Showing posts with label coronavirus. Show all posts
Showing posts with label coronavirus. Show all posts

Time to reopen

The death rate from the coronavirus is nearly 2,000 per day, which is terrible, but that's a measure of mortality, not of infection rates. The purpose of soft quarantine was to mitigate the virus's spread so sick people don't overwhelm the hospitals (flatten the curve).

April 4th, about 3 weeks after we hit the panic button, and a week later than I predicted, daily new cases peaked. Since then we've tapered from a high of 34,000 new cases per day to 25,000. That's a slower dropoff than anyone wants, but it was never going to come down as fast as it rose. This bell curve will have a long tail.

We're beating this bug, and it's thanks to mitigation that the numbers aren't ten to a hundred times worse.

It's time to let businesses reopen. People want to work, and they don't want to stay cooped up all summer. It would take a massive redistribution of wealth, either through tax increases or currency devaluation, to sustain so many unemployed for an extended period of time. A crisis like this prove why fiscal responsibility is so important. Since the Great Recession, the national debt has risen $15 trillion. Keynesian economic policies have left us no fiscal flexibility to deal with a protracted crisis.

Ignore the noise about zealous cops, corrupt bureaucrats, and draconian governors. You knew of them already, and you know they're harder to get rid of than a tick in the nether regions. This virus is still real. The cases are real. The deaths are real.

An appropriate amount of fear has been cured into society. You can sense it when you're out in public, when you have to share the sidewalk with someone, that jitteriness. That being the case, I think we can return halfway to normal without creating a runaway outbreak. And if that works, we can drop restrictions entirely and let common sense govern the people.

The coronavirus took a lot of people by surprise. Even on March 13, when the president hit the panic button, it was difficult for me to see what the big deal was. At the time we had only 41 deaths. I thought it was an overreaction and I privately advocated doing nothing.

Good thing I wasn't setting policy. The sinister way this virus incubates in the body for up to 2 weeks without the host showing symptoms means once you first see it in the general population, it's already spread to thousands of other people. And those people are spreading it to others. If we had waited until the power of this virus was evident, a disaster would have been unavoidable.

Texas started reopening last Friday. If your state hasn't, it should at least be considering it. There will be local exceptions, like metro New York, but there's no city in America as dense or as reliant on public transportation as New York.

I want to know what you think. Leave a comment below and I'll reply as soon as I can.

Whether you're still hunkered down or not, you're always on the lookout for quality independent voices and entertainment. Give my books a try, and visit the author blogs listed in the sidebar. I've made available the first 4 chapters of Seeds of Calamity for free. If it piques your interest, get yourself a copy at Amazon. I appreciate the support!

UPDATE (July 2021): If you're reading this after the worst of the pandemic has passed, I want to apologize for empowering the government against the people. I was wrong. Hopefully the bitter taste in my mouth will prevent me in the future from placing so much trust in those who manufacture and manipulate narratives to control others.

Beat this bug

I can't recall a time like this since 9/11. I'm anxious, and I've been praying a lot more. The threat from the coronavirus is real. My concern is those poo-pooing the crisis and demanding we all get back to work will create a second wave of cases in April that will dig a hole 10 times deeper than the one we find ourselves currently in. These arguments may hold sway over the president, but so far as I can tell the governors are singing a different tune. (Although Governor Cuomo's talk about New York enduring 9 months of quarantine isn't helping the case for containment.)

At this point I'm not counting on the federal government for economic relief. Their responsibility is and should be disaster response. Let the American people take care of each other. The social bonds of church and neighborhood will bear up many people through this crisis.

It's a cliche that the night is darkest before the dawn, but it's true. When things are at their worst, they can only get better. It's in hindsight that you recognize how you composed yourself during the worst of times was what carried the day. Weeks and months from now, we'll see in hindsight that our actions today saved millions of lives.

How? you may wonder, and with good reason. How we do this is not at all obvious. But you must understand we will pull through this.

