In most cases I really like Martha Carr and Michael Anderle's books. Martha Carr tends to favor urban fantasy novels that seem written without an excess of sexual detail; rather refreshing. Michael Anderle seems to like to write fantasy in a science fiction setting. They have collaborated quite a few times. They've generated a number of fantasy 'worlds' that have included spin offs and collaborations with others. They are prolific, and I like almost all of their work.
I just started reading "The Witches of Pressler Street" series. This seems more likely a Martha Carr work with Anderle assisting.
But it's got a big gotcha in the plot that is almost impossible to get through. You've got the three sister witches trying to avoid the usual world ending attack by the evil entity. To do that, they have to destroy at least seven of twelve magical generators and capture the entity. The generators are in known locations, and the sisters have a couple of tools that let them destroy the generators pretty easily. They also have the magical ability to transport themselves to the locations of the generators. If the entity starts up six generators, the world will end. And the entity only has to capture six witches to do that.
So do they take a day and destroy the generators? No! Well why not you might ask?
Because it will interrupt their work and love lives. The senior sister is an archaeologist on a summer sabbatical and wants to get it done, but doesn't think it is safe to do the generator destroying alone. They need all three sisters.
The middle sister is a musician and cannot, of course, cancel any of her performances.
The youngest sister is an aspiring chef and has a new boyfriend. She won't skip out on her shifts or cancel any of her dates.
This has got to be the stupidest plot line I've ever seen from either author, and in reality, from any author. They get around to a generator once or twice a week. The only thing more stupid than their attitude is that the evil entity doesn't seem to be any smarter or faster. Why, I don't know.
Unfortunately, their writing, besides the plot, is as good as usual. Read at your own risk.
Wednesday, April 29, 2020
Sunday, April 26, 2020
Half-Baked Ideas
As usual, I feel irritation when people make arguments without thinking them through. The two half-baked ideas I’m thinking about today are (1) We cannot reopen the economy safely without wide-spread testing and (2) App infection tracing will allow us to reopen safely.
First, I could dispute that reopening safely soon is possible in any set of circumstances. But I don’t want to go that route. Instead, let’s look at what testing or app infection tracing get us.
I’ll start with testing. We have several options:
First, I could dispute that reopening safely soon is possible in any set of circumstances. But I don’t want to go that route. Instead, let’s look at what testing or app infection tracing get us.
I’ll start with testing. We have several options:
- Tested recently and you have the virus
- Tested recently and you do not have the virus
- Tested for antibodies and you probably have recovered
- Tested for antibodies and you probably never had the virus
- You haven’t been tested recently and you are a complete unknown
Who do we allow to go back to work? Remember, these great medical thinkers want us to be safe, so they don’t want workers spreading the virus. Tested #3 is the only really safe worker. Tested #2 is good for at least a day after testing; but thereafter, could have picked up the virus. Tested #4 is a person who hasn’t had the virus and enough time has passed to develop enough antibodies for protection, but they might also still have an infection, or they might get one tomorrow.
In short, only tested #3 going back to work is the safe approach. But that means we only allow you to go back to work if you’ve had the virus. Numbers today show only 1 million are in that category, and most of those are presumed from virus (not antibody) testing and recovery. Actual antibody testing has been limited to sample sizes of about 1,000 people in several areas.
So, let’s assume we can scale up antibody testing massively in a short period (probably a poor assumption). If the current sampling is correct, maybe 2% of the population has had the virus and recovered. It’s almost certainly a much smaller percentage since the sampling was in high-case areas. But let’s make an even more ridiculous assumption, 5% of the working population has had the virus and recovered. People want to keep social distancing and masks, so mitigation is expected to continue to slow the spread.
Can our economy run on 5% of it’s workforce? Can it run on even 20% of it’s workforce? My assertion would be no. Too many without paychecks and too many businesses without sufficient employees. We would have a crash. So the ‘must do testing first’ is a half-baked idea.
Now let’s look at app tracing of infected people. Let’s make the ridiculous assumption that 75% of the population old enough to be out on their own with phones has signed up, downloaded the app and keeps their status up to date.
Let’s further assume that we have the 5 test cases we looked at in the previous discussion. Everyone keeps their test status up to date in their app. However, in this situation, we just have slowly growing testing. It’s not yet widespread testing.
So what is the safety benefit from this app? Supposedly, it’s going to tell you (the government) who has come in contact with a contagious individual. Maybe the app will also tell you (the user) when you’ve been exposed. So far, no safety benefit yet. If you’ve been exposed, you might get priority for testing. Some might assume that contagious and exposed people will be ineligible for working and would be quarantined and isolated. But if the infected are quarantined or isolated, there would be no exposures for the app to detect and trace. Hence, one assumes there is neither effective mandatory government quarantining or voluntary isolation. Again, no safety benefit.
Suppose the primary safety benefit or use is to identify individuals ineligible to work. And the app tracking is all post exposure after someone is tested and updates their status. That is, any contacts in the last 14 days has to self isolate for another 14 days. So, nobody gets to work unless the app gives them a clean bill of health for the last 14 days; i.e., no exposure during that period.
Ok. Now suppose the app became available and the 200 million workers in the US all downloaded it on day 1. The 1 million cases update their status. The 6 thousand tested for antibodies do the same. There is no historical contact data, so everyone else shows clean, irrespective of their actual status. Let’s assume that the government is smart and prevents reopening for 14 days until contact histories are available. With current mitigation, you might have 1.5 million now possibly exposed. So everyone else can go back to work safely?
