Coronavirus Newsletter -- Voting

General Update / Super Spreader Theory / Best Way to Vote

From now on, I think I'll stick with themes in these newsletters. Today that theme is voting, so everything will lead up to the discussion on voting.

First ...

General Update
Last week I expressed a little joy in death rates declining in the US, but evidently it's short-lived. They're on the rise again. Perhaps it was just a data anomaly (some states sending in revised death counts, or the like).

Looking at the NY Times hotspot map in their dashboard, it appears that the colors are getting less red. Most states are declining in new cases or holding steady. The South is still the worst place to be, though my own home state of NC may be doing the best in the South. Georgia, west Tennessee, northern Mississippi, northern Florida, most of Louisiana, and east Texas all still look pretty bad. Deaths in Georgia continue to increase.

Utah seems to be calming down. California is struggling, and so on, so on.

Overall, something does appear to be slowing down the virus considerably. I think it's the masks, but it could also be the really warm weather right now. We'll have to see ... most think another wave is still coming in the Fall, combined with the next flu season. Next week I'll tackle the question of herd immunity ... so stay tuned for that.

Super Spreader Theory
I'm sure you've heard the stories ... one person infects a large chunk of a choir in Washington. One man infects more than 70 people in South Korea as he visits several bars in one night. A sick guy goes to a family party, only to infect everyone there. Fitness classes infect 65 people. A conference helps spread the virus among 100 people in just two days. And so on.

But then this happens: my mother, a resident of a nursing home, had a roommate who tested positive. The staff immediately had my mother tested, and as soon as she tested negative, they moved her to a safer room. But that took more than 24 hours, during which my mother was confined in a closed room with another infected old lady "coughing up a lung." The beds were more than 6 feet apart. And get this ...

My mother never caught the virus.

How does that even happen?

Enter Super Spreader Theory.

Epidemiologists are a little confused when they study COVID spread patterns. With the flu, the spread is even and follows predictable patterns. But with COVID-19, it's kind of chunky, often with no discernible patterns. Kind of like how a tornado hits a house, skips one, and then hits the next house ... for no apparent reason at all.

Many say this is strong evidence that COVID is spread mostly through super-spreading events. In fact, they say ... get this ...

Only 10 to 20 percent of infected people are likely responsible for 80 percent of the spread!

But nobody knows what the rules are. Why does that person spread it, but not that person? Why did it spread so readily in that event over here, but not in that similar event over there? We have ideas, though.

In general, imagine you want to push a really heavy box. If you lightly press against it, it won't move. You have to push just hard enough to overcome friction, and then all of a sudden it starts to move. And once it moves, the friction decreases, and you don't have to work so hard to keep it going.

Similarly, it could be very possible that you pass by a really sick COVID person, and not catch it at all ... even with masks off -- which can happen if that sick guy hasn't reached whatever threshold is needed to pass on the virus.

One theory is that a person can become a Typhoid Mary, in which he doesn't feel sick enough to stay home, but something about how he breathes, or maybe something special about his body, makes it so that he spews the virus everywhere, and anyone close enough catches it.

Another theory is that it's not the person, but rather the event. If you go to an indoor event where people are together for a long time, then one person could possibly infect everyone in the room through aerosols, or hugging/shaking hands, or through some other vehicle. There's evidence that shouting or singing increases the chances of a super-spreader event occurring.

I realize this may sound kind of strange to you, but scientists are seriously considering this, as it would explain the chunky spread that they're witnessing.

To learn more about this theory, you can read more in these fun articles ...

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/30/science/how-coronavirus-spreads.html
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-superspreading-events-drive-most-covid-19-spread1/
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53273382

The nice thing is that if we can understand what causes super-spreading, we can actually make better decisions and help our events not to be so risky. I think that's why we hear a lot about wearing masks, not singing/shouting, and staying outside. It all comes from Super Spreader Theory.

Best Way to Vote
Then it comes down to voting, which we know is a very important part of our nation. And this is happening during 2020, a very important national election. Many are concerned that we will experience a low turnout, which could swing the election in any direction. Or many may show up to the polls and spread the virus ...

... or will they?

Think about the last time you went to go vote in person. Was it an exciting event where everyone talks to each other, and sings and shouts? Or was it more like standing in long lines keeping quiet while you played on your phone? Voting, to me, is sounding like a non-super-spreader event. Once you get past the no-campaigning point, everyone is usually quiet, and everyone just wants to vote and get out of there as fast as they can.

If the "event" aspect of super-spreading is true, then without the singing and shouting ... and if most everyone wears masks, it may actually be safer than attending a protest rally where people are shouting with their masks off.

If, however, the Typhoid Mary theory is more correct, then voting in-person would be riskier.

Either way, it's definitely not zero risk. However, if voting is important to you, I highly recommend looking into the prospects of voting in person ... it may be safer than you think. Voting workers would be more at risk, just because they'll interact with everyone, but they could receive more protection in the form of PPEs.

The CDC supplies these guidelines to help make voting safer for everyone.

