Will We See The Peak This Week?

Will we see the peak this week on Covid-19?

That is a big question on everyone's mind.

Of course, a lot depends on what you define as the peak.

When you are dealing with an infectious disease the first thing you want to see is the point at which the exponential increase in cases slows. This indicates that some progress is being made in stopping the virus from spreading.

I shared this graph in an earlier post in which I tracked the 3-day rolling growth rate of confirmed cases in New York. The peak on that measure was reached on March 20. That number had trended down to 1.36x as of yesterday.

The peak you really want to see is when the number of new confirmed cases drops day over day.

New York still has not reached the point where that number is decreasing consistently on a daily
basis.

I have been watching the Hospitalization number involving Covid-19 most closely in that it is an indicator for two important factors in all of this. First, how large is the strain on our hospital system going to be. Second, it should gives us an idea of where the death rate is going to go. As more patients need to be hospitalized it follows that deaths will increase as well.

It seems to be the general rule in all of this that an increase in confirmed cases will lead to an increase in hospitalizations a week later and increased hospitalizations leads to increased deaths in another two weeks.

Notice that the peak growth rate on hospitalizations in New York was reached on March 28. That was 8 days after the the peak in the growth rate in confirmed cases was reached.

The good news in looking at the data is that the increase in the 3-day rolling growth rate for deaths also peaked around the same time rather than lagging the hospitalization rate. This might suggest that doctors have been finding better ways to treat Covid-10 patients and preventing the expected accelerated number of deaths consistent with growing confirmed cases (lagged by two weeks).

The peak most people are looking for is when the number of hospitalizations begins to decline as well as the daily count of deaths.

We are still not there on hospitalizations but, as shown above, it is slowing.

New York reported yesterday that the state had 15,905 people currently hospitalized which was an increase of 1,095 compared to the day before.

Credit: State of New York, 4/420

However, compare that hospitalization number with the IHME model that federal and state public health officials seem to have been following in making policy decisions.

That model suggested that 65,434 hospital beds would be needed for Covid-19 patients on April 4. That number would include 12,011 ICU beds.

Right now only 24% of the hospital beds and 34% of the ICU beds that were projected to be needed are being utilized.

That is clearly good news but consider the mobilization effort that has been required (hospital ship, field hospitals, thousands of extra ventilators) because of the reliance on this model?

A lot of time, money and effort has been expended based on that model.

These are the numbers New York released on Sunday, April 5.

Credit: New York State, 4/5/20

Here is another way to look at the trend on hospitalizations that was put together by Charlie Bilello.

In addition, deaths were +594 compared to +630 yesterday. All numbers were better than the day before including the number of patients discharged from hospitals.

The IHME model projects that maximum hospital peak resources is going to be reached in New York this week on April 9 and the strain on the system will thereafter diminish.

Based on what I am seeing right now, it does not look like we are going to be short 63,000 hospital beds and 9,400 ventilators in New York as the model projects.

My view seems to also be supported by the trend in ER visits to NYC hospitals for influenza-like and pneumonia conditions in the chart below. This would indicate that the peak in hospitalizations is approaching. ER visits have been declining among all age groups in the last week

Source: https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/doh/downloads/pdf/imm/covid-19-syndromic-surveillance-04052020-1.pdf

The IHME model also projects that the daily death total in New York will peak this week on April 10 with 855 deaths. There were 594 deaths in New York yesterday.

Based on the 3-day rolling growth rates I have calculated, I think the expected the number of deaths on April 10 could be higher than 855. I hope I am wrong. If it stays below that number I think we have definitely turned the corner in New York.

New Jersey also saw a large reduction in deaths over the last day. Is this an aberration or an indication that things are getting better? This week should give us an answer.

Credit: @JamieDupree

The IHME model is projecting that the peak in use of hospital resources will not be reached until April 15 nationally. It is also projects that April 16 will be the day that peak deaths for the nation are reached.

New York might reach a peak this week but it looks like it may be another week until we make the turn for the nation at large.

This is the reason why President Trump said this last week.

Credit; NationalPost.com

As I have written earlier, the only thing that has seen greater exponential growth than the virus is the negative effects it has had on the economy.

Another couple of examples from last week. Unfortunately, these are deep valleys rather than peaks.