Well, unless you take into account the 75% of infected who were asymptomatic or had symptoms comparable to a cold or flu. The app simply cannot find those people and in turn, the people that they came in contact with. The app would give government the ability to do contact tracing for those hospitalized. But with 75% asymptomatic, that’s a pretty useless capability. It also assumes a huge contact tracing operation.
So app tracing might supplement testing, if enough people sign up. But by itself, all it would do is allow widespread reopening with a lot of contagious, asymptomatic workers. Workers that would be spreading the infection.
So, I consider app tracing/tracking to be another half-baked idea.
Saturday, April 25, 2020
COVID-19 There’s No Indication That ...
I’m quickly coming to the conclusion that medical authorities either mislead or directly lie to the public nearly all the time. As a physicist and engineer I’ve always had my concerns about doctors and their knowledge. I’m sure most have good intentions, but I get the impression that they just draw on a body of knowledge to make a best guess. If they don’t give you a test, it cannot be more than a good guess. It’s likely to be better than mine. If they do tests, they may arrive at a conclusion with a higher probability. But there is very little certainty.
Take my prostate cancer. In my fifties I had a high PSA test. They did a biopsy that seemed to take samples at random. The samples suggested I had a mild, non-aggressive version of cancer. They recommended watchful waiting, but also said I had the option of removing my prostate. I took the option. Analysis of the removed tissue indicated the cancer was moderately aggressive. Their recommended watchful waiting could have killed me. Their biopsy had produced the wrong conclusion.
Now take the Wuhan virus. China and the World Health Organization (WHO) both said there was no evidence of human to human contagion. This was in early January. In this case they both lied. A little later they said the virus did not spread easily between humans. Sure thing.
More recently, after several animals were found to be infected with COVID-19, the WHO said there was no reason to believe that animals could give COVID-19 to humans. So if the virus jumped from bats to humans as both China and the WHO insist, as opposed to escaping from a lab, how do they make that claim? Maybe they said pets and not animals, so they wouldn’t have been literally lying.
Then take there’s no evidence that masks will protect you from the virus. They even said they could be harmful. That was the WHO, CDC, and the US Surgeon General. What do people think the masks were created to do? How stupid did they think the public could be? Are you now using a mask?
Then there’s the common, there is no evidence that medicine X will cure COVID-19. Any data is purely anecdotal. So take a French report that says hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, and zinc sulfate can prevent a serious case of COVID-19 when used early. New York does clinical trials and only uses it in serious cases, much later than the ‘anecdotal’ report suggested. Or the trial doesn’t use all three. Or it uses chloroquine instead of hydroxychloroquine. The trial doesn’t work, so they say hydroxychloroquine cannot assist in COVID-19 cases. Sure.
And that last one brings in the media. Most of the media and all the democrats want Trump to do poorly and lose the upcoming election. You should believe what they say at your own risk. My personal opinion is that most will use the fear of the virus to keep the lock downs in place as long as possible. If republican governors open early, additional deaths can be thrown at their feet. A crumbling economy to them is just gravy. It hurts Trump and let’s the House pass more spending bills to increase the dependency of the public on government.
I’ll close with the testing mantra. Sure, doctors want more testing. The media and democrats want lock downs to continue until testing of everyone. It’s kind of like waiting for a vaccine. More testing and continued lock downs could save more lives. But I haven’t seen anyone give a realistic plan that shows how more testing let’s us open up sooner.
Believe what you will.
Take my prostate cancer. In my fifties I had a high PSA test. They did a biopsy that seemed to take samples at random. The samples suggested I had a mild, non-aggressive version of cancer. They recommended watchful waiting, but also said I had the option of removing my prostate. I took the option. Analysis of the removed tissue indicated the cancer was moderately aggressive. Their recommended watchful waiting could have killed me. Their biopsy had produced the wrong conclusion.
Now take the Wuhan virus. China and the World Health Organization (WHO) both said there was no evidence of human to human contagion. This was in early January. In this case they both lied. A little later they said the virus did not spread easily between humans. Sure thing.
More recently, after several animals were found to be infected with COVID-19, the WHO said there was no reason to believe that animals could give COVID-19 to humans. So if the virus jumped from bats to humans as both China and the WHO insist, as opposed to escaping from a lab, how do they make that claim? Maybe they said pets and not animals, so they wouldn’t have been literally lying.
Then take there’s no evidence that masks will protect you from the virus. They even said they could be harmful. That was the WHO, CDC, and the US Surgeon General. What do people think the masks were created to do? How stupid did they think the public could be? Are you now using a mask?
Then there’s the common, there is no evidence that medicine X will cure COVID-19. Any data is purely anecdotal. So take a French report that says hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, and zinc sulfate can prevent a serious case of COVID-19 when used early. New York does clinical trials and only uses it in serious cases, much later than the ‘anecdotal’ report suggested. Or the trial doesn’t use all three. Or it uses chloroquine instead of hydroxychloroquine. The trial doesn’t work, so they say hydroxychloroquine cannot assist in COVID-19 cases. Sure.