I'm fond of CS Lewis's Space Trilogy. In the second book, Perelandra, the hero Ransom musters up the courage to literally fight the devil:



As always, let me know what you think in the comments. I'll reply to you as soon as I can. If you're looking for something to do while social distancing, I invite you to read the first 4 chapters of my new book, Seeds of Calamity, for free. If it piques your interest, get yourself a copy at Amazon. I appreciate the support!

It's not an overreaction

Up until a week ago I was poo-pooing the coronavirus in private. Even as sports leagues canceled games and suspended operations, I still thought their caution was much ado about nothing.

This past week I have performed a complete 180. The more I learned about the virus and how it spread, the more I came to respect and fear it. I don't want people to make the same mistake I made ("It'll kill fewer people than the flu!), so I've been downright evangelical lately in sharing what I know.

And here's what I know. The coronavirus has a kill rate much higher than the flu. Recovery from life-threatening symptoms requires up to a month in the hospital. Ventilators are limited. Because of the 2-week incubation rate, any effort to contain the coronavirus cannot be evaluated for effectiveness until 2 weeks after implementation. The problem with that is, because of exponential growth, 2 weeks is too long to wait. If your strategy fails, you've lengthened the growth curve by 2 weeks, as well as added more time on the flip side to eradicating the virus.

On March 13, when the panic button was pushed, we had 550 new cases. On March 20, we had 5,854 new cases, nearly a tenfold increase. How many new cases will we have on March 27? Based on the growth trend, it could be as high as 60,000. I honestly don't think it will be that high, but what if it's 30,000? Can we afford to wait until we have 30,000 new cases per day for a containment strategy that we know will work?

Officials decided we couldn't wait that long. The measures implemented so far may seem draconian: shuttering and otherwise discouraging all public face to face interactions. The economy, in the short term, will tank. But in the real world, people without emergency funds or safety nets will need help to pay rent and put food on the table.

Frankly, the containment measures are worth it. An out-of-control epidemic could kill millions of Americans, sowing chaos. England was under constant bomber threat from Germany for 5 years during World War 2. We need only have that kind of vigilance for a month to snuff out the coronavirus.

By March 27, we'll know how effective current containment measures are. The turnaround will be evident in a decline in daily new cases. The total number cases will continue to rise, but at a slower pace. Most importantly, the number of silent carriers in the general population will fall dramatically. At that point, momentum takes over.

On May 8, 1945, the Allies celebrated victory over Germany in the greatest war of all time. On May 8, 2020, I believe we could be celebrating victory over this virus. Pray, and stay vigilant. Help others, and never fear to ask someone for help.

As always, let me know what you think in the comments. I'll reply to you as soon as I can. If you're looking for something to do while social distancing, I invite you to read the first 4 chapters of my new book, Seeds of Calamity, for free. If it piques your interest, get yourself a copy at Amazon. I appreciate the support!

I also recommend this free ebook anthology, released today, put together by some lusty, dragon-slaying writers of dubious repute.

UPDATE (July 2021): Suffice to say my sense of danger from COVID-19 has changed since last spring. I should have trusted my earlier skepticism. I haven't felt this burned since I was convinced bailing out the banks in 2008 would prevent financial apocalypse. I apologize for my naiveté and credulity.

Social distancing

Officials across the country have ordered assemblies of varying sizes to not meet. Here in San Antonio, the mayor ordered assemblies of 500 or more to not meet, with exemptions for schools and churches. My church regularly has beween 700 and 900 congregants, and Friday night the elders scrapped Sunday service. It was a wise decision.

As of this morning, American coronavirus casualties numbered 93 deaths out of 4,748 cases, a mortality rate of almost 2%. I coded a simulator to predict the infection rates and mortality rates for large gatherings, assuming 100% transmission. Here are my findings:

Groups of 25

Chance of outbreak: .0126%

Groups of 50

Chance of outbreak: .0462%

Groups of 100

Chance of outbreak: .1288%

Groups of 250

Chance of outbreak: .3492%

Groups of 500

Chance of outbreak: .7136%

Groups of 1,000

Chance of outbreak: 1.4364%

You'll notice that, for large groups of people, the second-most likely outcome after no virus transmission is a high number of deaths. Imagine walking into a worship hall of 500 people knowing there was a .7% chance there will be an outbreak. Furthermore, if there was an outbreak, it was 3 times as likely to kill 10 people than 5. Would you still go to church, or would you stay home?

