Math and More Questions

I’ve been working out math problems all day, trying to answer some questions. I’m not satisfied with the results. I think I’m getting more questions than answers. Some of this has to do with lack of accurate data—same problem everyone else has right now.

I’ll share some of the data anyway, and then just ask the questions.

This chart compares different populations and the number of deaths attributed to Covid-19. All I’ve done is divide the actual number of deaths by population in millions to find deaths per million people. 

Place	Population in millions	Covid-19 Deaths as of April 30, 2020	Covid-19 deaths Per million
Texas	30.54 M	722	23.64
Harris County	4.6 M	109	23.69
USA	328.88 M	58,356	177.44
World	7,597.78 M	233,014	30.67
Italy	60.46 M	27,967	462.57
New York State	19.44 M	18,274	940.0
New York City	8.75 M	18,069	2,065.0
Sweden	10.1 M	2,586	256.0
Norway	5.4 M	210	38.89

There's a lot of difference between New York and pretty much everywhere else.

This is a snapshot. It doesn’t tell you the death rate of Covid-19. For that you need to know how many people were exposed to and contracted the disease. Then you divide that number by how many deaths.

So, in the absence of that data, everybody’s trying to make guesses.

I took a good look at the video getting a lot of attention this week of two ER doctors in Kern County, California. They’re making the case for opening up. And their non-numerical arguments for that are persuasive—like how we lose immunity strength when we avoid all exposure to germs. And that the costs to society at large—and to overall healthcare and people’s well-being—because we are focusing on this single health issue are something we need to be talking about.

Dr. Dan Erickson (left) and Dr. Astin Massihi
screenshot found here

Drs. Dan Erickson and Astin Massihi are doing Covid-19 testing on everyone that comes in to their five ER centers, if I’m understanding them correctly. Not just for possible Covid-19 cases, but everyone who comes in for anything, which gives them their own raw data. Their numbers show that 6.5% of those they test (several thousand) test positive. I’m unclear whether that means people actually have it, people have antibodies because they had it, or a total including both. Then they point out how many have been tested in California. Dr. Ericksen says,

We have 33,865 Covid cases, out of a total of 280,900 total tested. That’s 12% of Californians were positive for Covid.

Then they extrapolate that 12% to the population at large. But that’s not accurate for a couple of reasons. Most tests, beyond their own sample, have been done on probable cases, not a random sample. If we were randomly testing populations, that information could be extrapolated to the community the sample represents. But most of our testing has been done on people with symptoms. That leaves out all people who are asymptomatic or have such mild symptoms they don’t get a test—or don’t qualify to get tested, in many places. Also, according to some, current tests tend to have a high false positive rate. 

They use this extrapolation as “the best we have” right now with the lack of data. But, while their arguments are valid, and a conversation worth having, we really can’t deduce death rates by this extrapolation. If you assume the sample covers everyone, then it looks like more have been infected than have been, and your death rate calculations will be far lower than reality—just as death rates appear far higher than reality when you only count verified cases. Too many assumptions.

As they say, the more testing, the better. We just don’t have the right sample sets yet.

We know the death rates are much lower than what the data shows. But how much lower? Because, if it’s in the range of a typical flu year, then we can let people take precautions and then take their chances—the same way we do for the flu.

What we also don’t know is, what will the contraction and death numbers be when we get through this season? By that I mean probably the year. Flu seasons tend to go from fall through the following spring, not the whole year. By the time it comes around again, it’s a different flu, which is why there’s an annual—different from the past year—flu shot. So we can count annual flu deaths and that data is relatively solid. Not all cases get reported, but deaths caused by flu would be.

We don’t know season length of this virus. We don’t know if it will mutate enough to make herd immunity a moot point or a proper goal. Either way, we’re nowhere near the 60-80% required for herd immunity, meaning enough people have had it that the virus has a hard time finding a new host.

Anyway, we don’t have a stopping point at which we can look at the different approaches and say one worked better than another.

Among all the questions, I’d also like to know a few more things:

·         If it’s true that urban areas are more likely to be hit hard, how do you explain the discrepancy between Houston and New York City? Houston’s shutdown was mid-March, close to New York’s. New York had a few more cases by then, but not that explosive a difference.

·         Does it occur to anyone else that public transportation has a lot to do with the spread of the virus? During the NYC shutdown, they have kept their subways running. (My germ senses are making me shudder.)

·         How much lower would the death data be if we took nursing homes out of the data? Less than half? If so, why have we shut down society instead of super-protecting nursing homes?

