I don’t like hearing, “You’re not good enough; you need to
do more,” especially when it’s a group project. Like the one we’re all involved
in.
We’ve been confined to home, with a few times venturing out
to forage for food, for about 3 ½ weeks now—coincidentally how long we in our
household have been confined because of Mr. Spherical Model’s broken ankle,
which makes it easy to keep track. And we haven’t, until now, gotten anything
like, “What a good job you’re doing! It’s working.” In fact, this week there’s
extra pressure to add face-mask-wearing to the going out routine.
Also, someone asked Dr. Anthony Fauci the other day the
question that we should have had on the table before shutting down the world
economy: what has to happen before we can let up? Fauci’s answer was zero new
cases and zero deaths.
This is why you don’t have experts make policy. Fauci’s side
is the scientist side; he’s required (and requires himself) to give the absolute,
scientific answer—as part of the information a decision-maker needs.
We don’t shut down the world economy indefinitely until
there is no new incidence nor a single death. We didn’t shut it down for the
flu, which causes 40,000+ deaths a year. We didn’t shut it down in the past for
polio, or small pox, or measles. We didn’t shut it down for the Spanish flu in
1918—although that pandemic affected the economy on its own, and some areas
were shut down. We didn’t shut it down for Ebola a few years ago.
Zero possible
deaths is not a standard we typically base policy on. We don’t stop people from swimming, or boating, or hiking. We
don’t stop people from driving. We don’t even stop people from driving over 25
mph, even though we can estimate how many more deaths will occur for each
increment of higher speed. We set policy based on something more, which
includes willingness of the people Because people need to make a living, go
about our lives, and willingly face a certain level of risk.
So while Dr. Fauci is right about what he needs to say,
policymakers also need a say. (We discussed this difference in thinking on March 30.)
For example, about hydroxychloroquine, Dr. Fauci points out
that there have not been double-blind clinical studies to determine
effectiveness, only anecdotal evidence. So he is not in a position to give the
green light for that drug. But anecdotal evidence isn’t nothing.
 |
| Dr. Vladimir Zelenko, interview with Rudy Giuliani March 26th, screenshot from here |
There’s a doctor, Dr. Vladimir Zelenko, a family practitioner
in New York, interviewed by Rudy Giuliani on his show Common Sense, on
March 26th, with some significant anecdotal evidence. (Bill Whittle shares
a 15-minute clip of this interview on his CoronaSphere Lounge , Episode11, March 30th, which is where I saw it.)
In New York, Dr. Zelenko has treated a plethora of
coronavirus patients—699 by March 30th. He had been using a
combination of hydroxycholoquine with zinc supplements, plus azithromycin. The
combination of the three had worked in 100% of sick patients. He only gave the
drug to patients already struggling with the virus or who were at very high
risk, not the ones who were clearly going to get over it on their own without
drugs. Of these moderately severe patients, zero moved into the more serious
illness of Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome, which requires intubation, and
from which there’s only a 50% recovery rate. Zero of his patients have died.
Three have needed hospitalization with pneumonia; zero needed intubation. The 3-drug
protocol takes five days. It’s possible not all symptoms will be gone at that
point, but the virus replication has been slowed to the point the body can
fight it off without further complication.
Dr. Zelenko thinks that the hydroxycholoquine is not
actually attacking the virus. Rather, the zinc is interfering with the virus’s
replication process. But the zinc has trouble entering the cell without the
hydroxycholoquine. Once the hydroxychloroquine creates a channel into the cell, the zinc enters
and does its healing work against the virus. Meanwhile, the azithromycin, an
antibiotic, is working on a secondary bacterial infection, which happens when
the gunk builds up in the bronchial tubes and lungs.
All total, the treatment is about $20 per patient and can be
done in an outpatient setting.
Dr. Zelenko’s results coincide with other doctors using the hydroxychloroquine.
In France, hydroxychloroquine had been combined with azithromycin in the lab
with 100% success. Doctors in France and South Korea, and also doctors in New
York ICUs, were each using two of the three medicines, with moderate success.
He used the combination of all three, with significant success.
Note that it was only March 19th when President
Trump suggested that the FDA allow hydroxychloroquine to be used in this
off-label way, in clinical trials, to treat the virus. Dr. Zelenko offers his
evidence on March 26th, one week later. The speed with which we’re
getting at ways to treat and test for this virus is remarkably swift.
So a policymaker can look at that, listen to Dr. Fauci, but
then say, why not use this on people who need something and have nothing better
to try? Would you take it, if it were you? Probably yes. And the more anecdotal
evidence we get—despite the lack of a double-blind study—the more likely we are
to say “definitely yes.”
[Speaking of “anecdotal" evidence, there’s this piece,
possibly worth considering.]
