Spherical Model: Censorship Is Deadlier than the Virus

It has been a couple of months since I updated my COVID graphs. My purpose in doing my own data collection is to see the data in a form I find useful—which I haven’t much found elsewhere.

Today I’ll share the latest local data. Then we need to take an honest look at the dishonest reporting and what that has wrought.

Data Report

Texas Deaths

This first graph is the 7-day rolling average of daily deaths due to COVID-19 in the state of Texas.

I’m using two sources of data here, but it’s a bit hard on the graph to see the comparison. They are supposedly the same source. Around October 10^th, the Houston Chronicle stopped doing daily updates. I thought that would be altogether, so I went to the source they said they used, which is the Harris County Public Health data. The Chronicle has continued to show daily updates, almost every day, except that about three days a week there are repeats, followed the next day by a cumulative big number. Fortunately, doing 7-day rolling averages evens that out.

Last month the Harris County site decided to redo their page. Up until yesterday I was able to choose between old and new landing pages, so I could continue getting the data I want. Yesterday they stopped that. Getting the number of deaths, so I could compare that to the day before and get the average, was suddenly much more difficult. They’re emphasizing new cases and number of vaccinations; I’m looking at new daily deaths and info on my zip code.

Texas Daily Deaths, 7-day Rolling Average. I collect the data daily from here.

You can see that there was a surge of deaths in August, which receded through early November. Since then there has been a steady rise, equaling the summer surge, for a longer time.

Harris County Deaths

Harris County is 13.9% of the population of the state of Texas. And it’s an urban area, meaning dense population. So it would seem logical to expect at least 13.9% of daily deaths to be in Harris County. That would mean 43 deaths per day. But we’ve averaged 15 per day or below since early October.

I don’t think Harris County is doing anything particularly novel. And our county judge continues to label us as “in the red zone,” on a scale that has never moved since it was first installed.

I don’t have a way to find out where all those excess Texas deaths are coming from. With my limited skills, maneuvering around the data sources I have at hand, the only way I see would be to update county data from all 254 counties every day and run my own rolling averages. Anyway, you can see that we’re not in a dangerous upsurge. I’m suspicious that the state numbers are not accurate.

Harris County Deaths, 7-day Rolling Average. I collect the data daily from here.

My Zip Code

I pretty much ignore case numbers except for my zip code. I figure that’s a size and location I can envision, to know whether the numbers are somewhere near accurate.

In a population of 37,146, we have had 2621 total cases, about 7% of the population (my guess is that’s low, but who knows). We have 292 active cases. The number of new daily cases has been going up sort of spikey lately. But the active cases daily have been going down—consistently. We haven’t had a daily increase in the 7-day rolling average for 16 days. We last had a death on January 21^st. The one before that was December 22^nd. You can see on the graph—those below zero days mean fewer active cases than the day before. That means those getting well equals the dark line plus the light line (subtract a negative number means you add it, you remember from middle school math, right?)

New and active cases in my zip code, data from here

The Misinformation

There are a great many things related to this illness that suddenly changed after the election, coincidentally. Steve Deace listed several a few weeks ago. Cities suddenly opening up from lockdown, sending kids back to school—even as they claimed a new more contagious strain was spreading even more rapidly. So it appears the messaging changes are related to the apparent outcome of the election.

Of these, one is that hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) is now recommended as an early treatment to avoid hospitalization.

This was the news I wrote about March 19, 2020; I had heard it from other sources the day before, and wrote about it the same day President Trump mentioned it in his daily briefing.

Here in America it appeared that the treatment was shunned because the President had mentioned it, but there was worldwide prejudice against it. I don’t fully understand why, but my best guess is that it was too easy, and maybe too cheap, a solution to the dangerous pandemic. And, while the illness was real, so was the political use of it to gain power over people. The longer the people remained scared and helpless, the better for the power mongers.