And that last one brings in the media. Most of the media and all the democrats want Trump to do poorly and lose the upcoming election. You should believe what they say at your own risk. My personal opinion is that most will use the fear of the virus to keep the lock downs in place as long as possible. If republican governors open early, additional deaths can be thrown at their feet. A crumbling economy to them is just gravy. It hurts Trump and let’s the House pass more spending bills to increase the dependency of the public on government.
I’ll close with the testing mantra. Sure, doctors want more testing. The media and democrats want lock downs to continue until testing of everyone. It’s kind of like waiting for a vaccine. More testing and continued lock downs could save more lives. But I haven’t seen anyone give a realistic plan that shows how more testing let’s us open up sooner.
Believe what you will.
Friday, April 24, 2020
Suppose President Trump Had Issued a National Lock Down Order
I wanted to do some thought experiments. Namely, what would have happened if President Trump had tried to institute a national lock down to mitigate the corona virus epidemic? Lots of the media and democrats criticized him for not doing that; they wanted a national, uniform response, not just a set of recommendations or guide lines.
First, I tried looking up the legal basis for martial law. As far as I can see, there isn't any in the US. A few presidents have used it in limited areas and situations, and the Supreme Court has imposed restrictions on what they can and cannot do. So apparently, the courts will sometimes allow the use of martial law, but no president has tried anything on a national basis.
How about the use of natural disaster or health disaster laws for presidential use? Yeah, they exist and are used. But they primarily allow the president to apply funds to support whatever disaster is happening or has happened. They may allow for federal government to control freedom of movement in disaster areas when the local governors or managers are unable to do so. State laws tend to allow that level of control also. Nothing I've ever seen or heard about allows shutting down businesses and ordering people to shelter inside at risk of fines or jail when their area has not undergone significant physical damage or loss of life.
But back to our thought experiment. The media and democrats wanted a national directive from President Trump shutting down businesses and ordering people to stay at home. Some may have been sincere in that desire. However, others may have been simply trying to find something to criticize President Trump about.
Suppose he had taken the bait and issued an executive order shutting down all non-essential businesses and ordering shelter-in-place across the nation. Maybe he even called up the National Guard and had them start patrolling highways and cities for violators. Just like the democratic governors did and many republican governors. Of course, they used police for the most part and didn't really do much arresting or fining; but they did some. But in this thought experiment, the governors didn't get the chance to act, the President did.
Now, just like with anything President Trump does, the media will start complaining it was wrong and the House of Representatives will start investigating his impeachable offense. But we'll also get the lawsuits started in federal district courts with Obama appointed judges.
Inside of days, some federal district judge will say his actions were unconstitutional and were applied heedless of the situation in their region. He or she will issue a nation-wide injunction against the Executive Order. President Trump will ask the Supreme Court for an immediate hold to stop the judge's order.
Unlike most nation-wide injunctions, this one actually addresses an unconstitutional action. But the Supreme Court, at least a few of them, think the Executive Order is the right thing to do even so. So they put the district judge's order on hold and ask for an emergency hearing with arguments from the parties within a week.
In the meantime, Antifa and Black Lives Matter and democrats throughout the nation are demonstrating against the President's order. Rising cases in New York and New Jersey are pretty much ignored by all of the media except Fox. Everyone else insists this is just a bad case of the flu. And it's especially bad in New York.
The President rushes to build emergency hospitals, build up testing capacity, and directs manufacture of ventilators. The media derides these unnecessary actions. Much of the country hunkers down like directed, fearful for their safety and trying to wait out the evolution of the bug to see if it is a bad flu or a plague.
Congress points out how the President is quickly destroying our economy, and even some Republicans agree. They rush to quickly pass a $10 trillion relief package that gives money to everyone, including illegal aliens, all business in the US, and states and localities impacted by reduced income. All businesses have to give up some of their ownership stock, limit executive salaries, and agree to an $18 minimum wage. They plan up to 4 more relief packages like this unless the President withdraws his edict.
Now the Supreme Court meets and the questions show that conservative justices think the President's order is unconstitutional on its face. The liberals seem to be simply trying to point out how the order was not needed in the current circumstances. Two days later, they announce a unanimous decision that the edict is unconstitutional and order the Executive Order in abeyance. The liberals wrote their own assenting opinion stating they believed such an order could be constitutional, but not in these circumstances.
Before the President and his team can respond, governors across the nation issue hygiene and social distancing guidelines. Some order stay-at-home and shutdown of non-essential businesses for a few of the larger cities with break-out hot spots.
The President comes on national TV, points out the hypocrisy of everyone that wanted him to issue a nation-wide executive order, and talks about all of the great work he's done getting the medical community help to prepare for the pandemic.
The 25 million people out of work for a month now, start going back to work. But demand is down, and people still are avoiding crowded stores and arenas. The now $30 trillion deficit and all of the new dollars in circulation start generating inflation. Supply chains are still under stress, so everything goes up in price.
By the time of the election, the unemployment rate is down to 11%, and the media and democrats are decrying the lousy economy that President Trump caused through his order.
Joe Biden has avoided debates and all the people have seen are ads showing him 5 years earlier when he didn't have dementia. He picked Kamala Harris for vice president.
The election is a runaway for Joe Biden. Trump goes down hard. Democrats pick up big majorities in the Senate and House. One week after Joe's inauguration, he resigns due to medical issues. Kamala Harris becomes president. The country never recovers and 10% unemployment and zero percent growth last forever. Freedoms disappear year after year as democrats pass ever more restrictive laws. Except of course, for their open borders that bring in millions of democratic voters each year.