Also, ask yourself, if you think the benefits of attending a protest outweigh the risks, then what about voting? Is it worth the risks to vote in this critical election? A message to my more left-leaning friends -- keep in mind that the more conservative voters are going to be less likely to shy away from voting booths.

I, myself, am planning to vote in person unless I get sick in the interim.

And either way, I would not advise older people and those in high-risk groups to take this risk, so what other options are available?

Really only one ... absentee voting has been around forever. Some states, like Texas, require viable excuses or age requirements, but I think most states, like my own NC, do not require an excuse.

You can check here to get more information on how to do absentee voting.

Some states are loosening up excuse requirements, and making it easier to vote by mail. In some cases, the ballots are being sent even when not requested.

As usual, this brings out allegations of fraud.

Can dead people vote? I've seen plenty of Facebook posts -- one that shows 7 delivered ballots at a house where only 4 people live -- the other 3 are dead. The person posting says, "I could take one of these ballots and get a second vote." So why doesn't she do it? And could she even get away with it if she wanted to?

People have tried, but most likely if signatures don't match, the ballots are tossed out as invalid. It's one thing to receive ballots from a district that hasn't cleaned their rosters, but it's another when the ballot is actually sent in, which goes through a more thorough round of due diligence. You can read more here about why there isn't much evidence to support successful voting fraud by mail.

However, there's a big problem with absentee voting. Because of COVID, demand for mail services has increased drastically. At the same time, the USPS has decided to cut back on costs, meaning slower deliveries, which means if you mail in your ballot, there's a good chance that it will not make it in to the polling place in time to be counted.

So, you could be burned with a three-way lag. First you must request the ballot (which you can do online), and wait for them to put your ballot in the mail (lag #1). And then you must wait for the mail to be delivered to you (lag #2). Finally when you place it back into the mail it has to make it to the polling place (lag #3). All these lags can add up.

But luckily, there's another solution growing in popularity. Absentee voting drop boxes. After you fill out your form, you can take it to the nearest drop box and then you can bypass the USPS entirely. In fact, because of anticipated mailing woes, more and more of these drop boxes are being installed.

For some reason, people are still calling "fraud" even with these drop boxes that have been used for years without any issues.

I do find it funny that our president expresses his concerns for fraud, while at the same time actually attempting to introduce fraud with a "legal" facade. I'm surprised to learn of lawsuits going around trying to stop absentee voting (a long-standing tested tradition), the temporary loosening of requirements, attacking drop boxes, and so on -- and not to mention the idea of delaying Election Day, and also promoting the idea that Americans have a right to know who their next president is going to be before they go to bed election night (yeah ... that's not what the Constitution says).

I also know that if the president felt that mail-in ballots would help him, he'd do everything exactly oppositely ... force all states to install drop-boxes, hold the counts open until the USPS delivers ALL mail-in ballots, and so on.

But seeing that Democrats are more likely to use mail-in ballots (and avoid in-person voting), it is very easy to see that this is a downright blatant attempt at voter suppression. It also shows the president's lack of concern over protecting his constituents during a freaking pandemic. There's a safe way to protect all voters and keep it all fair and free from fraud. Now, tell me again why we can't do this?

And remember ... each absentee ballot is vetted, and fraudulent-looking ballots tend to get thrown out.

As it is, experts are saying that it could be weeks before we find out the final tallies, and expect to see a lot of annoying lawsuits ... it'll be like the year 2000 all over again ... on steroids. Eventually we'll get the count before the electors vote for us in December, but it's going to be annoying.

Finally, back to the question of voting ... what is the best way? What's the best way to avoid another 2000 event? Basically you have two choices to ensure your vote gets counted.

#1) Vote in person ... wear your mask ... if you're willing to take the risk ... it's likely safer than you think.
OR #2) Obtain an absentee ballot, fill it out as fast as you can, and drop it into the nearest drop box. (If you have access to a drop box, don't mail in your form.)

If you think it's important to vote, then find a way ... it's definitely worth it. And believe me, this could be a close vote, and you don't want your favorite candidate to lose because you were unable to vote. Don't let your opponents take away your vote. Please also help your friends to understand their options as well ... encourage them to let their vote be heard.

UPDATE: The USPS has officially announced that they cannot guarantee that ballots will be delivered in time to be counted. DO NOT MAIL IN YOUR BALLOT. Use drop boxes, or seriously consider voting in-person.

Coronavirus Newsletter 2020-08-08

Personal Update / Conspiracies I'm Ignoring / Deaths on the Decline / Risk-Based Assessment Approach

Personal Update

Okay, I'm going to try to shorten the time to produce these newsletters. Last week was just crazy. It took me at least 5-6 hours doing the research, editing, etc. It was lots of fun, but it wore me out, and it's come to my attention that I've been neglecting other aspects of my life.

After high stress at the day job and my almost-COVID-but-not sickness, I've gone into what I like to call "to-do-list debt." I've been putting off many tasks, especially in my music and fiction writing. So, I've got to take some measures.