These are the numbers officials are looking at. And, since I'm assuming total randomness in the distribution of infected, it's going to look worse in areas like Washington state, where there is a high concentration of cases.

The simple fact of the matter is, if you have the virus and don't know it, you're going to kill 2 percent of the people you come into contact with. And since you can go days without showing symptoms, avoiding large groups of people is simply the prudent thing to do.

Now that the country is on alert, I predict in the next week the growth curve for the number of cases will invert, while deaths will rise disproportionately to case growth. The final mortality rate will settle in between 2% and 3%.

As always, let me know what you think in the comments. I'll reply to you as soon as I can. If you're looking for something to do while social distancing, I invite you to read the first 4 chapters of my new book, Seeds of Calamity, for free. If it piques your interest, get yourself a copy at Amazon. I appreciate the support!

For a free digital copy of my debut, Tendrils to the Moon, sign up for the mailing list on the right side of the blog page. Or, if you're viewing this on the mobile site, click here.

UPDATE: In the time it took to write this, the number of coronavirus cases rose to 5,243, and deaths rose to 94. Get the live numbers here.

UPDATE 2 (3/18):I found a flaw in my predictive model. The number of coronavirus cases that we know of does not reflect the true number of people carrying the virus. Since we are still seeing exponential growth in the number of new cases (1,748 just yesterday, up from 983 on Monday), it's safe to assume there are tens of thousands of people carrying the virus who don't know it. That drastically increases the risk of assembling in large groups.

So I ran the simulation again using the current mortality rate of 1.588%. Instead of looking at the probability for each possible outcome, I devised a new metric that averages potential mortality rates. Here are the results:

# of infected in general population
Group size10,00020,00030,000
25.00033 .00059 .00093
50 .0013 .0025 .0036
100 .0048 .0096 .014
250 .030 .060 .090
500 .12 .24 .35
1000 .47 .93 1.4

Notice the linear growth in mortality as the number of infected increases, contra the exponential growth in mortality as the group size increases. Limiting group size is an effective way to limit the virus's mortality.

Assuming 30,000 people in the general population are infected, the expected mortality in a gathering of 1,000 people is 1.4. It seems low because 91% of those gatherings won't experience an outbreak (assuming a random distribution of infected people). The 9% that do, however, will probably see between 8 and 24 deaths. Of course, an outbreak among a church or school body of 1,000 people means you have 1,000 new carriers of the virus who won't show symptoms for 2 to 14 days.

That's another part of what makes the coronavirus frightening. It's why I think it'll be 2 weeks from March 13, the day we basically went on high alert, before we see the growth in the number of new cases start to taper.

UPDATE 3 (3/19):I'm learning more about the coronavirus every day, and I'm becoming more ashamed of my willful ignorance in the lead up to last week.

This morning I ran an exponential regression on the last 3 weeks of diagnosed cases in America. The equation it spat out has an r value of .995, which in statistics is as close to a guarantee as it gets. If we use the equation as a predictive model, there will be 93,610 cases by March 27, at which point I think the number of daily new cases will start to decline. That means there are over 80,000 undiagnosed cases currently in the general population. So the 10,000 to 30,000 cases in the general population I simulated yesterday paints too rosy a picture.

So I ran the simulation again with more realistic infected numbers and the current mortality rate.