Year over year change in traffic in retail stores.

How close can you get to losing 100% of your business in the course of a few weeks?

Hotel occupancy.

I am actually surprised this is not worse.

I am all for reversing what is going on.

Let's turn the virus peaks into large valleys and the economic valleys into peaks that become high plateaus.

The sooner the better.

Another interesting sight I saw today that says a lot about where we are right now.

This is a picture of the drive-thru at the nearest Starbucks to my house (the Starbucks is on the other side of the small strip center from the Panera you see in the foreground). There was a long line of cars wrapped around the building. I counted 18 cars in line at 300pm in afternoon. This is during a stay-at-home order. I guess coffee in the middle of the afternoon is an essential item.

This is the picture of the drive-thru at the closest Covid-19 testing center to my house at 1000am on Thursday. Not one car in sight.

Based on the news reports, you would think the lines at these drive-thrus would be reversed wouldn't you?

Looking At The Covid-19 Landscape

The landscape around us is changing as if an 8.0 magnitude has altered everything around us.

A few observations as I look across the landscape.

Unemployment 

10 million have filed for unemployment benefits in just two weeks time.

3.3 million last week. 6.6 million this week.

That pushes the total unemployment rate to over 9%

The Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis suggests the unemployment rate could reach 32% before the end of June. In the Great Depression of the 1930's the highest unemployment rate reached was 25%.


Air Travel

Air Travel is down 94% from this time last year.

136,023 flew by air on April 1, 2020. 2,280,522 flew exactly one month ago on March 1.

If you need further proof, this is the TSA area at the Denver airport at 530pm CDT on April 2 which would normally be packed.

Credit: @Cernovich

Restaurants

Restaurants are closed throughout the United States except for take-out and delivery. The same is true for other countries as well. This graph shows the % change in diners from the end of February to the end of March. It is not easy to lose 100% of your business in two weeks no matter where you are in the world.

If you think it is tough in the United States what do you think it is going to be like in the other 150 countries in the world impacted by this?

.

Asset Class Returns

Here is a chart of various asset class returns in March, since the market high on 2/19 and YTD. If you were an investor, there were plenty of way to lose money. These charts are all from Bespoke Investment Group.

US-related Equities

Global Equities

Bonds

Commodities

Changing Google Search Trends

Who ever thought that we would be searching "toilet paper delivery"?

Which States Are Showing The Worst ( and Best) Test Results

Michigan looks like the next big hot spot. Are there any flights still going to Hawaii?

A Sight On The Landscape We Would Like To See More Of

This is the drive-thru test site closest to my home. Not a car in line or in sight at 10am this morning. Workers standing ready but no business. This is one thing we want to see out of business SOON.

Trying To Find It In The Numbers

The public health scientists advising President Trump finally decided to unveil their models to the American people yesterday in a sober data-driven presentation.

If their objective was to shock the public with the numbers, their mission was clearly achieved.

The model is projecting 100,000-240,000 deaths over the next two months and that assumes that all of the current social distancing, school and business closures are continued for those two months.

The peak in deaths is currently projected to occur two weeks from now on April 15.

This is a graphic view of the model showing projected deaths as shown at the briefing.

Source: White House Coronavirus Task Force

We are to expect a very steep increase over the next two weeks following by a slow, descending decrease in deaths that would generally end around July 1.

Even at the low end, 100,000 deaths is a very big number. For that to occur in a two-month period is beyond sobering.

President Trump has compared this to fighting a war. If you compare this to combat deaths in U.S. wars this number would only be exceeded by deaths in World War II and the Civil War. Total deaths in World War I were higher (116,708) but many of the non-combat deaths were due to, ironically, the Spanish flu epidemic. Of course, those wars were each fought over about 4 years. We are talking about this number of death over the course of two months.

Combat Deaths in Various U.S. Wars
Credit: Wikipedia

Framed this way it is not difficult to see why President Trump has taken the actions he has.

However, it is important to remember that all of these projections are from a model. A model that uses inputs that are based on a set of assumptions.

The New York Times has its own interactive model in which anyone can input different variable assumptions and it will give a projection of expected cases, hospitalizations and deaths.

The variables include the intervention level, length of intervention, the date the intervention started, the impact of warm weather, how infectious the virus is, the hospitalization rate and the assumed death rate.