Thought experiment conclusion: It's a good thing President Trump did not issue an executive order locking down the nation!
First, I tried looking up the legal basis for martial law. As far as I can see, there isn't any in the US. A few presidents have used it in limited areas and situations, and the Supreme Court has imposed restrictions on what they can and cannot do. So apparently, the courts will sometimes allow the use of martial law, but no president has tried anything on a national basis.
How about the use of natural disaster or health disaster laws for presidential use? Yeah, they exist and are used. But they primarily allow the president to apply funds to support whatever disaster is happening or has happened. They may allow for federal government to control freedom of movement in disaster areas when the local governors or managers are unable to do so. State laws tend to allow that level of control also. Nothing I've ever seen or heard about allows shutting down businesses and ordering people to shelter inside at risk of fines or jail when their area has not undergone significant physical damage or loss of life.
But back to our thought experiment. The media and democrats wanted a national directive from President Trump shutting down businesses and ordering people to stay at home. Some may have been sincere in that desire. However, others may have been simply trying to find something to criticize President Trump about.
Suppose he had taken the bait and issued an executive order shutting down all non-essential businesses and ordering shelter-in-place across the nation. Maybe he even called up the National Guard and had them start patrolling highways and cities for violators. Just like the democratic governors did and many republican governors. Of course, they used police for the most part and didn't really do much arresting or fining; but they did some. But in this thought experiment, the governors didn't get the chance to act, the President did.
Now, just like with anything President Trump does, the media will start complaining it was wrong and the House of Representatives will start investigating his impeachable offense. But we'll also get the lawsuits started in federal district courts with Obama appointed judges.
Inside of days, some federal district judge will say his actions were unconstitutional and were applied heedless of the situation in their region. He or she will issue a nation-wide injunction against the Executive Order. President Trump will ask the Supreme Court for an immediate hold to stop the judge's order.
Unlike most nation-wide injunctions, this one actually addresses an unconstitutional action. But the Supreme Court, at least a few of them, think the Executive Order is the right thing to do even so. So they put the district judge's order on hold and ask for an emergency hearing with arguments from the parties within a week.
In the meantime, Antifa and Black Lives Matter and democrats throughout the nation are demonstrating against the President's order. Rising cases in New York and New Jersey are pretty much ignored by all of the media except Fox. Everyone else insists this is just a bad case of the flu. And it's especially bad in New York.
The President rushes to build emergency hospitals, build up testing capacity, and directs manufacture of ventilators. The media derides these unnecessary actions. Much of the country hunkers down like directed, fearful for their safety and trying to wait out the evolution of the bug to see if it is a bad flu or a plague.
Congress points out how the President is quickly destroying our economy, and even some Republicans agree. They rush to quickly pass a $10 trillion relief package that gives money to everyone, including illegal aliens, all business in the US, and states and localities impacted by reduced income. All businesses have to give up some of their ownership stock, limit executive salaries, and agree to an $18 minimum wage. They plan up to 4 more relief packages like this unless the President withdraws his edict.
Now the Supreme Court meets and the questions show that conservative justices think the President's order is unconstitutional on its face. The liberals seem to be simply trying to point out how the order was not needed in the current circumstances. Two days later, they announce a unanimous decision that the edict is unconstitutional and order the Executive Order in abeyance. The liberals wrote their own assenting opinion stating they believed such an order could be constitutional, but not in these circumstances.
Before the President and his team can respond, governors across the nation issue hygiene and social distancing guidelines. Some order stay-at-home and shutdown of non-essential businesses for a few of the larger cities with break-out hot spots.
The President comes on national TV, points out the hypocrisy of everyone that wanted him to issue a nation-wide executive order, and talks about all of the great work he's done getting the medical community help to prepare for the pandemic.
The 25 million people out of work for a month now, start going back to work. But demand is down, and people still are avoiding crowded stores and arenas. The now $30 trillion deficit and all of the new dollars in circulation start generating inflation. Supply chains are still under stress, so everything goes up in price.
By the time of the election, the unemployment rate is down to 11%, and the media and democrats are decrying the lousy economy that President Trump caused through his order.
Joe Biden has avoided debates and all the people have seen are ads showing him 5 years earlier when he didn't have dementia. He picked Kamala Harris for vice president.
The election is a runaway for Joe Biden. Trump goes down hard. Democrats pick up big majorities in the Senate and House. One week after Joe's inauguration, he resigns due to medical issues. Kamala Harris becomes president. The country never recovers and 10% unemployment and zero percent growth last forever. Freedoms disappear year after year as democrats pass ever more restrictive laws. Except of course, for their open borders that bring in millions of democratic voters each year.
Thought experiment conclusion: It's a good thing President Trump did not issue an executive order locking down the nation!
COVID-19 Antibody Tests ARE Good News
I guess I want to argue again with Scott Adams. He disparages the news that antibody tests show large portions of the populations of California and New York had corona virus but were not included in the official number of 'cases.'
His argument took two hypothetical bugs (reasonable since we don't know anything really about COVID-19 statistics). One was a low spreading flu with low mortality rates. Another was a quickly spreading corona virus with high mortality rates. He claimed it was ridiculous to compare the two, that the corona virus was a blight on humanity while the flu was an inconvenience. Those are my words, not his.
