payments and loans will bring us out of it. And if they don't, the media will blame Trump anyway. Well, I've heard the Chinese send their viruses all through the Internet, so we need to keep this short. Let's make it so!
Governor (G): Thanks for your quick response in joining today's video teleconference. My chief of staff (COS) would like us to consider taking further, strong action in this ongoing crisis. And I would like your input.
Chief of Staff/Political Adviser (COS): Thanks Mr. G. Our focus groups have provided new results. The voters will strongly support leaders that provide strong action against the Wuhan virus and will strongly disapprove of those leaders who take minimal action. They believe a total state lock down is the right approach to save lives, and that voluntary social distancing is just inadequate. I think we should follow California and New York's example and order a full lock down immediately.
Attorney General (AG): Unfortunately, our state law does not permit us to legally order widespread, indiscriminate business closures where there has not been a disaster or imminent disaster with significant loss of life or property. Likewise, we do not have the authority to curtail citizen movement.
COS: Well, that's one opinion. Mr. G's political advisers all believe that the media are going to tear into President Trump for only making recommendations when martial law could have saved lives. We know how effective the media is when it acts in concert against a politician. We also believe they will blame Mr. G if significant numbers of people die or they see deaths in an overcrowded hospital and G has not ordered a full lock down. Mr. G, and all of you, won't be able to get enough votes to win your local dog catcher election.
AG: Well, I guess we can quote the State Disaster Code title and number, and make the pronouncement look official. I think Dallas County in Texas did that. We just leave out quotes on relevant passages--that is, the measures we make up that don't exist in the law. Even if somebody files in court against the order, I doubt any judge is going to risk their position and halt our actions. And I doubt any journalists will even bother reading the code.
Secretary of Health (Health): Like our Disaster Response Laws, the Health Emergency Laws only allow shutdowns and quarantines when there is evidence or expectation of serious contagion. Besides that, we've only had a few tens of cases, mostly in our few cities, and a single death. Nearly 90% of our counties are rural. Because of existing social distancing and hygiene actions, I and our other doctors believe the spread of the virus will be slow. We don't anticipate high deaths or hospitals being overwhelmed. If we see a surge of cases in a city, it should be enough to lock down that city.
COS: Again, that's one opinion. News reports have indicated up to half our population could catch the virus and up to 1% of everyone that catches it could die....
Health: Interrupting... Those were worst case projections and not likely to happen...
COS: Interrupting... It doesn't matter what is likely to happen. The voters fear the worst, and expect strong measures to stop it. Fear, emotion and appearance matter in politics, not truth and reality.
Secretary of State (State): But our studies show a total lock down will bankrupt 80% of the farms and businesses in the state, cause up to 75% temporary unemployment and maybe 30% permanent unemployment. Our economy will tank, and our citizens will blame us. We won't have enough resources in the state to restart those businesses. The voters will take it out on us at the next election.
COS: That's a common misconception. The media, and of course most of the public, will blame Trump first for taking a weak stand and avoiding strong measures. If the $1,000+ payments to workers and loans for small businesses don't work, the media (and of course most of the public) will blame Trump for not accepting the more draconian measures Pelosi and Schumer are pushing. If there is a deep recession or depression after the crisis is over, they will blame Trump, whether he wins or loses the November election. We'll be in the clear.
G: So, in the short term, we think a statewide lock down is necessary to calm the voters' fears and assure general approval of the way our administration handles this crisis. If it tanks our economy, we hope the fed's payments and loans will bring us out of it. And if they don't, the media will blame Trump anyway. Well, I've heard the Chinese send their viruses all through the Internet, so we need to keep this short. Let's make it so!
Friday, March 20, 2020
Wuhan Virus VI - Is California America's Breadbasket? Or a Government Quarantine Lock Down Area?
They say that California provides a lot of the food used in the US. Now California Governor Newsom has ordered all 40 million residents to stay at home. Do you think that is going to help your food availability at your local grocery?
No people to run the massive farms. No people to process the food for shipment. No people to transport the foods to your market. No food at your market.
You have a good day. And enjoy the politicians' insane panic.
No people to run the massive farms. No people to process the food for shipment. No people to transport the foods to your market. No food at your market.
You have a good day. And enjoy the politicians' insane panic.
Thursday, March 19, 2020
Wuhan Virus V - The US Is Not China
I just heard that the Pennsylvania governor just ordered all non-essential businesses closed. With the ‘Keeping Up With the Joneses, oops, the Other Governors’ one would expect this to spread across the US.
This is insanity. We have an interdependent economy. Keeping it going depends on commerce, the production of a wide range of goods, and people with the funds to make purchases.
We are not China. China locked down one province and several cities. Maybe a 100 million out of nearly 2 billion. They had businesses going strong in much of their country providing food and goods for those locked down.
Having one governor after another throughout the US shut down all non-essential businesses removes that uncrippled sector of the US economy that can support the hard hit, locked down areas.
If this insane panic response spreads, the US economy will tank and it won’t come back. To restart businesses you have to have funds. If you’ve bankrupted 70% of American business by mandatory shutdowns for two months or more, that’s a huge bill. A trillion dollars of aid will be like a drop in the bucket.
Maybe all suppliers for the closed businesses will deliver the goods they need on restart on credit for a couple of months—after the crisis is over. But the employees rehired are also going to expect to get paid. If the feds inject more money in some super-massive aid bill, there will be inflation, serious inflation. Maybe the economy will stabilize at a lower standard of living, but maybe it won’t.
I would now upgrade my recommendation to prepare with some extra food and water. It seems prudent now to go full prepper.
—-
Topic number two. The latest news is that individual checks for the crisis would be for people with incomes under $100,000. But the data the IRS has is for 2018. If you’ve retired, or your income was higher than that in 2018 but you’ve been laid off because of government or big business response, you won’t get diddly.
If they do this, they need to send everyone the checks, but point out if their income is higher than the limit in 2020, it will be expected to be returned to the government in their 2020 fed tax return.
This is insanity. We have an interdependent economy. Keeping it going depends on commerce, the production of a wide range of goods, and people with the funds to make purchases.
We are not China. China locked down one province and several cities. Maybe a 100 million out of nearly 2 billion. They had businesses going strong in much of their country providing food and goods for those locked down.
Having one governor after another throughout the US shut down all non-essential businesses removes that uncrippled sector of the US economy that can support the hard hit, locked down areas.
If this insane panic response spreads, the US economy will tank and it won’t come back. To restart businesses you have to have funds. If you’ve bankrupted 70% of American business by mandatory shutdowns for two months or more, that’s a huge bill. A trillion dollars of aid will be like a drop in the bucket.
Maybe all suppliers for the closed businesses will deliver the goods they need on restart on credit for a couple of months—after the crisis is over. But the employees rehired are also going to expect to get paid. If the feds inject more money in some super-massive aid bill, there will be inflation, serious inflation. Maybe the economy will stabilize at a lower standard of living, but maybe it won’t.
I would now upgrade my recommendation to prepare with some extra food and water. It seems prudent now to go full prepper.
—-
Topic number two. The latest news is that individual checks for the crisis would be for people with incomes under $100,000. But the data the IRS has is for 2018. If you’ve retired, or your income was higher than that in 2018 but you’ve been laid off because of government or big business response, you won’t get diddly.
If they do this, they need to send everyone the checks, but point out if their income is higher than the limit in 2020, it will be expected to be returned to the government in their 2020 fed tax return.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)