The first image is what the model looked like assuming that absolutely no interventions were initiated, an assumed moderate impact for warm weather, hospital rate of 11%, infection rate of 2.5% and death rate of 1%.

The infection rate assumption assumes that Covid-19 (2.5R0) is 67% more contagious than the seasonal flu (1.5R0) and results in 10x more hospitalizations and deaths. At this point that is considered the best guess on these variables by scientists but the fact is that none of these factors are known for sure. More research and study is needed.

This is how the New York Times model looked at the end of the initial 15-day social distancing measures that President Trump put in place assuming everything else was the same. The model suggests some benefit but it would not drastically alter the final outcomes.

This is what the model looks like with an additional 30 days of social distancing as we are doing now. You can see it has a significant effect.

However, I was interested in playing with a range of  variables to see what would have the largest impact. I only found one that had a gigantic effect.

What if the infection rate of Covid-19 is not 67% more infectious than the flu but only 33% more infectious?

If that is the assumption I made after considering the first 15 days of social distancing, and leave everything else the same, what does the graph look like? (Compare below graph to 2nd graph from the top).

You hardly can see any effect from virus. That shows you how sensitive these models are to the assumptions.

That is massive. That entire reduction comes from assuming a 2.5 R0 infection rate compared to 2.0 R0. Again, seasonal flu has a 1.5 R0.

Let's get some additional perspective on the issue of deaths by comparing the projected numbers we are hearing compared to what we might see in more "normal" times.

The CDC collects detailed records on influenza and pneumonia deaths each year during flu season. That data is also compared to total deaths to provide better perspective on how bad the flu season has been in creating excess mortality.

Here is the graph of national pneumonia and influenza (P&I) deaths over the last five years thru March 14, 2020. This is the most current data as it usually is reported with a two week lag.

Source: CDC

Notice that P&I deaths normally make up about 7-8% of deaths nationally in the winter months. In 2017-18 those deaths spiked to close to 11%. CDC data on total deaths in 2017-18 shows that there were around 250,000 deaths in each of the winter months. That means P&I deaths were around 100,000 during that winter and it has not been unusual to see 60,000 deaths in a normal year.

This is the graph for New York state for the period thru March 14. It indicates that seasonal flu deaths in New York were actually running below normal in the state until two weeks ago.

Source: CDC

.

New York had 180 P&I deaths in the week ended March 14.

It had 44 reported deaths for Covid-19 for the week ended March 21.

It had 684 deaths for the week ended March 28.

In four days this week New York has had 1,213 deaths already.

Assuming that on average there are about 3,000 deaths per week in New York for all causes, there is little question we are seeing a lot of excess mortality from Covid-19 than from seasonal flu.

However, what about other states?

Here is the 5-year chart for Ohio thru March 14. You have to disregard the last couple of data points in this graph because the information is not complete. However, you should notice that Ohio typically peaks at about 7% deaths compared to New York's 10% in the winter months. Population density has to be a big reason for that among other factors

Source; CDC

Ohio typically averages about 2,500 overall deaths per week.

Ohio had an estimated 115 deaths from P&I in the week ended March 14.

It had 3 reported deaths from Covid-19 for the week ended March 21.

It had 25 deaths for the week ended March 28.

That would only be 1% of all deaths in the state. This probably would not even be noticed but for the intense scrutiny around Covid-19

As you can  from all of this, the numbers surrounding this entire issue are incredibly difficult to assess and evaluate.

Is this aggressive action taken in response to Covid-19 in the New York City metro area appropriate?

The models and the reality both say YES. There is little question that they are in the middle of a full blown health crisis.

Can the same be said for other parts of the country that don't have the same population density and have the same exposure to international travelers?

Dr. Birx says that the models they are relying on assume the same trajectory for the virus for the rest of the country as we are seeing in the New York numbers.

Using NYC experience and extrapolating it to the rest of the country seems like flawed logic to me. The fact that many other states were more proactive on mitigation efforts also should be a positive.

As I have written before, New York was at least two weeks late in its preparations. We are seeing the cost of that delay now.

I also often say that context is everything when assessing everything.

The problem with Covid-19 is that there are both too many assumptions and too much context to make sense of most everything to do with the numbers that are in play.