But he was making the same case about the antibody test results that showed it fast spreading. He said it didn't mean anything because it was still a killer and a killer that spreads fast. That the antibody results are not good news.
The point he doesn't seem to take into account is that the mortality and hospital rates are a lot lower than anticipated. They should be compared to the earlier assumptions about COVID-19 and not some lesser flu. He persists in comparing apples to oranges, when all the antibody data does is refine our understanding of COVID-19.
If the antibody results showed that no one else had gotten the virus that wasn't an official case tested at hospitals, then the mortality rate would have been high, and you could just argue that mitigation efforts (lock downs and hygiene) successfully retarded the spread and kept the death rate down. You would have to remain fearful about the virus' effects in rural America.
But now we know that mitigation was not nearly as successful as we expected. That mortality rates are lower. And that hospitals, at least of the quality of those in New York, can handle a widely spread epidemic of COVID-19.
Now we have data that we can apply to more sparsely populated counties and states. We know what the hospitalization and mortality rates could be if they get a 20% infection rate.
What I don't know is whether those areas have sufficient hospital capacity. Yet even so, it is useful data that can inform state and local managers on how fast they can afford to reopen.
His argument took two hypothetical bugs (reasonable since we don't know anything really about COVID-19 statistics). One was a low spreading flu with low mortality rates. Another was a quickly spreading corona virus with high mortality rates. He claimed it was ridiculous to compare the two, that the corona virus was a blight on humanity while the flu was an inconvenience. Those are my words, not his.
But he was making the same case about the antibody test results that showed it fast spreading. He said it didn't mean anything because it was still a killer and a killer that spreads fast. That the antibody results are not good news.
The point he doesn't seem to take into account is that the mortality and hospital rates are a lot lower than anticipated. They should be compared to the earlier assumptions about COVID-19 and not some lesser flu. He persists in comparing apples to oranges, when all the antibody data does is refine our understanding of COVID-19.
If the antibody results showed that no one else had gotten the virus that wasn't an official case tested at hospitals, then the mortality rate would have been high, and you could just argue that mitigation efforts (lock downs and hygiene) successfully retarded the spread and kept the death rate down. You would have to remain fearful about the virus' effects in rural America.
But now we know that mitigation was not nearly as successful as we expected. That mortality rates are lower. And that hospitals, at least of the quality of those in New York, can handle a widely spread epidemic of COVID-19.
Now we have data that we can apply to more sparsely populated counties and states. We know what the hospitalization and mortality rates could be if they get a 20% infection rate.
What I don't know is whether those areas have sufficient hospital capacity. Yet even so, it is useful data that can inform state and local managers on how fast they can afford to reopen.
Tuesday, April 21, 2020
COVID-19 Testing, Herd Immunity and Vaccines
Let’s talk about the ‘normal’ flu for a moment. Actually there isn’t a normal flu. Apparently there are many versions. Each year somebody guesses which strains are going to hit and tries to target our annual vaccine to those strains. Usually we hear the vaccine is 30 to 60% effective. I’m not sure whether that means the vaccine doesn’t work against the targeted strains or whether they guessed wrong on which strains to vaccinate against.
Let’s stay on flu for a bit longer. Have you ever heard of anyone getting a flu test to see whether they have a flu virus? I would guess if you go to a hospital, they might administer a test. How about anybody ever getting an antibody test to see if they have recovered and are immune to another bout? You might assert we have herd immunity from those who’ve been sick and those who get the vaccine? Then why do 20,000 to 60,000 die each year from the flu? Maybe the medical community doesn’t think the costs of additional testing will have any benefit?
Now to COVID-19. I initially heard there were two strains of the virus. The last report I saw indicated a dozen strains. Now, not being medical, nor having seen the reports, I cannot say what that means to potential vaccine effectiveness or to potential herd immunity. I am not making any claim that COVID-19 is just another flu. What I am doing is trying to make some points about expectations on handling COVID-19.
First, even if we get a vaccine or vaccines at 12 or 18 months, or even at 6 months, we shouldn’t expect it to be more than 30 to 60% effective. I would rough that out to mean if you get a vaccine, you’ve only reduced your risk by about 50% if you are exposed to the virus. Every bit helps, and I would still like to get a vaccine.
Now, would you like herd immunity? That would mean enough of us are immune so a seed of the virus couldn’t spread. Obviously a good thing if it can be achieved without a lot of people dying. From our experience with multiple strains of the flu, limited flu vaccine effectiveness, and known rates of people willing to get a vaccine, herd immunity seems unlikely to happen.
Let’s look at herd immunity from a different perspective. I’ve seen reports that to achieve herd immunity (e.g. with measles or mumps) you have to get 60% of a population immune or vaccinated. We’ve already touched on vaccinations. What about through normal spread? They say it’s much more contagious than the flu (although I haven’t seen any evidence or data); so let’s assume that is true. Further, they say the worst cases are so much worse than the flu; maybe. But the point I’m making is that fear has caused us to shut down the economy and hide. People are accused of being heartless and murderers if they congregate or go around without a mask. The result is that we have done everything possible to slow the spread of the virus and prevent herd immunity.
So my conclusion is that both vaccine promise and potential herd immunity are questionable. We need to get on with life and learn to live with COVID-19.
Now I want to touch on testing for a moment. A couple of blogs back I pointed out my views on widespread testing—not that helpful. But that was a macro view. What about the micro view?