Tonight you get no research from me. I'm just going to get personal, and tell you how I feel. After that, I'll briefly describe the Risk-Based Assessment thing I mentioned last week, and explain how that works.

Now back to my story ... I really hate failing tests, even when it's COVID related. I took two "quick" tests a month apart, and both were NEGATIVE. Last week I took an antibody test, and it was NEGATIVE, making it very clear to me that the chances of me ever having the virus are small ... around 10% (okay ... maybe not that small).

And that kind of depressed me. I had thought I caught it and was suffering from "long haulers" syndrome where RNA fragments remain long enough to wreak havoc for months, even though not contagious. If it were true, it would mean that I caught the bug, I survived, and I wasn't going to die -- even though I was getting super tired all the time.

But now I know ... I am still susceptible, and I have absolutely no reason to believe that when I catch it that it will be mild. In my low 50's, I'm already on the border of danger, and my susceptibility to catching sinus infections and bronchitis with every single nasal sickness I get increases my chances of being bad enough to be hospitalized.

On the other hand, I'm really starting to miss seeing all my friends and being able to eat in a restaurant, and all-around watching a thriving economy. I was really hoping for that POSITIVE antibody test result so I could venture out more into society. And then I learn that I have to continue to be careful? It's like a mid-life crisis. It almost feels like I'm back to square one in this whole pandemic thing.

Then again, maybe it won't be so bad. I'm pretty sure I've caught the regular cold coronavirus, so perhaps I have adequate T-Cell immunity to fight off this new coronavirus quickly. Plus I have O+ blood, which is supposed to help (something I haven't researched yet).

The guys at work call me Pestilence. Last year in February, I got really, really sick ... most likely a flu. The real sickness lasted only a few days, and it was only a mild fever, but it still knocked me out for a full month. I only took 3 days off from work max, but I chose to work from home for a couple of weeks. That was fun ... do some coding, fix some processes for a couple of hours, then the chills would hit, and so I'd lay down under my desk shivering next to the space heater for about 20 minutes, and then I'd get back up to do more work.

And when I finally did go back in to work, my coworkers said I looked like death -- I was walking really slow, and that stupid bronchitis had me coughing more than usual. That was funny. I believe I caught the bug from someone sitting near me in a department that didn't really let you take sick days because you were that important. And I came to learn that three other guys sitting around me caught the bug, too. Only, they didn't get as sick as me.

And a few years ago, our whole department got hit by a stomach bug ... on the same day! I called in sick, and my boss accused me of participating in a sickout with my friends. Practically everyone in our room ... about 20 of us, caught the bug and we were all out sick except for maybe 3 people (including my boss).

So ... yeah ... I'll catch any bug that's going around, but I have no idea how my immune system will handle COVID-19.

As for my bronchitis, it still keeps coming and going, but I've learned that running actually helps to clear it up, so I've been increasing that. And one of my relatives has convinced me to start up a regiment of D3 and vitamin C. I gotta boost this immune system.

Coming back to my decisions going forward ... I gotta cut down on my coronavirus time. If it hasn't already become clear, I really, really, really, really enjoy conspiracy theories. I loved The X Files, and the movie Conspiracy Theory with Mel Gibson. It's not that I believe any of them, but I love the stories and love analyzing them, and even engaging people who believe in them -- to see if I can help them see the light. Sometimes I like to see if I can convince other people to believe them, as well. One of my favorites is the whole Moon Landing Hoax. And guess what ... you don't have to be an idiot to believe any of these.

While most of these conspiracy theories are harmless, COVID-19 hoaxes can be outright dangerous, especially when they cause people to behave in ways that help to spread the virus.

So, I've allowed my passion to get the better of me. I've been concentrating on fighting these theories, and it's eaten up too much of my time. I've come to learn that this combative approach doesn't really work, and can actually sow contention among my friends and family.

For a good analogy, I've been watching this show: JoJo's Bizarre Adventure. In Part 3, there's this creature called a flesh bud. It attaches directly to the brain, allowing an evil party to gain complete control. When JoJo (who's just plain awesome) attempts to pull out one of these buds, it fights back ... it holds on to the victim's brain deeper, and all these tentacles come out to attack the one removing it. If you can remove the bud in time and destroy it, then the person lives and comes back to his senses -- the evil person no longer has control of him. However, if you fail, you both die.

I believe this adequately describes how I feel when trying to combat these conspiracy theories. My intent, the whole time, is to destroy the idea, not the person. However, since the person believes the theory, he feels as if he's being attacked personally (like an ad hominem I do not intend). So the person entrenches and lashes out, and nothing gets accomplished.

And recently it's been eating a lot of my time. You wouldn't believe how many videos and articles I receive via PM ... and at first I've been trying to honor the person sending it to me, and give the video or article a chance ... after all, perhaps I've missed something.

But I simply do not have time for this anymore, so I've starting ignoring them. It's time for me to move on to better things.