There may come a day when it might be possible to make sense of the numbers. That analysis will also undoubtedly have to factor in the economic impact of the decisions that have been made.

For now, I don't think there is one person on earth that can state with true conviction whether we have made the right decisions or not.

You just can't find it in the numbers.

Trying Times In The Fourth Turning

We are living in the most consequential time that most of us have ever lived in.

These are trying times and they are likely to get much more trying before they get better.

President Trump has been faced with decisions that I don't think any President has ever had to face.

Yes, other Presidents have had to make the decisions about the inevitable deaths of war. Those decisions also involved some personal sacrifices on the homefront as was the case in World War II. However, those sacrifices were generally balanced with an economy that did better due to the war effort. That is the crazy side effect of normal warfare. Factories are humming. People have jobs. Money is flowing in the economy

There are no good choices in the war we now have against what President Trump calls the "invisible enemy." A certain number of deaths are inevitable. Everyone is making personal sacrifices. The economy is taking an enormous hit. It is not even a zero sum game. It is a sub-zero game in all respects.

The mainstream media likes to portray Donald Trump as a dangerous, fast and loose decision maker. They would have you believe that he makes decisions in the same manner that he presides over a political rally with a lot of ad libs and very little preparation.

I have observed Donald Trump for a long time. I have read almost every book he has written and most of the books written about him in order to better understand him.

As I have analyzed Trump's decisions (both in business and as President) I see someone who calculates everything he does. He also invariably makes decisions that are anything but reckless or ill-considered. Yes, he may say outrageous things at times but when the final decisions or deals are made they are backed by good reasoning. The Left may not like the reason, for example the appointments of Gorsuch and Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, but those were both pragmatic and practical choices.

Trump is generally well informed and has studied the issues in front of him in some detail. He has a good grasp of the facts. You see evidence of that in the daily press conferences where he stands up for an hour or more and answers a range of questions. He may have made money in the casino business but Trump does not make ill-advised bets or decisions.

It should therefore come as no surprise that he listened to the facts that his team of public health experts provided him and made the decision to continue the current social distancing recommendations for another 30 days.

Do I think that Trump questioned the model they were basing their recommendations to him on?

I have no doubt about that. As I have written before, humanity has never wagered and spent more based on the output of a model. Trump knows that better than anyone. All that Trump is facing is clearly counter to his natural optimism. The decision also probably differed from his gut instincts of what is the right path forward.

However, Trump also knew that he would have no defense if he overruled the experts.

If he turned out to be wrong, he would certainly lose re-election. He would never be able to recover from it.

If he turned out to be right, and the experts were wrong, it goes without saying he would not get any credit from the media and a good portion of the electorate anyway. They would not give Trump credit for any decision he made that turned out right.

Therefore, Trump decided to follow the experts and embrace their dire forecasts. We were looking at 2 million deaths if we did nothing. We have to be perfect in our response to keep the death toll under 200,000 in the United States according to Dr. Birx.

In so doing Trump is following another principle that underlies the much different mentality that is present in The Fourth Turning crisis period I believe we are in.

In The Fourth Turning leaders assert public authority and demand private sacrifice. The very survival of society feels like it is at stake.

This is a quote from the book that I could not help thinking about as I heard the President extend his social distancing recommendations and more and more governors issue stay at home orders.

"Where leaders had once been inclined to alleviate societal pressures, they will now aggravate them to command the nation's attention."

What are we hearing every day now?

2 million deaths.

100,000-240,000 deaths if we do everything perfectly.

This is "life and death".

We are short 40,000 ventilators.

We need three times as many ICU beds as we have.

The Governor of Virginia announced yesterday that he was ordering a stay-at-home order in Virginia until June 10. Just one more example of all of this.

Everything is being done to aggravate the situation to command the public's attention.

There are no longer any gray areas. No one is trying to weave a solution that might exempt some areas within a state or within the country. No one is trying to permit business to continue but banning  mass gatherings or closing schools.

This is also what is typically seen in The Fourth Turning. Another quote from the book that I cannot get out of my head while I watch all of this unfold.

"Public issues will be newly simple, fitting the contours of crisp yes-no choices."