·         Sweden did some social distancing but no shutdown. Norway, by comparison, did a full shutdown. There are differences, but are they differences in timing only? How many inevitable cases have hit Sweden already but will take longer to eventually hit Norway? Do shutdowns stop cases from happening or simply postpone them?

Mark Ramsey, my SREC Chairman, compared Sweden and the USA graphically this week on Facebook, with this explanation:

Graph of the day. USA and Sweden. As identical as possible, except for Y-axis, which is different mostly due to extreme difference in size of the population, and increased testing in the US. Based on the SHAPE of the two bar-graphs, has turning off a VAST PART of the US economy been significantly better than Sweden, who simply had recommended practices and a VERY FEW closures? Has it been "worth it"? The initial models were very very wrong, and we now have millions of tests to calibrate the risk with. The answer needs to change accordingly. (data from WorldoMeters.info at 13:00 CDT, 4-28-2020)

Comparison graphs of Sweden and USA
from Mark Ramsey on Facebook

Then there are some political questions. I hope this virus hasn’t actually become political. Maybe it’s more of an urban/suburban/rural difference—which, again, doesn’t explain Houston vs. New York. Is it the prevalence of cars instead of mass transit in Houston? By the way, California’s deaths per million is about 31. I didn’t have today’s data, so I didn’t include California on the chart, above. But I’m guessing driving instead of mass transit is a reasonable explanation there too. Also sunshine.

Facebook friend Leslie May has been looking at the politics and the data the last couple of days. She said this yesterday on Facebook:

CHANCES OF CONTRACTING OR DYING OF COVID-19.... overall, Democratic-governed states are more urban with an average population density of 123 people per square mile....

average population density of Republican-governed state: 71 people per square mile

for all Democratic-governed states, the average rate of COVID-19 cases reported per 100,000 residents is 414

for R-governed states, the average is only 180 (less than half)

the average mortality per 100,000 in D-governed states is 23

the average mortality per 100,000 in R-governed states is 7, less than 1/3

by the way, Harris County, Texas, rates are 130 reported cases per 100,000 residents, and 2 deaths per 100,000 residents, lower than the average STATE....Texas as a state is 93 reported cases per 100,000 residents with 3 deaths per 100,000 residents.

Today she adds a map and more questions and data:

Wondering why certain states have no stay home orders (labeled 1 on the map below), others just "recommendations" (2 on the map), and some STILL have them in place (3 on the map)? Here's what our country looks like as with the "order" status / party of the governor superimposed on the actual cases per 100,000 people in that state. Also looked at where cases are increasing, decreasing or about the same.

7 states, all with R governors, are under NO stay home orders: SD, ND, OK, WY, NE, IA, AR. SD, WY, OK are in the lowest category on the map for number of cases/100,000. The others are, pardon the pun, "all over the map."

4 states are under stay home recommendations, including TX. The others are KY, UT and CT (kinda another outlier in the northeast, although cases decreasing may explain it). 2 with D governors, 2 with R.

39 states are still under stay at home, 22 D governors, 17 R. Oregon, Montana, Minnesota, NC, WV and ME are low in cases/100,000. Only WV's governor is R, although if memory serves, I think that is a relatively recent development.

In terms of increasing, decreasing or about the same number of cases, I could see little rhyme or reason to how that influenced these decisions -- for those in the middle with recommendations, TX and KY about the same, UT increasing, CT decreasing.

Finally, Harris County, TX, has 6161 cases, or 134 cases /100,000 residents, with 109 deaths or 2/100,000 -- about the same size geographically as Rhode Island with 8247 cases, 778/100,000 people, 251 deaths, or 24/100,000 residents. RI has twice the death rate of Harris County per capita.

Graphic from Leslie Joan May, from Facebook

Texas starts opening up tomorrow. There’s a mixture of “hurray”s and “no no no”s. I lean toward the hurrays. But I’m not rushing to a theater any time soon. And I’m still wearing a mask at the grocery store, and carrying hand santizer, wipes, and gloves for use as needed.

If we can be sensible while getting people back to work, I think that’s a win.

I don’t think it was ever our intention to hold everyone housebound until there was no more risk. We were told 2-3 weeks, and maybe a little longer (it’s been 4 weeks tacked on to the original 3 already) to “flatten the curve.” That never meant fewer people would contract the illness; it meant fewer would get it at the same time. The number that would eventually get it was expected to remain the same. See my question about Sweden and Norway above. So my question is, what's the rationale for making it take longer but not limiting the actual number who get it? Is that goal, whatever it is, worth economic collapse, with associated famine, hunger, poverty, and hopelessness?