Back during the summer, when we had our surge, and up until recently, you could get censored on social media for mentioning the possible efficacy of HCQ. At the very least, you’d get a Facebook warning label and/or a notice of where to go for “accurate” (i.e., approved) information on COVID-19. Doctors who talked about it had their videos removed or were deplatformed so that they couldn’t get the message out about their actual clinical experiences and numbers. Some got fired. Because we were supposed to “follow the science,” we were told. Very frustrating.

So, when the American Journal of Medicine recommends HCQ in their January issue, we’re supposed to forget all that censoring we went through.

Treatment algorithm for COVID-19-like and confirmed COVID-19 illness
in ambulatory patients at home in self-quarantine.
Figure 1 from "Pathophysiological Basis and Rationale for Early
Outpatient Treatment of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-10) Infection"
in American Journal of Medicine, January 1, 2021.

How Many Lives Were Lost Needlessly?

What I’d like to know is, how many lives could have been saved using this protocol they now recommend? It’s essentially the protocol doctors recommended last April—because it was successful in virtually 100% of patients treated this way in the early stages.

The drug had used safely for eight decades, and was known for nearly two decades to help with coronaviruses. It seems like a perfect drug to try during such a desperate time. There was that Lancet study that the news media used as an excuse for labeling it as “dangerous,” a study that was pulled within a week, because it was shown to be so flawed. And there was another supposed study that refused to use HCQ until people were hospitalized with severe symptoms—too late for the protocol to be effective—and they were given toxic-level high doses of HCQ and without it being combined with zinc, azithromycin, or anything that was part of the successful protocol. Then, when patients died, they blamed the HCQ for killing them. Why would actual doctors or scientists do that to real human beings placed in their care?

What if everyone had listened to those doctors who used the successful protocol early? Those deaths in the surge might not have happened.

I don’t know whether anyone is doing an actual study to estimate lives lost needlessly because of prejudice against this protocol. But let me do what I think might be a reasonable bit of math.

Looking at the protocol chart, those under 50 and healthy have remained very unlikely to die—roughly 1/10,000, or 0.01%. Those over 50 with 1 or more comorbidities have brought the overall death rate up to 0.1%. That’s ten times higher than for the younger and healthier. But that’s still only 1/1000. Even among those very elderly (I’ve known some), they got pretty sick, but with appropriate treatment they got through it about like they would a bad flu. Nevertheless, the highest percentage of deaths are in the 80+ range with multiple comorbidities.

Some of those doing using protocol early on were dealing with nursing homes—where they were having near 100% success. Zero deaths. I don’t think we can go that far in our estimate, because some people of that age and fragility are going to pass away regardless of treatment. But we might be able to estimate that we could save 90% of them.

If you think that’s too high, we might say 75% of them.

Let’s say that every person who became symptomatic from April on was given this protocol, and it saved 75% of those who died but didn’t have to.

The total US count of deaths from COVID-19 today is 486,992. Some might not have recognized their symptoms until they were severe, and they would have to do the additional hospital protocols. And some would still have died. But many others—those told to stay home and watch their symptoms, take cold medicine, and come to the hospital when their breathing got hard—they could have been treated quickly and easily, the way we treat with Tamiflu for the flu, and been on their way to recovery instead of on their way to death.

So, 75% of 486,992 is 365,224. That’s an estimate of how many lives could have been saved—if the information on what could save them hadn’t been censored, or the medicine banned from being used. Your loved one who died might be among them. It wasn’t “Trump’s fault for mishandling the pandemic.” It was the media’s fault. It was the power mongers’ fault.

Also, we could have returned to our relatively normal lives possibly 8 or 9 months ago. If your business has been closed, or curtailed, or you’ve lost your job, or your kids have had a very spotty education for two consecutive semesters—that’s their fault as well.

Does it really do any good to place blame? Yes. I think it ought to be done. To prevent them from having power over us ever again.

They’re not done controlling. And they’re not done misinforming.

The Mixed Information

One of the most difficult things has been getting accurate information. Even my charts—I make them myself by collecting data every day, but I’m dependent on what the county and state say the numbers are. I don’t know whether they’ve overcounted COVID deaths. I don’t know whether they’ve far overcounted or undercounted cases.