What are we hearing from our policy makers? There is no other choice. We need to close everything. It is the only way out of this.

Trump is no exception. He is following the script like everyone else. He really has no choice as I pointed out above. He is now saying the same thing to the American people.

I believe it will serve him well in the end.

We will survive the public health crisis.

My guess is that the numbers will be better than the models project.

Trump will be able to point to that success in the end.

Significant economic damage will be done and we will not recover from it soon. There will still be many unemployed by election day.

Democrats are going to want to lay that at the feet of Trump. Will they really being able to sell that?

I don't see how that works. I think that is especially true when you consider what the rest of the world is going to be dealing with at the same time. Make no mistake, if this is as bad as the modelers say it is the after-effects will be far and wide all over the world.

For example, I was struck with what Dr. Birx said at the press conference tonight. The United States had 5 times as many ventilators per capita in its hospitals as the UK did when this started. The U.S, had a national stockpile to supplement that number as well as manufacturers like Ford, GE and GM who have geared up to make ventilators. Where is the UK by November? Or the EU?

It is in trying times like these that people are most likely to want a strong leader. It is also clear that in the midst of trying times people are less likely to want to change leaders.

It would be easy to argue that Abraham Lincoln should have not won re-election in the midst of the Civil War. The same can be said of FDR in 1936 or 1940. Those were other Fourth Turning periods where the voters did not change course in the middle of trying times. People were already dealing with a lot of risk in their lives. Do they want to risk more with an unproven leader?

Considering where we are, and where we might be in 8 months, do you think that people are going to have more trust in 78-year old Joe Biden or 79-year old Bernie Sanders to lead us in these trying times than with Donald Trump?

I just don't see it and I don't believe it even though we see polls that are telling us that today.

The Democrats very likely will come to the same conclusion and try to bypass both Biden and Bernie in some type of political maneuver. They might solve the age and energy issues they have with those two with another candidate but will people be willing to risk their lives and livelihoods on hope and change? Will they trust someone in trying times that is unproven?

In May, 2016 I wrote a blog in which I raised the question of whether The Fourth Turning had brought us Trump? It was pretty far out there when I wrote it. At that time Trump had not even secured the GOP nomination. There were many in the Republican establishment who said they would never support Trump. He was way behind Hillary Clinton in the polls.

I closed that blog post this way. How little did I realize how prescient those words were. (By the way, that post stills ranks #3 in views of everything that I have written in over nine years of BeeLine)

"If The Fourth Turning has brought us Trump, can he lead us out of the Crisis? We can only hope. There are no promises. History is not made by events but by the reaction of human beings to events. We are hurtling down the road for a rendezvous with history of our own making. The choices that have been made and those that remain to be made will have deep consequences. We can only trust that the American people will make the right choice."

"In recent years, many Americans have despaired that their nation no longer produces leaders who can galvanize and inspire. Yet it is the turning, not the nation, that elevates great people to the apex of power. Lincoln and FDR are both cases in point. Both had to wait for the Crisis to hit. An Unraveling (the Third Turning) is an era when most people of intelligence, vision and integrity do not seek (much less get elected to) high public offices.

 After the Fourth Turning arrives, however, a Lincoln-like leader will be more likely to seek office, and a Lincoln-like leader could be exactly what America needs, wants and gets."

Credit: History News Network

"I know it is hard to imagine associating Donald Trump and Abraham Lincoln but that might be the bet we are making in 2016. We may need no less than a Lincoln with what lies ahead."

We can only pray that the bet that the American people did wager in 2016 was equal to that made in 1860. The stakes could not be higher.

There could not be much more on the line.

That should be clear to everyone now

Models and Reality

If one thing is true right now it is that humanity has never wagered and spent more based on the output of a model.

We hear it every day from our policy makers.

"This is what the model is projecting". "This what the model is telling us". "This is what what we need to do according to the model".

I am a big believer in modeling. However, I am a bigger believer in reality.

In my last blog post I referenced the model that the Imperial College of London  had done which projected that the United States was facing 2.2 million deaths and the U.K. 500,000 deaths from Covid-19. The model estimated that even in a best-case scenario "there would still be in the order of 250,000 deaths in GB, and 1.1–1.2 million in the US.”