Suppose you have a county with 1,000 cases and 50 deaths up to now. You’ve got at least one mid-sized city and 200,000 people. You are still seeing a dozen new cases every few days. You’ve been on shelter-in-place with non-essential businesses closed. Let’s say the governor is letting the county manager do their own thing. 30% of your workers are out of business with nearly all small businesses closed and at risk of bankruptcy. You want to start opening again, but everyone is saying you need extensive testing.
What are the considerations? Current testing constraints say you can only test 0.5% of your population each week. If you let only recovered or immune back to work, you can only let 1,000 people go back to work now. You can start broadening testing up to 1,000 people per week. Assuming all those are negative or have antibodies, you can open up at a rate of 1,000 per week. With 30% unemployment, that might be 1,000 out of 30,000 people. It would only take 6 months to get everyone back to work. And that’s if you only tested healthy, unemployed working age people.
But what about customers for the stores you open? Do they get tests? You don’t have enough. What about the regular workers not out of work. Do they get tested? What about contact tracing for new cases, do you test them too?
If the government is able to get more testing supplies, maybe they can double the testing in a month or two. It’s not clear to me that any significant quantity of large-scale testing machines are being built. Do we want to wait 2, 3 or 6 months with a closed economy until we can get huge numbers of people tested? I don’t. And I sure haven’t seen any testing capability in the past that says we can actually achieve that goal.
Stop reading these and get on with your life. Be safe!
Let’s stay on flu for a bit longer. Have you ever heard of anyone getting a flu test to see whether they have a flu virus? I would guess if you go to a hospital, they might administer a test. How about anybody ever getting an antibody test to see if they have recovered and are immune to another bout? You might assert we have herd immunity from those who’ve been sick and those who get the vaccine? Then why do 20,000 to 60,000 die each year from the flu? Maybe the medical community doesn’t think the costs of additional testing will have any benefit?
Now to COVID-19. I initially heard there were two strains of the virus. The last report I saw indicated a dozen strains. Now, not being medical, nor having seen the reports, I cannot say what that means to potential vaccine effectiveness or to potential herd immunity. I am not making any claim that COVID-19 is just another flu. What I am doing is trying to make some points about expectations on handling COVID-19.
First, even if we get a vaccine or vaccines at 12 or 18 months, or even at 6 months, we shouldn’t expect it to be more than 30 to 60% effective. I would rough that out to mean if you get a vaccine, you’ve only reduced your risk by about 50% if you are exposed to the virus. Every bit helps, and I would still like to get a vaccine.
Now, would you like herd immunity? That would mean enough of us are immune so a seed of the virus couldn’t spread. Obviously a good thing if it can be achieved without a lot of people dying. From our experience with multiple strains of the flu, limited flu vaccine effectiveness, and known rates of people willing to get a vaccine, herd immunity seems unlikely to happen.
Let’s look at herd immunity from a different perspective. I’ve seen reports that to achieve herd immunity (e.g. with measles or mumps) you have to get 60% of a population immune or vaccinated. We’ve already touched on vaccinations. What about through normal spread? They say it’s much more contagious than the flu (although I haven’t seen any evidence or data); so let’s assume that is true. Further, they say the worst cases are so much worse than the flu; maybe. But the point I’m making is that fear has caused us to shut down the economy and hide. People are accused of being heartless and murderers if they congregate or go around without a mask. The result is that we have done everything possible to slow the spread of the virus and prevent herd immunity.
So my conclusion is that both vaccine promise and potential herd immunity are questionable. We need to get on with life and learn to live with COVID-19.
Now I want to touch on testing for a moment. A couple of blogs back I pointed out my views on widespread testing—not that helpful. But that was a macro view. What about the micro view?
Suppose you have a county with 1,000 cases and 50 deaths up to now. You’ve got at least one mid-sized city and 200,000 people. You are still seeing a dozen new cases every few days. You’ve been on shelter-in-place with non-essential businesses closed. Let’s say the governor is letting the county manager do their own thing. 30% of your workers are out of business with nearly all small businesses closed and at risk of bankruptcy. You want to start opening again, but everyone is saying you need extensive testing.
What are the considerations? Current testing constraints say you can only test 0.5% of your population each week. If you let only recovered or immune back to work, you can only let 1,000 people go back to work now. You can start broadening testing up to 1,000 people per week. Assuming all those are negative or have antibodies, you can open up at a rate of 1,000 per week. With 30% unemployment, that might be 1,000 out of 30,000 people. It would only take 6 months to get everyone back to work. And that’s if you only tested healthy, unemployed working age people.
But what about customers for the stores you open? Do they get tests? You don’t have enough. What about the regular workers not out of work. Do they get tested? What about contact tracing for new cases, do you test them too?
If the government is able to get more testing supplies, maybe they can double the testing in a month or two. It’s not clear to me that any significant quantity of large-scale testing machines are being built. Do we want to wait 2, 3 or 6 months with a closed economy until we can get huge numbers of people tested? I don’t. And I sure haven’t seen any testing capability in the past that says we can actually achieve that goal.
Stop reading these and get on with your life. Be safe!
Reopening Day at a Texas State Park
Thought I would depart for a few hours from COVID-19 posting. The governor of Texas allowed state parks to reopen yesterday. And I wanted to go hiking before they closed them again. But it was a pretty weird experience.