There are some things that strike me as ridiculous and make me trust the “experts” even less. Here are a few:

A story from the UK in the Evening Standard says, “Vaccinated Brits told not to hug kids amid fears millions will ignore Covid rules once they have jab.” So, you should get the vaccine, but that won’t mean you can feel free to hug your kids. What? You’re living in the same household all along. You get the vaccine. But you still should social distance—from your children? Was anyone social distancing in their houses, with children, when not ill? What are you, some sort of monster?

Various stories mention that the vaccine won’t mean you can go back to normal. You might still get it. Or you might carry in on you or something. So, keep staying home, keep wearing a mask, keep being scared. Then why get the vaccine at all?

If you’ve already had the disease, you still need to get the vaccine. Why? For that matter, if you’ve already had the disease, you can still get it and spread it—even though that’s not normally how viruses and the immune system work, and the number of people who have been known to have gotten the virus twice is extraordinarily small.

There are many cases where the vaccine itself has harmed people, or killed them. Why should a person at very low risk of death from the illness get a vaccine that could do them more harm than the illness? Because you never know? But you never know about that vaccine either. Pressure to be vaccinated or be prevented from working, or doing business, or traveling seems to be just another power monger thing, if a person isn’t allowed to weigh the risks and make a decision for themselves.

Suddenly now it’s OK to go back to school, and teachers don’t really need the vaccine first. Except the teachers’ unions say, no, too dangerous.

We don’t have enough vaccines for everyone right away, so we prioritize healthcare workers, the vulnerable—and Guantanamo prisoners—before the general public can get it.

I think Dr. Fauci intends to drive me crazy. Early on—don’t wear a mask. Later—wear a mask. Why the change? [paraphase] “Oh, we lied about masks not being useful, because we were afraid the general population would stupidly buy them all up, leaving shortages for healthcare workers.” The expert didn’t foresee that people forced to sit at home during a “two weeks to lower the curve” shutdown emergency were too stupid to just make millions of masks on their own? Or that businesses could retool to provide them?

We should wear masks when we are inside and can’t socially distance. But we must wear them in addition to social distancing. Because?

And outside. On a bike. Or running, hiking, kayaking, even if alone. Even though outdoor spreading is very rare. And meeting for church shouldn’t be allowed, even in cars in a parking lot, outdoors, with masks. Because?

I lost all faith in Dr. Fauci—this is from some time ago, and I don’t have a date or citation, just a memory—when he was trying to advise about having sex for those who are dating during COVID. No clothes and exchange of bodily fluids, no problem. But wear a mask, and don’t kiss. And social distance. I think he’s not clear on the procreative process, nor on the spread of disease.

What have we learned from COVID-19? Do not trust the experts. Do not trust anyone that censors the free exchange of information. Such people are willing to let you and your loved ones die for the sake of their power. And they’re willing to zap the living out of any life you have left. It’s what tyrants do.

The COVID Collection

I’ve been writing about the pandemic since the shutdown in March 2020. Some posts are about how the response has affected our civilization, rather than just about the data. Many are about the government overreach. At first it was all consuming, almost every piece for two or three months. I still collect the data daily, but I write only occasionally now on COVID. Today I’m just compiling them, as a sort of history of this past year.

· “Just Some Personal Stories” November 19, 2020.

· “Remembering Freedom and Finding Truth” October. 26, 2020.

· “Time for a COVID Update” October 5, 2020.

· “What If Conspiracy Isn’t a Theory?” July 30, 2020.

· “The Neverending Convention, Part I” July 21, 2020.

· “Politics Is Viral” July 9, 2020.

· “Data, Debates, and Dystopia” June 11, 2020.

· “Coercive vs. Cautious Response” May 28, 2020.

· “Breaking Out” May 21, 2020.

· “Coming to Be at Peace” May 11, 2020.

· “Civil Disobedience—Under What Circumstances?” May 7, 2020.

· “Seeing Miracles” May 4, 2020.