On the flip side, I've witnessed some friends who got caught up in these conspiracies early on, but then came around to see the light ... ON THEIR OWN. Maybe I helped in some small way, but only through my "positive" efforts. So, going forward, I'll spend much less time on conspiracy theories, and more on providing data, analyses, and projections. I'm going to be friendlier.

And yes ... I know ... this is getting long, but believe me ... without the researching, this post is going very fast for me.

Conspiracies I'm Ignoring
Here is an example list of conspiracies I'll be ignoring going forward.

• COVID-19 is just like the flu. (It isn't ... all indications are that the mortality for COVID-19 is higher as well as susceptibility -- can't ignore excess deaths data.)
• COVID-19 vs. Swine Flu. (No comparison ... the mortality for the Swine Flu turned out to be much smaller than a regular flu season ... only 12,000-18,000 deaths in the US.)
• COVID-19 is a hoax. (It isn't. People are dying.)
• Masks are not effective OR masks are dangerous. (We have years of data on how masks are effective against coronaviruses.)
• Masks are activating COVID-19. (And it was doing this during our first wave when no one was wearing masks?)
• Any practitioner claiming to have a miracle cure while refusing to go through the already established method of communication. (Show us the data or get out!)
• HCQ is a miracle cure, but doctors aren't allowed to use it. (Science is not kind to HCQ right now. Hundreds of studies and actual experience show that it's not effective ... and yes ... some of them did try exactly as prescribed by some very loud practitioners, mixing with Z-Pak, and so on.)
• 5G is activating COVID-19. (I seriously believe left-wingers created this one so they can say how stupid right-wingers are for believing this, as I've yet to have one friend say they believe this.)
• COVID-19 is all about Democrats trying to unseat Trump. (How did they get India and Brazil to join in with their increasing thousands of deaths? Do they really hate Trump that much?)
• Trump is manipulating the data. (This one got me at first, but then as I researched it, it turns out that this is impossible to do. Worldometers does not get its data only from the CDC or the HHS, but mainly from the state departments directly -- before Trump can get his hands on it.)
• Any video featuring an Anonymous voice over.

All in all, pandemics are easy to understand. The solutions are simple, and eradication is always possible. We have experience, we have data, we have math, and we have science. Anything else to complicate this is bad, and most likely to be wrong. Unfortunately, terrible leadership has gotten us to where we are today, and we could have been almost done with it all by now. We could have avoided any and all lockdowns, but we just failed to follow the simple established rulebook on pandemics.

But, it is what it is.

I might as well list what I *am* interested in, which I may be focusing on going forward.

• Strategies for opening up the economy safely.
• Further analyses on Sweden ... how did they manage to finally get deaths and cases down?
• Further analyses on Peru ... what did they do wrong?
• Effects of warm weather on the virus.
• Anything on T-Cells and/or the 20% Herd Immunity Theory.
• Any tips on boosting immunity.
• Any further studies on early mitigation strategies ... even HCQ if it's compelling evidence.

Before moving on, I'll leave this fun little conspiracy for you enjoy ...

https://imgur.com/gallery/OSZ87GF

Deaths on the Decline?

I'm am truly surprised that deaths in the US are declining from last week -- especially when the math predicted a crazy jump in growth over the next couple of weeks. But this clearly isn't happening, so it's a very welcome development -- the mortality rate is definitely smaller than expected.

This could indicate any of the following:

• Trump was right ... the recent rise in positive results is among our more healthier younger crowd.
• Hospitals are getting better at saving lives -- DEX seems to be helping on this front.
• Hotter weather may be helping symptoms to be milder.

Let's give it another week and take a closer look.

Risk-Based Assessment Approach

A few weeks ago I claimed that masks were the key -- countries that use masks do better than other countries that don't use masks. Here in the US, the sudden stop in the spread could indeed be a result of increased mask usage throughout the nation.

But then two counter examples exist.

Sweden suddenly has a drop in cases and deaths -- but why? They are among the worst in mask usage -- or at least they were a couple of months ago. And they have the deaths to prove it. But why improve now? Did they start wearing masks? I doubt it, but then again I've yet to research this piece.

And Peru has had mandatory masks from near the beginning -- wear them or be arrested. But their deaths per capita are as bad as Sweden's, so what did they do wrong? Why didn't masks help them?

It becomes clearer to me that there are many factors to consider. I know that masks are helpful, but how helpful are they exactly? Could we put a number on that?

So, the idea is: you can think of a whole suite of factors -- some of which increase the risk of infection, and others that decrease it. And then you can imagine a big formula where you plug in all the positive and negative factors and get a final probability of spread out the other end.

Would you like to see how well a country is doing? Or are you planning an event and you want to see what the overall risk is? Just plug the factors into the formula ... and viola!

This approach can also help you know how to change behaviors to reduce risk. Say you want to hold an event. If you want to keep it safe, you can take measures to decrease the risk, and then ... there you go ... you can go ahead and invite people to participate.

If have no idea how to set numbers, but here's a general direction ... I'll try to list some factors and then indicate which helps to make things safer (+) and which makes things more risky (-).