So, that’s how a policymaker thinks differently from a
scientist. We need both. But the policymakers are the ones radically affecting
our lives right now, while the scientists do their very important role in the
background.
We were told to social distance at first. Then stay home,
with nonessential businesses shut down, all of us hoping that doing this for a
few weeks would make a big difference.
But it has been that long. And without testing of the whole
population—and we need two kinds of tests: to find out who has the virus now,
and to find out who has antibodies because they’ve already fought off the virus—we
don’t know what’s working. In that black hole of missing data, we’re stuck at
home with the economy crashing around us indefinitely.
So, is there another way to tell whether what we’re doing is
working? It turns out there is.
I got this chart from Bill Whittle, who has been giving
encouraging words lately. He got the info from Kinsa’s Healthweather.us.
 |
| data on fevers, from Healthweather.us |
This chart does not show Covid-19. It shows body
temperatures. There are companies, such as Kinsa, that make “smart”
thermometers. People take their temperature, and their information gets
uploaded for mass data purposes. The data has been gathering for enough years
that there’s a normal expected range for the months of the year. In our
country, body temperatures rise during winter, coinciding with cold and flu season,
and then go down to a summer low, and rise back up in the fall. So that’s the
blue range on the chart.
If you look at the orange line, and the red dots, you can
see the actual data compared to the expected data (the blue). Then look at the
dates. When we started radically modifying our behavior, there’s a sharp
decrease in body temperature—fewer fevers. That line pretty quickly drops below
the expected level. Well below. Not only is the social distancing cutting down new
fevers from coronavirus; it’s cutting down fevers from all sources to well
below expected levels. In other words, what works to keep from transmitting
coronavirus also works to keep from transmitting flu and colds, the typical
causes of fever.
Then there’s another chart, showing places, with dates and
events added—from the same source at Healthweather.us. This one compares Santa
Clara, California, to Miami-Dade, Florida.
 |
| fever level comparisons of counties and California and Florida screenshot from here |
They have many of the same events happen, but with Florida most
happen somewhat later. What you can see is that the drop off becomes significant
after the community makes significant changes, with steepest drops after
schools are closed, restaurants are closed, and stay-at-home orders are put in
place.
Did something else happen, coinciding with those dates,
following a similar pattern in different places, other than the social
distancing we’ve been doing in reaction to the coronavirus? I don’t think so.
The evidence is strong that staying at home is having an
effect.
Yay, us! We deserve a pat on the back. From ourselves, of
course, since we don’t want anyone else getting close to us.
Keep up the good work! But not indefinitely. It’s not time
to quit doing what we’re doing yet. But we need to be having a serious talk
about when we can go back out—without causing a sudden resurgence, which would
be a terrible outcome.
We could use a few miracles—pick any you like:
· The virus miraculously disappears.
· The virus greatly decreases in the summer
months, affording us time to prepare for a second season of it in the fall—with
all the testing and treatments we’ll need.
· The virus is greatly weakened as it changes—a not
uncommon mutation in viruses, which die off quickly when they kill their hosts,
so they need to weaken in order to perpetuate.
· A cure is developed, tested, and made standard
for care.
· Testing procedures—for both presence of virus
and presence of antibodies—are quick, cheap, and widely available within the near
future and for any future outbreak.
· We’re so good at staying home and social distancing
that the virus stops having hosts to spread to and dies a natural death.
This coming Friday, Good Friday, our Church invites everyone
to join us in a worldwide fast. That means, typically, skipping two meals over
twenty-four hours. (For example, you eat dinner Thursday evening, and then fast
until dinner time Friday evening, when you can eat again.) Prayer during a fast
can be more intentional, because you feel your weakness and thus your reliance
on God. We hold a monthly fast, and donate the cost of the two meals to help
the poor; feel free to do that. This is a special additional one. Note that, if
your health doesn’t permit you to go that long without food, you can adjust
your sacrifice to whatever you can do; your efforts and prayers will be
acceptable to the Lord.
 |
| Illustration cred: Josh Asuncion found on Facebook |
In our modern world, there are so many ways we have managed
to control the elements, we can sometimes forget our reliance on God. But I’ve
had friends point out to me a couple of things. If the Lord wanted to use a
calamity for good, how about having more time at home with families? And more,
how about having people home together on Passover (Wednesday evening to
Thursday evening), and even all Holy Week, including Easter Sunday?
We’ll miss getting together with our kids and grandkids for
these days. But we’ve enjoyed some very sacred Sundays, meeting together as
just the two of us. And we enjoyed a broadcast of a worldwide conference this
past weekend. Spiritually, we’re doing better (dare I say it?)—because of
the crisis.
Encouraging words are intended to instill courage. I’m glad
we’re getting some of that. I pray it’s enough to fend off any more discouragement.
No comments:
Post a Comment