It was barely a week later that Neil Ferguson, who led the Imperial College study, admitted that his  model may have overestimated the number of potential deaths and the strain on the health care system from Covid-19. He revised the projected deaths down by 90%

Keep in mind that there was a 90% variation in the model's projection of deaths in the period of one week.

The website CovidActNow.org is doing its own model with the objective of pushing policymakers in various states to take stronger mitigation measures to combat the virus.

It has developed a graph for each state with the objective of urging state officials to ACT NOW.

 I live in Ohio but it is not clear to me what more that they want Ohio officials to do right now.

The schools are closed. Bars and restaurants are closed except for takeout and delivery. No public gatherings of more than 10 people are allowed. All non-essential businesses are closed. There doesn't appear to be too much more that can be done other than bolt everybody in their homes as was done in Wuhan, China.

In fact, that is the lockdown scenario that CovidActNow is using in its modeling as the preferred method to best deal with the virus. CovidActNow recommends that it last for 3 months. To put that in context, China is scaling back its lockdown in Wuhan now after two months. 

The model may say that. However, would there be a state of Ohio in existence at the end of a 3-month Wuhan-type lockdown?

This is the model for Ohio that is displayed on the CovidActNow website.

Over 100,000 projected hospitalizations compared to hospital capacity of 23,000 beds at the peak in mid-May according to the model. This is with Shelter in Place (worst case) in effect.

There are 403 hospitalizations right now in Ohio.

These are the projected outcomes according to the model. Note the range of deaths projected in the model for Shelter in Place which is the status we are in Ohio right now. They are also suggesting that all mitigation efforts must last three months.

7,000 to 174,000 deaths! I guess the range depends on how well people adhere to the shelter in place order.

Based on my experience in the past week in Ohio I think there is a pretty high compliance level regarding the shelter in place order.

The model CovidActNow is using must be very close to the model that Ohio government officials are following.

Ohio's most recent guidance is that they don't expect to see a peak in the number of cases until the middle of May. At that time they are suggesting that the state we will be seeing 10,000 new cases each day.  That timeline appears to match the CovidActNow model peak.

I must admit when I first heard that number it was hard to process it. I am not an expert epidemiologist or public health expert. I know that exponential infection rates are hard for the mind to process. However, I am a numbers guy and I have to tell you that at first glance that model does not pass the smell test to me.

I could be 100% wrong. This might prove to be the dumbest and most misinformed blog post I have ever written. However, let me give you are a few reasons that I question that conclusion.

Ohio currently has reported that it has run about 20,000 tests to date with about 5.6% of those being positive. In order to get to 10,000 new cases, based on the same positive test percentage, it would require nearly 180,000 tests to be performed per day. Perhaps the testing will get ramped up that much in six weeks. However, that is highly unlikely considering there were just 107,000 tests conducted across the entire country on Friday.

Moreover, as more tests are done it is likely that the percentage of positive results will decrease. Testing is now limited to people with symptoms. If you are at the point that 200,000 Ohioans a day are being tested the positive percentage should get smaller.

Let's put this in context. Doing 200,000 tests per day for one week in Ohio means that 12% of every person in Ohio (population of 11.4 million) would have been tested in that seven day period. I can't see that happening in the next month or so.

The other reasons I don't trust the model is that it does not seem to be consistent with the reality I am seeing around me in people's behavior. The model does also not track with the numbers that the Ohio Department of Public Health is publishing right now and the current infection spread that I calculate from the current trend.

Ohio's cases were growing at a rate of about 2.25x every three days right before the Governor first declared a state of emergency. It declined to about 1.9x right after the ban on large gatherings. It dropped to around 1.5x shortly after the schools, bars and restaurants were closed. Recently it is trending at about 1.25x after the shelter in place order took effect.

These are the state's reported numbers. They are revising some of the past numbers daily. However, this is the current reality. That is not a model. This is the trend in the growth of confirmed cases in the states.

Are we to expect that the case infection rate is going to increase even though all of these mitigation efforts are in place?

I guess the rate of cases could increase as more testing reveals more positive cases. However, any uptick in cases would seem to have to be short-lived as shelter in place lasts longer.

One fact that is now better understood seems to be that the incubation period of the virus is much shorter than first reported. More than half of people become symptomatic within 5 days. Almost 80% show symptoms within one week. There are some cases where the incubation period in up to 14 days or more but that now appears to be rare.