Even before they had closed a few weeks ago, they had started requiring you to go online and get a day pass. The offices were supposed to be closed, and so were the RV/tent camping areas. The online site was going to reopen Sunday at noon to start taking reservations. But for a couple of hours after noon, all it said for Guadalupe River State Park was that you should call for reservations; but the phone line was disconnected. I tried back mid-afternoon and got a reservation/day use pass.
Apparently, they are allowing 100 passes per day for a pretty large park. Although they have a section north of the river that gets very few visitors and it was allowed 60 passes per day. The big draw for the main park (south section) is the river. Almost everyone goes there or to the RV park.
But the main park also has what many would call a back country trail system. I put together a set of trails that are just shy of 5.5 miles that I can do in under 2 hours. If you go to the northern section, you could add several miles. But the main park is 20 minutes away, the northern section is a 30+ minute drive. On the trail system in the main park, I usually encounter 1 to 2 people in the 0800-1000 time frame (no weekends, I don't like crowds).
For some reason, the governor mandated masks while in the park. At the crowded river section, that would make sense. On an empty hiking trail, it's just idiocy. If you hike fast, you are going to need a lot of air, and those masks are made for standing around a hospital bed. Anyway, I was hoping it would be cool enough I could use my buff and just pull it up if I came to anybody. But it got hot in the car, so I took it off. I used an industrial mask when showing my pass, but then took it off as I parked. I carried the mask in my fanny pack, but figured I would just step off the trail 10-12 feet and let any other hikers or bikers pass.
Well, the hike started normal enough. It's pretty rocky in sections, and the grass had grown up without hikers and made it a bit treacherous. I'm glad I've got strong ankles. I didn't see anyone for the first hour. But at about 45 minutes into the hike, I saw a shadow cross the trail up ahead. I just caught it in my peripheral vision. I figured it was a deer that had noticed me and run across the trail.
Well, as I passed the tree beyond which the animal had run, I started looking around to see if it was still in the vicinity. That's when I heard a sound halfway between a growl and a bark. I looked to the left and there was the ugliest boar I had ever seen, about 30 feet away, staring at me. I've been ready for bears (in other areas) and know to make a fuss with black bears and to gently walk away with grizzlies. But no one ever said what to do with a boar. The few I had seen before were far away and didn't come close.
On videos, I had seen them charging hunters. So I was a bit nervous. Actually, quite nervous. I kept walking away, at a slightly slower pace so it wouldn't think I was running, while checking to see that he wasn't charging. He growled/barked again, but didn't come towards me. I checked behind me for a while after that.
Well, another 15 minutes go by, and I hear some internal combustion engines up ahead. They are supposed to be working on the RV/camping areas, so I thought maybe it was construction. Though I wasn't really near those areas. I come around a bend, and there are two park maintenance guys running weed-eaters and wearing masks. They don't seem to be social distancing. I've never seen any park rangers or maintenance on foot, in the probably 100 visits to this trail system. I've seen guys on tractors with mowing decks twice.
This isn't my pre-planned encounter. They aren't moving, so I cannot get off the trail to let them pass. And I don't have my mask on. So I slow down, and slowly approach with the plan to get off trail and pass them. But they turn their weed-eaters off and put them on the ground. They seemed ready to either tackle me or run off, and I don't think they were going to run off. My wife said it was probably just courtesy, but you can let off the trigger, and still let the weed-eaters run.
Of course, as I approach they state that the Governor has required everybody entering the park to wear masks. The speaker sounded about 18 years old. I pointed out that they were the only people I had seen on the trail, and that I wore my mask when I entered the park. They didn't seem amused. So after I passed them, I got my mask out of the pack and put it on. After I got out of sight, I pulled it down, but left it around my neck. I was coming up on an area where, if I saw anybody, they would be hiking.
Towards the end of my loop, I encountered a biker. We both stopped and pulled up our masks. When we got close I mentioned the park weed-eaters had pointed out the masks. He said yeah he knew. He was the only other person I saw on the 5.5 miles of trail, beyond the ridiculous weed-eaters.
Remember, this is a back country trail. It is not marked as being accessible, and anyone with any kind of difficulty walking long distances or over rocks should not use it. I don't even want my wife with her weak ankles walking there. I always thought it was stupid to use the mowing deck. But weed-eaters are just plain idiocy. I'm a bit unhappy that my taxes and park pass fees are going to that kind of trail maintenance.
Another thing that was peculiar. My route first takes me to a horse trailer parking area. There's a picnic table and a nice bench. A second nice bench had been added. About a third of the way around, there is a nice bench out in the middle of nowhere. It had been replaced with a cheap $20 monstrosity built from one or two 2" x 8"s. Why? Another third of the way, they have a horse hitching post (metal) and two nice benches under the trees. The benches under the trees were gone, and there were two monstrosities next to the hitching post in the open sun. One was only a foot away from the post. Again, why?
There was also one picnic table near the RV area, but along the trail, that was still there. I had thought they might take away the tables (and maybe the benches) during the COVID-19 crisis. But taking away only the benches and replacing them with crude seats was unanticipated.
And by the way, at the trail parking area (about 8 spaces), there was one other truck. As I was driving out, two older folks walking a dog turned into the parking area from the road to go to that truck. Neither were wearing masks.
If you want to go to a Texas state park, get online soon and get your reservation made. And take a mask.