One advantage of time has been the possibility of finding treatments that work. The new drug remdesivir was announced this week as a successful treatment. Because it’s new, it will be more expensive than hydroxycholoquine plus zinc plus Z-pac (one meme I saw showed $1,000 instead of $20). Still, it’s great news. Enough for a stock market bump upward.

Others treatments are coming. Even a vaccine may be coming soon, which would be in record time. So this could mean that the pause was of some value beyond guaranteeing our hospitals wouldn’t be overwhelmed, which it turned out was not the case even in NYC.

This morning Ben Shapiro talked about a new data piece on his show (haven’t tracked it down elsewhere yet) that there’s not a single case in which a child has spread the illness to an adult. I don’t know how they know that, but that’s great news. If true, then schools and play dates will start looking safe again. And maybe we’re in time for summer sports leagues.

At the very least, I think we need an absolute rational explanation for every infringement on our freedom from this point forward. “For your safety” won’t do. Neither will “The public can’t be trusted.” We need something like, “Here's the data that shows this (X requirement) limits spread of the disease by (X)%, and it is imperative that you not spread this disease in (X location) before (X time).” 

Failure to provide that information might just lead us to believe that fear and control are a goal when what we really want are freedom and innovation.

Swedish Story

Once upon a time there was a quaint, civilized northern kingdom, a culture of people living comfortably and gently. People were industrious and frugal, and enjoyed adding color in their homes and clothing, to the white that covered the land through much of the year, echoing the northern lights in the long night sky.

photo from here

Despite the cold and other natural challenges, the people remained gentle and constant for a good long time.

And then something began to change. The people experimented in centralized ownership. Taxes became extremely high, but the people tolerated this in exchange for long vacations and guarantees of food, housing, health care, and other things they thought they ought to have but were tired of struggling for.

They decided to be the example of society working together for the good of all. Things that had been tried in nearby countries, to massive failure. But that was with the wrong kind of people These gentle people would be the ones to make it work.

For a while the world looked on in wonder: “See, it can be done. We want to do it like them.”

But after a time, they faced some challenges. Motivation to excel may have been one of them. Without the necessity of hard work to guarantee a family’s survival and thriving, less innovation took place. Less work got done. Even working together, and sharing alike and evenly, the standard of living wasn’t as high as many had foreseen and wanted.

Another thing that happened was a weakening of family strength. If the collective was going to take care of offspring, that meant a mother and father were relieved of the necessity of overexerting themselves to provide for offspring. It even meant mother and father might not stay together. Or they might not get married in the first place. The negative consequences of living without marriage, whether or not children came, were mitigated by the collective.

In time, a higher portion of children were born outside of marriage. And a smaller portion of adults had children, or fewer children. The next generation lacked the inculcation of culture that used to be a hallmark of this peaceful people. The next generation was taught more about relaxing and avoiding stress (not a bad thing in its place and in moderation)—but with greater burden per person to provide the collective needs.

The wealth and the culture of past generations was being depleted. Something had to be done. The logical solution seemed to be to invite foreigners to move in, to contribute to the collective work.

What they did not foresee was that inviting almost unlimited foreigners was a risk to the culture. The new workers did not want to settle in and become like the northern society; they wanted a new place to work and live, and they wanted their share of the guaranteed food, housing, health care, and the rest, if they were the ones adding to the workforce. But they wanted to bring their own culture with them. They wanted to be who they had always been—even thought that included being a people who had not made their former countries thrive.

It was too late when the northern gentle people realized the danger to their way of being. They tried making laws that would limit the invasion of a foreign culture. They tried altering laws to lessen the power of the collective. But without the power of family—which brings with it financial stability and continuity of culture—there was no vitality to stand up against the threat. It would not be long before the northern culture succumbed to the influx of an entirely different people. The centuries-old culture would disappear. Without war. Because of their own mistakes.

_______________

I haven’t really exaggerated. This is Sweden. The northern centuries-old culture is one I love; it is my heritage. My dad was the first generation born American instead of Swedish. We keep a few of the traditions during the Christmas holidays.

But I’m concerned that it’s disappearing. Socialism hasn’t worked. And lately the country seems to be realizing that, and making adjustments toward free enterprise. (Read here and watch here.) That’s a good thing. But it might not be enough.