Outside +++++
Wearing masks +++
Testing to identify sick people ++
Effective contact tracing ++
Quarantining the sick and exposed ++
Temperature checks at the door +
Lockdowns +/- (safer at first and then more risky if prolonged)
Inside with ventilation --
People sitting / not moving ---
People less than 6 feet apart ----
No masks ----
Dirty masks -----
Mass singing or shouting ------
Inside with no ventilation ---------- (yeah ... really really really bad)

Now, take an event such as a protest. If it's outside (++++) and people are wearing masks (+++) but they're packed together (----), and some people are shouting without masks on (------), then some of the bad factors and good factors will cancel out. For example, if I did the math perfectly (which I know I didn't), then this event has 7 pluses and 10 negatives giving a final rating of ---. So ... mildly risky.

If you do the same math with an inside Trump rally, then ... whoa nellie!

Then all of a sudden, Peru starts making sense. Sure, they wore masks, but in the poorer districts, these masks were very dirty, which helped to spread the virus.

That's all I have for today. Looks like it took me about 2.5 hours. Not bad ... it was still fun, and I'll try to get it shorter next week.

For a bonus, click on the picture at the very top of the article to see more classics COVID-ified.

Coronavirus Newsletter -- Miracle Cures

Personal Update / Sweden Update / Miracle Cures Showcase

Today, I've decided to devote most of my newsletter to showcasing miracle cures. This past week has been interesting with the two or more videos from the "America's Frontline Doctors," all of which appear to be banned, such that I had to go to a super-secret website to find the first one (and it's even a recording of the recording -- I felt like I had to take a shower after watching it).

But first, a couple of housekeeping items.

Personal Update
Good news and bad on my part ... I just got back my antibody test results. Finally being healthy enough, I went to give blood at the Red Cross, which is giving free antibody tests for another couple more weeks. It only took two days for the results to get back. And the result ...

NEGATIVE

I suppose there's a small chance that I caught C19 a long time ago, suffered long-term effects for months, and then lost my immunity just in time for this antibody test. However, the chances are minuscule after two negative "active" virus tests and one negative antibody test. In hindsight, a simple lingering bronchitis infection (triggered by allergies or a regular cold) could have explained all my symptoms.

So ... I'm still susceptible. Dang.

Sweden Update
Two weeks ago, I promised to come back and look at Sweden's Case numbers, and I totally forgot. Well, let's take care of that now. I previously showed how Sweden was reporting their deaths by death-date instead of report-date (like the rest of the world is), and how it makes their deaths look better than they are, and I wondered if they were doing the same with the Case numbers.

Turns out ... they are not. Measured on 7/16, I recorded 74,691 total cases on 7/9 and 77,129 on 7/16, showing an implied 2,438 cases for that week.

Measured on 7/23, I saw 74,686 on 7/9 and 77,128 on 7/16, for a total of 2,442. As you can see, the numbers did not change much.

And measured on 7/30, I saw 74,681 on 7/9 and 77,122 on 7/16, for a total of 2,441.

So, it appears that cases are still being reported on a report-date basis.

Further, looking at implied death reports for Sweden over the past four weeks, I've seen weekly counts of: 112; 90; 95; 63. So, either way we look at it, it appears that Sweden is indeed ramping down in both cases and deaths. I'll touch on this further next week when I discuss a risk-factor based assessment approach to understanding why some countries are doing better than others.

Miracle Cures Showcase
Okay ... finally the moment we've all been waiting for. What about all these miracle COVID cures we keep hearing about? I can tell you here and now, that if anyone tells you, "We got a cure, and no one will listen to us, and we could save the world, and all those studies are fake science," don't believe them. Because I know that tens of thousands of doctors, scientists, and epidemiologists all over the world have been fighting this. They've been trying countless different methods, and they're taking notes, and sharing results with each other. And these miracle cures? They're trying them, too ... and well ... in practice all over the world, not a single drug has proven to be a "silver bullet" that destroys COVID. Because, think about it ... if someone did find that silver bullet, they'd tell others, and then COVID really would disappear ... especially if the cure is cheap. It turns out that most of these wonder cures actually do show some use, but nowhere near the 100% cure rate being claimed.

To help you understand what's going on, I need to describe one of my favorite scams -- it demonstrates the math behind coincidences and why we need controlled studies.

This scam starts with letters mailed to 128 people. Start with a baseball game: the Braves vs. the Cubs. In half of the letters (64), write that the Braves are going to win, and in the other half write that the Cubs are going to win.

The Braves win, so next week, send 64 letters to all who received the Braves letters earlier. This time let's pick: Brewers vs. the Pirates. And again, in half the letters (32) say the Brewers win, and in the other half, the Pirates win.

After the Pirates win, we get to send 32 more letters: 16 saying Cardinals, and 16 saying Dodgers.

After the Dodgers win, there now exist 16 people who think that we've correctly predicted 3 games in a row: Braves / Pirates / Dodgers. So, this time say, "I gave you 3 winners in a row. Give me $100, and I'll tell you who wins in the Phillies vs. Marlins game in two weeks."