The WHO confirms this and is now saying that Covid-19 actually does not spread as quickly as the flu. Contrary to what we were told earlier, the WHO is also now stating that people infecting others before symptom onset "does not appear to be a major driver of transmission".

I took this screen capture right off the WHO website.

This would suggest that with isolating the sick, along the strong social distancing policies, we should see a demonstrable decrease in cases within 2-3 weeks. This clearly was the rationale that was behind the President's "15 Days to Stop the Spread" recommendations nationally. Of course, states like Ohio, New York and California took that a step further and put shelter in place policies in place that should show even stronger benefits in slowing the spread.

This graph should give some indication that people are following the guidance.

Traffic accidents in Los Angeles.

Credit: https://twitter.com/benconomics/status/1243268711525408769/photo/1

I would imagine if you could graph people's interactions it would look a lot like that graph above.
Where does the infection spread if the number of human interactions and exposures has been curtailed so severely?

The early data that Ohio is reporting seems to back that up. What I don't understand is how these models assume that the spread of the virus is going to worsen despite these measures.

We are even seeing some slight improvement in the case numbers in New York on this measure.

The day before bars and restaurants were closed in New York City the 3-day growth rate was over 4x. The last couple days that number has declined to the 1.7x range.

The other reality is this one.

3.3 million new claims for unemployment filed for in the last week alone.

This graph puts those claims in perspective. The Great Depression never saw anything close to this in one week's time.

I guess you could say that another reality is that the only thing spreading faster than Covid-19 in the models is the unemployment rate.

Here are the unemployment claims filed in Ohio for the week. 188,000 in claims.

Credit: New York Times

Compare that to California with 186,000 claims.

Credit: New York Times

And New York with 80,000.

Credit: New York Times

What does that tell me?

New York and California are much bigger states and the stricter containment measures in these states followed Ohio by a few days. We have not come close to the unemployment numbers we are going to see from these and other states in the coming days.

It would not surprise me to see the unemployment claims released this week be another 3 million (or more).

All of this based on a model?

That is our reality.

Will we ever know whether the biggest wager that humanity has ever placed on a model was worth the cost?

Another reality is that long after this is over we will likely still not know the real truth of whether what we have been through was worth the sacrifice and costs.

The modelers will tell us that their models saved us from the drastic effects that the virus would have had on human life.

Skeptics will argue that the virus was never as bad as advertised to begin with.

In the meantime, every American (and most of the rest of the world) is in a new reality that few were prepared for.

The models don't mean much to them. However, the actions that policymakers are making based on those models mean everything.

This 1994 film title says it all for almost everyone right now. The 2020 version is certainly no love story.

May we have wise and discerning leaders who understand both models and reality.

Follow The Science

We often hear that we need to "follow the science." This is particularly popular with Liberals as they attempt to push their climate change and Green New Deal agenda. They like to tell us that we can't ignore "the consensus of scientists".

However, what if the consensus of scientists is wrong?

One of the most popular blog posts I have ever written was "Consensus Is Not Science". In that post I wrote about the the so-called "consensus" of scientists that climate change was settled science.

When it comes to settled science, there is no doubt that we have climate change. It changes every hour, every day and every year. It has changed over the centuries.

The question is not whether it is changing but whether man is impacting that change and, even if that is the case, whether we can even do anything about it?

Whenever we hear about the "science" of human related climate change there is nothing "settled" about it. That is why we hear that this view is supported by the "consensus" of scientists.

Of course, "consensus" is not the same as facts. And consensus is not a scientific fact. A scientific fact is the law of gravity, the boiling point of water or the distance to the moon. 

Prior to the 15th century, the consensus of scientists was that the earth was the center of the universe.

In the 18th century, the consensus of medical scientists was that blood letting was the best method to cure illness.

As recently as 25 years ago the consensus was that peptic ulcers were caused by stress. We now know it is caused by bacteria.

I could go on and on. In fact, in most cases like these, the consensus of scientists was proven wrong by one person who did not believe the consensus and proved it wrong.

Why do I bring this up now?

We are starting to hear the same "follow the science" mantra from those on the left who are questioning President Trump in his statement that we may soon be loosening some of the nation-wide restrictions imposed to counter the Covid-19 epidemic.