The refugee/immigration problem reached crisis limits during 2015. According to a story earlier this week at PJ Media:

When the small, crumpled body of 3-year-old Alan Kurdi washed up on the Aegean coast Sept. 2, Europe’s humanitarian superpower sprang into action. Sweden’s prime minister headlined gala fundraisers, Swedish celebrities starred in telethons, and a country that prides itself on doing the right thing seemed to rally as one to embrace refugees fleeing for their lives.

But after taking in more asylum seekers per capita than any other nation in Europe, Sweden’s welcome mat now lies in tatters. Overwhelmed by the human tide of 2015, the center-left government is deploying extraordinary new border controls and slashing benefits in an unmistakable signal to refugees contemplating the long trek to Sweden in the new year: Stay out.

When the people you invite into your homeland turn you into the rape capital of the world and threaten you with suicide bombers, it’s time to pull up the welcome mat and bar the door.

Sweden welcomes Syrian refugees
Associated Press photo found here

An American Thinker piece from late December said this:

Despite their embrace of political correctness, the Swedes are at heart very decent, humane people, their main faults being a desire to please others in their community (which leads to silencing dissent and conformity) and self-righteous hypocrisy.  But these are minor blemishes considering the personal decency most people center their lives on.

Taking advantage of Sweden’s generosity, Muslim immigrants have been arriving in large numbers and, in recent months, catastrophically overwhelming the country’s budget and facilities to house and feed them.

That piece recommends watching this Pat Condell video from 2010 called “Goodbye Sweden,” showing the problem isn’t new; it’s just lately intensifying.

When I watched that video, YouTube next recommended a Pat Condell video from 2014, adding more evidence that the country is dying a sort of suicide by political correctness, called “Sweden Goes Insane.”

We should have seen this coming.

I’ve quoted British psychological researcher Daniel J. Unwin before. In the 1920s he did an exhaustive study of every civilization around the world through world history for which he could gather data. His purpose going in was to prove that marriage didn’t matter; that was his personal belief. But that was not his conclusion:

The evidence was such as to demand a complete revision of my personal philosophy; for the relationship between the factors seemed to be so close, that, if we know what sexual regulations a society has adopted, we can prophesy accurately the pattern of its cultural behavior….

Now it is an extraordinary fact that in the past sexual opportunity has only been reduced to a minimum by the fortuitous adoption of an institution I call absolute monogamy. This type of marriage has been adopted by different societies, in different places, and at different times. Thousands of years and thousands of miles separate the events; and there is no apparent connection between them. In human records, there is no case of an absolutely monogamous society failing to display great [cultural] energy. I do not know of a case on which great energy has been displayed by a society that has not been absolutely monogamous….

If, during or just after a period of [cultural] expansion, a society modifies its sexual regulations, and a new generation is born into a less rigorous [less monogamous] tradition, its energy decreases…. If it comes into contact with a more vigorous society, it is deprived of its sovereignty, and possibly conquered in its turn.

It seems to follow that we can make a society behave in any manner we like if we are permitted to give it such sexual regulations as will produce the behavior we desire. The results should begin to emerge in the third generation.[i]

It has been a decade since investigative journalist Stanley Kurtz wrote about “The End of Marriage in Scandinavia.” He referred to British demographer Kathleen Kiernan, who places Sweden in phase 4 of a 4-phase movement away from marriage, from which no culture has ever recovered.

There are some who would claim all of this concern is just homophobia, xenophobia, and/or Islamophobia. They shut down the discussion by saying so, and that is harming Sweden and its dying culture. It would be like shutting down discussion of cancer by calling a cancer patient cancerphobic.

A better solution would be to identify the problem with exact truth, and then do everything necessary to get rid of the problem(s) and recover. A dying patient who fears public opinion might call them “not nice” (as though that could ever stick with the people of the traditional Swedish culture) is not going to survive.

It’s likely that the language and culture of France will be gone within another generation as well. And quite likely the same is true of Germany.

But my main concern is my home—the United States. Just in the past decade we’ve been pushed from phase 2 toward phase 3 on Kiernan’s loss of marriage scale. I don’t know exactly how to fit Unwin’s prediction with Kiernan’s. I would guess that the US started to lose family strength with the implementation of no-fault divorce, court-legalized abortion, and the normalization of sex outside of marriage by media—at least by 1970. That puts us possibly 45 years into a 75-100-year death.

If there is a chance of recovery, we must take the healing actions right away. These are the simple, but not easy, principles that lead to civilization.

---

[i] Joseph Daniel Unwin, Ph.D., “Sexual Regulations and Cultural Behavior,” address given to the Medical Section of the British Psychological Society. (Library of Congress No., HQ12.U52)