Then you probably see what comes next. If 10 give us $100, we're suddenly $1000 richer. And then we send this letter to 5 winners: "Okay ... that's 4 games in a row, so give me $250 for the next bet." ... and so on. If we play it just right, there's going to be 1 person out of the original 128 who will think we're psychic and give us $1000... no one could get that many games in a row ... right? So, how exactly did we achieve it? Think about this for a moment.

Now let's get back to that "American's Frontline Doctors" video, which I believe is a MAJOR SETBACK (yes -- I'm screaming that part) for what we've been accomplishing the last couple of weeks. When Trump Jr. and his dad decided to retweet the video (several times), I'm sure it has caused many right-wing supporters to stop wearing masks again.

In the video, they report 100% cure rates. They give passionate testimony ... especially Dr. Stella Immanuel, who's kind of famous now -- claiming she's treated 350 COVID patients and they've all gotten better. Not even one of them has died.

But get this ... it appears that all of these doctors work at clinics, family practices, and urgent cares. So, if anyone gets really sick from COVID, these are not the doctors who would care for them. So, let's take a closer look at Dr. Immanuel's 350 patients.

First, ask yourself, who exactly would go to her clinic? To help you answer, here is a video showcasing her practice from the clinic's Facebook page. It kind of reminds me of something out of "Better Call Saul," but I should be nice. It seems to be one of many first-defense clinics, which handles only the small stuff. So, I would entirely expect the vast majority of patients to survive anyway. Think of your family practitioner. And look at all the patients you see in the lobby and the halls ... do any of them look like they're going to die? It's totally different when you go into a hospital.

So, my questions on the 350 patients:

• How many of the 350 actually tested positive? (I thought I was positive for 2 months, but it evidently turned out to be something else.)
• How many of them had only mild symptoms that really didn't need treatment? (Remember, the really bad ones go straight to the hospital.)
• Has she followed up on all 350 patients to see if they subsequently got really sick and went to the hospital without letting her know? (Give it a week and we may start hearing stories of "My wife went to see her and later she went to the hospital and died." I give it a 60% chance of this happening in the next 7 days.) Ask yourself ... last time you went to the hospital, did you call a clinic to let them know what you were doing?
• Was it really the miracle cure, or was it some other treatment that really helped some patients get better? For example, Dr. Immanuel describes a man with COVID and pneumonia -- she treated it, and he got better, but was it because of the miracle cure or the antibiotics she prescribed for the pneumonia?
• How many other similar practitioners have a "100% cure rate" even though they didn't prescribe the miracle cure?

Even if all 350 patients did indeed survive, it could still be that she hit the lottery, like I described in the scam above. But for every lucky doctor like this, there are hundreds of other doctors who haven't been lucky. This is why we need controlled studies that can be replicated in other environments.

I'm not saying Dr. Immanuel is a terrible doctor, but she is clearly a terrible scientist / epidemiologist based on her claims that scientific studies are "fake science." But that's okay ... doctors should stick with doctoring, and scientists / epidemiologists should be the ones guiding us through this epidemic ... this is called specialization, and in practice it works pretty well.

And as for these doctors claiming to be "frontline doctors" in the trenches ... I see this as a slap in the face of those who are truly putting themselves in harm's way ... doctors and nurses who are manning the hospital beds -- the ones who are working countless hours many days a week, who are reportedly getting very exhausted and very distraught from the deaths they see.

BTW, as much as I hate the existence of these videos, I sincerely believe it is much more dangerous to censor them and remove all access. #1) It makes it much more difficult to research and debunk (I had to sign up with achive.org to find the video and a transcript). And #2) It really buys into the conspiracy theory angle ... "See, it's a coverup," which as I described before really helps conspiracists entrench into their beliefs. I think censoring these videos gave them a lot more publicity, and ended up doing a lot more damage.

But enough about these doctors ... let's take a look at all these miracle cures and see how they're doing. None of these are outright bad, and they have their uses, but so far, nothing by itself has proved to be a miracle cure.

Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ): We'll start with the most popular miracle cure. I believe this one has gotten a lot of traction because Trump supported it and then complained about hospitals not using it.

HCQ used to be really good at treating malaria, but little by little, malaria is becoming more resistant to it. In fact, as Dr. Immanuel explains above, HCQ is her speciality for when she treated malaria in Nigeria. It would make sense that she, an HCQ expert, would be all over this as a cure for COVID19.

HCQ is also used to treat lupus and some types of arthritis. Major side effects include heart and vision problems.

At first, HCQ looked to be promising in fighting COVID19. A doctor in France published his results of using HCQ along with azithromycin (Z-Pak). Other studies used it with zinc, while others used all three. Some studies showed improvement, while others didn't.

In April, the FDA opened up HCQ for emergency use ... the idea being, "it doesn't hurt to try it ... we've got nothing else." And hospitals used it, despite the many reports from ultra-conservative outlets that it was not being used. As one of my frontline friends reported, it is good in treating cytokine storm.