Even before they had closed a few weeks ago, they had started requiring you to go online and get a day pass. The offices were supposed to be closed, and so were the RV/tent camping areas. The online site was going to reopen Sunday at noon to start taking reservations. But for a couple of hours after noon, all it said for Guadalupe River State Park was that you should call for reservations; but the phone line was disconnected. I tried back mid-afternoon and got a reservation/day use pass.
Apparently, they are allowing 100 passes per day for a pretty large park. Although they have a section north of the river that gets very few visitors and it was allowed 60 passes per day. The big draw for the main park (south section) is the river. Almost everyone goes there or to the RV park.
But the main park also has what many would call a back country trail system. I put together a set of trails that are just shy of 5.5 miles that I can do in under 2 hours. If you go to the northern section, you could add several miles. But the main park is 20 minutes away, the northern section is a 30+ minute drive. On the trail system in the main park, I usually encounter 1 to 2 people in the 0800-1000 time frame (no weekends, I don't like crowds).
For some reason, the governor mandated masks while in the park. At the crowded river section, that would make sense. On an empty hiking trail, it's just idiocy. If you hike fast, you are going to need a lot of air, and those masks are made for standing around a hospital bed. Anyway, I was hoping it would be cool enough I could use my buff and just pull it up if I came to anybody. But it got hot in the car, so I took it off. I used an industrial mask when showing my pass, but then took it off as I parked. I carried the mask in my fanny pack, but figured I would just step off the trail 10-12 feet and let any other hikers or bikers pass.
Well, the hike started normal enough. It's pretty rocky in sections, and the grass had grown up without hikers and made it a bit treacherous. I'm glad I've got strong ankles. I didn't see anyone for the first hour. But at about 45 minutes into the hike, I saw a shadow cross the trail up ahead. I just caught it in my peripheral vision. I figured it was a deer that had noticed me and run across the trail.
Well, as I passed the tree beyond which the animal had run, I started looking around to see if it was still in the vicinity. That's when I heard a sound halfway between a growl and a bark. I looked to the left and there was the ugliest boar I had ever seen, about 30 feet away, staring at me. I've been ready for bears (in other areas) and know to make a fuss with black bears and to gently walk away with grizzlies. But no one ever said what to do with a boar. The few I had seen before were far away and didn't come close.
On videos, I had seen them charging hunters. So I was a bit nervous. Actually, quite nervous. I kept walking away, at a slightly slower pace so it wouldn't think I was running, while checking to see that he wasn't charging. He growled/barked again, but didn't come towards me. I checked behind me for a while after that.
Well, another 15 minutes go by, and I hear some internal combustion engines up ahead. They are supposed to be working on the RV/camping areas, so I thought maybe it was construction. Though I wasn't really near those areas. I come around a bend, and there are two park maintenance guys running weed-eaters and wearing masks. They don't seem to be social distancing. I've never seen any park rangers or maintenance on foot, in the probably 100 visits to this trail system. I've seen guys on tractors with mowing decks twice.
This isn't my pre-planned encounter. They aren't moving, so I cannot get off the trail to let them pass. And I don't have my mask on. So I slow down, and slowly approach with the plan to get off trail and pass them. But they turn their weed-eaters off and put them on the ground. They seemed ready to either tackle me or run off, and I don't think they were going to run off. My wife said it was probably just courtesy, but you can let off the trigger, and still let the weed-eaters run.
Of course, as I approach they state that the Governor has required everybody entering the park to wear masks. The speaker sounded about 18 years old. I pointed out that they were the only people I had seen on the trail, and that I wore my mask when I entered the park. They didn't seem amused. So after I passed them, I got my mask out of the pack and put it on. After I got out of sight, I pulled it down, but left it around my neck. I was coming up on an area where, if I saw anybody, they would be hiking.
Towards the end of my loop, I encountered a biker. We both stopped and pulled up our masks. When we got close I mentioned the park weed-eaters had pointed out the masks. He said yeah he knew. He was the only other person I saw on the 5.5 miles of trail, beyond the ridiculous weed-eaters.
Remember, this is a back country trail. It is not marked as being accessible, and anyone with any kind of difficulty walking long distances or over rocks should not use it. I don't even want my wife with her weak ankles walking there. I always thought it was stupid to use the mowing deck. But weed-eaters are just plain idiocy. I'm a bit unhappy that my taxes and park pass fees are going to that kind of trail maintenance.
Another thing that was peculiar. My route first takes me to a horse trailer parking area. There's a picnic table and a nice bench. A second nice bench had been added. About a third of the way around, there is a nice bench out in the middle of nowhere. It had been replaced with a cheap $20 monstrosity built from one or two 2" x 8"s. Why? Another third of the way, they have a horse hitching post (metal) and two nice benches under the trees. The benches under the trees were gone, and there were two monstrosities next to the hitching post in the open sun. One was only a foot away from the post. Again, why?
There was also one picnic table near the RV area, but along the trail, that was still there. I had thought they might take away the tables (and maybe the benches) during the COVID-19 crisis. But taking away only the benches and replacing them with crude seats was unanticipated.
And by the way, at the trail parking area (about 8 spaces), there was one other truck. As I was driving out, two older folks walking a dog turned into the parking area from the road to go to that truck. Neither were wearing masks.
If you want to go to a Texas state park, get online soon and get your reservation made. And take a mask.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)