This Joe Biden tweet from today is proof of that.

Never mind that President Trump is merely doing what we should expect our national leader to do. Balancing the public health and economic costs in this crisis in his decision making.

Why does that make sense?

One big reason is that the "consensus of scientists" has changed a great deal in several months regarding Covid-19.

For example. the World Health Organization (WHO) is the recognized global authority on public health issues.

Let's take a look at how the WHO scientists have evolved in their view of "the science" over time.

As late as January 12 the WHO was stating that there was "no clear evidence of human to human transmission" regarding the virus.

On February 3, in response to the travel ban that President Trump initiated with China on January 31, the WHO stated "there is no need to restrict travel in order to slow the spread."

That was supposedly the best "science" at the time.

Of course, by the middle of March the WHO was stating that "this is a pandemic" and it was "deeply concerned by world leaders' inaction."

We can also look at the study published on March 16 by Imperial College in London that predicted that millions were going to die in the United States and the UK from the virus even in a best case scenario with extensive mitigation efforts in place like we are seeing now.

A study published Monday by the Imperial College, a public research university in London, estimates that millions will die from the coronavirus pandemic in the United Kingdom and United States. In their best-case scenario, in which transmission of the virus is massively mitigated, and “even if all patients were able to be treated,” the authors write, “we predict there would still be in the order of 250,000 deaths in GB, and 1.1–1.2 million in the US.”

That "science" was massively influential in changing the UK response to Covid-19. It also clearly pushed New York and other states in the United States, who had been resisting stronger measures, to move to "stay at home" or "shelter in place" orders.

That was the "science."

However, today we find the "science" has changed.

Neil Ferguson, who led the Imperial College study, testified before Parliament yesterday that his  model may have overestimated the number of potential deaths and the strain on the health care system from Covid-19.

The UK should now be able to cope with the spread of the Covid-19 virus, according to one of the epidemiologists advising the government.

Neil Ferguson at Imperial College London gave evidence today to the UK’s parliamentary select committee on science and technology as part of an inquiry into the nation’s response to the coronavirus outbreak.

He said that expected increases in National Health Service capacity and ongoing restrictions to people’s movements make him “reasonably confident” the health service can cope when the predicted peak of the epidemic arrives in two or three weeks. UK deaths from the disease are now unlikely to exceed 20,000, he said, and could be much lower.

Keep in mind that one week ago Ferguson was stating that the "science" indicated that 250,000 would die in the UK and the health system would be overwhelmed. That was the "best case scenario". That was not the worst case.

Yesterday Ferguson stated that the "science" is now that hospitals have the capacity to deal with the problem and deaths were unlikely to exceed 20,000 and could be much lower.

In one week "the science" is showing a variation of 90%?

Is this the "science" that Joe Biden wants us to follow?

You also have to ask if scientists can be this far off in models over a one week period how is it that we are supposed to believe hypothetical climate models that are trying to forecast events years and years in the future. They also want us to spend tens of trillions of dollars to avoid a fate that is complete conjecture.

Follow the science?

I am much more confident in following our leader right now.

I have not seen anything to indicate that President Trump is not considering and balancing the science, the economy and what is best for the American people in the short and long term in all the decisions he is making.

If you want another perspective on the "science" you might want to view this 10-minute video of a German pulmonologist ,Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg, who has a lot of experience with respiratory viruses in his career.

His view of the Covid-19 crisis is that it is an example of the scientists and virologists getting the attention of the government and politicians such that the hype has vastly exceeded the virological frame that should have surrounded it. He says this would have never been considered anything extraordinary if it had not crossed into the political and media realm.  He is not seeing anything much different than he did in any flu season in his career.

Wodarg makes the point that each year coronaviruses generally have made up 7-15% of respiratory viruses. Interestingly, the testing that has been done so far nationally (over 400,000 cases) is running right around that percentage range in testing of those with symptoms in the United States.

The doctor says that the problem now is that it is very difficult for any scientist or virologist to not be in the mainstream. The king may not have any clothes on but no one wants to admit it at this point.

Check it out and make up your own mind where the science is on this.

All of this leads to the question ...which "science" are we supposed to follow?