Studies seem to say that if HCQ is effective, it's best used near the beginning of the sickness, and seems to have practically no benefit at all in the later stages.

Dr. Immanuel above reports that HCQ has been failing because doctors haven't been using it correctly -- that it has to be used early and in combination with zinc and azithromycin. But her claim (that doctors haven't been doing it) can't be further from the truth ... tens of thousands of doctors and scientists have tried all kinds of combinations of HCQ and other drugs. The idea of using it with zinc has been around for years. Some doctors had already done "as prescribed" since March, but not with as much success. When used in practice, doctors have reported disappointing results ... it helps, but not that much.

As of the end of June, the FDA has retracted the emergency use for COVID, citing that the benefits just don't outweigh the potential for side effects (heart and vision problems).

Budesonide (BUD): A Dr. Bartlett (also from Texas) has become famous for touting an asthma inhaler medicine as a cure for COVID19. On the surface it makes sense. The medicine opens up the lungs, and as a corticosteroid, may help fight against the virus.

Unlike HCQ, it has fewer long-lasting side-effects, so it's safer to use.

Dr. Bartlett claims that one of his clinics had 200 patients that tested positive and a 100% survival rate thanks to the BUD treatment. Sound familiar? Though, unlike Dr. Immanuel, this doctor is willing to share his results here. But just like before, the same problems arise: is he really following all 200 patients, and wouldn't most of them be mild cases anyway?

But ... oh, check out this report. One of his patients ended up in the hospital anyway ... it didn't work for him.

This study from May seems to say BUD neither helps nor harms COVID19 patients -- maybe it doesn't work so well in later stages of the disease. It also appears that the UK and Australian researchers are currently conducting studies in using BUD as an early treatment (as Dr. Bartlett prescribes).

As far as science is concerned, it's still premature to call this a silver bullet, but at least it's considerably safe to use. We'll have to watch this treatment more closely. I do not believe any restrictions are in place ... with the main concern (if any) being that if too many people use it, it could possibly result in a BUD shortage. Right now, I don't see any evidence that hospitals are using this treatment.

Dexamethasone (DEX): This is another corticosteroid with many uses and safer side effects if used for a short time. Long time use (like most corticosteroids) can have adverse effects and dependency issues, and is not good for pregnant women. Like the two other drugs above, this one is really cheap.

UK researchers discovered that DEX is very helpful in the latest stages of the disease. The WHO seems to be very supportive of this treatment, continues to encourage studies, and is looking to increase worldwide production. Hospitals in the US are already using this treatment, as advised by the NIH, but mostly for use in the later stages.

It still seems too early to get results from the hospitals as to the success of this treatment, but consider this: As part of the HCQ conspiracy theories floating about, one of the claims is that hospitals are preferring to use expensive treatments like Remdesivir, so as to help out their friends in Big Pharma. But this rising popularity in using cheaper drugs like DEX seems to spit on this idea.

In either case, I would not consider this a miracle cure, as it only seems to save the lives of one-third of severe cases. It's very impressive, but still allows for many deaths. Out of the three we've looked at so far, this seems to be the most promising. We need something better!

Remdesivir (REM): Now comes probably the most expensive drug for COVID19. This one costs about $2,500 for a 5-day supply. It's also in very short supply, so in the US it's reserved for only the most severe patients.

Side effects seem to include respiratory failure, blood disorders, and other fun ailments.

Its effectiveness is still under question. In April and May, it was thought that its benefits outweighed the risks. One study in May seemed to indicate it sped up hospitalization recoveries by four days. However, while REM seems to speed up recovery, DEX seems to be possibly better at saving lives.

I can't seem to find good data on whether hospitals prefer DEX or REM, but DEX is definitely much more affordable and available. Note that in both cases, these drugs aren't typically used until the end stages ... so if you are to benefit, you still have to go through a lot of pain to get that far. (So still sounding like sucky miracle cures.)

Antibody-Infused Blood Transfusions (also called convalescent plasma): This is another idea that's been floating around for months, though I have yet to see much traction. Though, I'm pleased to hear that it's been tried already 50,000 times. The idea is that the antibodies in plasma donated by people who have already recovered from COVID19 can help other people fight the disease more quickly.

Yesterday, as the article in the link above tells, President Trump is encouraging more people to donate plasma for this effort. Studies so far are inconclusive, but surely it's got to help to some degree. It'll be interesting to see if the press mocks Trump and if this method becomes a panacea. But you know what ... I don't think so, because HCQ really only became a panacea because of its poor performance. Also considering this is a Washington Post article actually showing Trump in a positive light, there may still be hope for the press.

T Cells: A friend of mine shared this very interesting article on T Cells, which are another form of immunity our bodies employ. Unlike antibodies that form to attack specific viruses and can die out quickly, T Cells can remember the protein surfaces of viruses for a much longer time. And it's possible that many of us already have a whole bunch of T Cells already primed to fight from earlier exposure to cold coronaviruses with similar protein surfaces.