Expected mortality and outbreak probability
# of infected in general population
Group size60,00080,000100,000
25 .0018 .15% .0025 .21% .0031 .26%
50 .0075 .51% .0099 .68% .012 .82%
100 .029 1.5% .039 1.9% .049 2.4%
250 .18 4.4% .24 5.7% .30 7.2%
500 .71 8.7% .94 11% 1.2 14%
1000 2.7 17% 3.5 22% 4.3 26%

Look at those outbreak probabilities! How can you not cut out restaurants, the gym, church, school, and office buildings? Isolate yourself now, especially from older folks whose mortality is an order of magnitude higher than the average.

UPDATE 4 (July 2021): Suffice to say my sense of danger from COVID-19 has changed since last spring. I panicked and advocated for radical measures based on incomplete and incorrect information. I apologize for my naiveté and credulity.

Toilet paper and the tragedy of the commons

I've held my tongue on the coronavirus outbreak because frankly I don't know what to make of it. I've found both the argument for taking precautions and the argument for doing nothing convincing. My attitude is to err on the side of doing nothing.

Back when I used to listen to Ric Edelman, he said something that stuck with me: "Don't just do something, stand there!" In the original context, it meant don't react to one bad day or one bad week in the stock market. In a general context, it means any decision you make in the moment will probably be the wrong one. Also, during my formative years in Maryland, the overhyped swine flu and overhyped Hurricane Irene taught me I didn't need to concern myself with stuff the media told me to be concerned about.

Now here we are, a day after all the major sports in America postponed or cancelled games, when many schools and colleges either extended Spring Break or canceled classes. I don't know whether we'll all be laughing about this on Tax Day, or we'll be talking about the Dow Jones slumping past 15,000.

I personally have not been affected by the coronavirus or the public reaction. Work is the same, church is the same, family life is the same. Writing is the same (i.e., really hard). If it's not in front of me, how can it inconvenience me?

It would be overstating it to call the reaction to the coronavirus in America a "panic." It's merely a significant number of people taking precautions, like when an unpredictable hurricane bears down on you. But let's apply "panic" loosely. When does panic become the rational choice? When does it become my best interest to react not on my instincts or reason, but on the actions of others?

Here's a thought experiment for you. Imagine a pot of money in the middle of a large group of people. Each person puts in a hundred bucks. Every minute, the amount of money in the pot increases by 2 percent. This happens until an hour is up, whereupon the group will divide the money evenly, each person earning a 200% profit for standing there and doing nothing.

I would probably be that guy telling everyone, "Nobody take money out, and in an hour we'll all be rich." I have that kind of temperament. Of course that's factually true, but this scenario isn't testing our math skills. It's testing social trust. If you're one of those people, do you trust the others? More importantly, do they trust you?

Here's how the experiment will break down before the hour is up. Someone takes money, then someone else, then three more people, then it becomes a free for all. At the beginning, almost everyone trusted each other to wait. But for the experiment to reach the end of the hour, you need everyone to trust each other. No group acting collectively is more trustful than its least trustful member, which is why most groups don't make it to the end of the experiment. It's a negative feedback loop: The less money there is in the pot, the more I want to take. This is called the tragedy of the commons.


Let's apply this to the most visible example of the so-called panic we've seen so far, the oft-memed toilet paper shortage. There's no shortage if no one hoards toilet paper, right? So why doesn't everyone behave like good little rational robots for the common good? Because people aren't robots, and once there's a whiff that some preppers cleaned out Costco, there's a run on toilet paper because no one wants to wipe their butt bare-handed.

When a run is in progress, it's silly to go around squawking that if everyone just acted rationally, there'd be nothing to worry about. My rational observation is that people are irrational, and sometimes the rational act is to act irrationally.

In other words, if you see toilet paper, buy it.

As always, let me know what you think in the comments. I'll reply to you as soon as I can. If you're looking for something to do besides watch basketball or hockey, I invite you to read the first 4 chapters of my new book, Seeds of Calamity, for free. If it piques your interest, get yourself a copy at Amazon. I appreciate the support!

For a free digital copy of my debut, Tendrils to the Moon, sign up for the mailing list on the right side of the blog page. Or, if you're viewing this on the mobile site, click here.