It's very possible that a successful vaccine or even a cure can arise from T Cells instead of from antibodies. If any of these become a miracle cure, I'd say this one has the most promising prospects, but we still have a long ways to go to even understand what's going on.

Vaccine: we still have no vaccine, but US officials keep saying we may have one by the end of the year. There also seem to be different vaccines in the making. It'll be interesting to see what comes of it all. Which ones will be safe? Which ones will have microchips (just kidding!)? Which ones will be effective, and for how long?

Up to now, we still have no miracle cure, but we do have a whole slate of drugs to choose from. HCQ appears to be the least effective ... period. DEX is the most immediately promising cheap drug for late-stage life saving. BUD may ultimately prove to be effective in the very early stages. Plasma transfusions may start to show effectiveness. REM is very expensive and is starting to look not that great. T Cells may ultimately provide us with a miracle cure (not just for COVID19, but other viruses as well -- yeah, this is just me thinking this up -- I see some potential).

But wait ... there is one more miracle cure that has actually proven to work in many countries, especially in the highly successful countries of South Korea, Japan, New Zealand, and several others ... a cure so effective that it has practically eradicated most of the virus inside of their borders.

And this cure is called ...

DON'T CATCH IT.

That's right ... with the trifecta of Masks, Effective Contact Tracing, and Testing, we can effectively destroy this virus ... even without the need of further lockdowns, and without the need of waiting further for other miracle cures.

Flat Earthers and the Coronavirus

And one more cross-post so all coronavirus posts will appear here ...

It's hard to believe that some people still believe in a flat Earth. There's even a Flat Earth Society where you can keep abreast of the newest developments.

It may sound crazy, but Flat Earthers provide several compelling arguments. According to Einstein, gravity is indistinguishable from acceleration. Imagine two different scenarios:

#1) Earth is a sphere large enough to have its own gravity. Someone standing on Earth's surface will feel a constant downward acceleration (what we call gravity). If you drop a ball, it will start falling slowly, but then quickly build up downward speed until it hits the ground.

#2) Earth is a flat surface, constantly accelerating upwards. If you're standing on this surface and drop a ball, it will first appear to hover over the ground, but then the upward accelerating ground beneath it will speed up and catch up to it.

In both situations, when you perform an experiment (dropping the ball), it looks exactly the same. So, how can you tell the difference? According to Einstein, you can't tell which is which just from the experiment itself.

So ... crap? Could Earth really be flat?

If you visit the FES site, you can get educated on how everything works ... they have an explanation for everything. From the picture above, you can see the flat Earth, with the North Pole in the center, and then the impenetrable ice shelves of the Antarctic at the border, helping to keep all the oceans' water from falling into the abyss below us.

Also note the sun floating above our world. This picture doesn't show it well, but the sun is like a lamp with a shade to help it shine down on different parts of the world depending on the time of day. The moon also orbits above our world ... in the current picture, its location would provide a full moon phase at night. As it moves to a different position in relation to the sun, you get all the other different phases.

They even have explanations as to why the sun sets ... it's an illusion due to the refraction of light as the lampshade starts turning away. Solar and lunar eclipses? There are complex explanations for those as well.

So how can we tell if Earth is really a sphere? Why should we believe the images that NASA provides to us? How do we know that they're not keeping us in the dark, and keeping us from the truth?

Hopefully I haven't convinced you that Flat Earth Theory (FET) is true, but I think it very important to demonstrate how much work people are putting into this, and how easy it is to justify it with the visage of science and math. In fact, I've tried myself to construct a flat-earth model that works consistently with our observations, just to see if it could be done. I still haven't quite managed it, though -- something always comes up to break it.

For example, if you look at the picture above, the "Southern Hemisphere" is stretched out much further than the inside "Northern Hemisphere." This would imply that planes flying in the Southern Hemisphere would take much longer to get to their destinations than planes in the Northern Hemisphere. This one issue by itself destroys FET and convinces me that our Earth is round.

But, one who is not so rehearsed on math, science, and correct principles, may easily be swayed by these intelligent-sounding arguments.

A famous rapper, BoB, tells us he's been in a plane high in the sky and didn't see any curvature, and he has recently tried to raise money to launch a satellite into space to prove it. Also, daredevil Mike Hughes started building rockets for the purpose of eventually launching himself into space high enough to see for himself if the world was flat. He ended up dying earlier this year in a failed rocket launch.

Enter the idea of "settled science," a term you've probably heard several times in the past few weeks. From a strict interpretation of the scientific method, it's nearly impossible to have "settled science," as science promotes the idea of skepticism. You start with what most people believe (a null hypothesis), you present a challenge -- an alternative theory (the alternative hypothesis), and then you perform tests to see which hypothesis wins.

Probably the most famous example of this is Newton's laws of motion and gravity, which made sense until Einstein came around to present his own laws, which did a much better job of explaining everything ... and it was revolutionary. Einstein's alternative theory won out. Newton's strongly held "settled science" theory was overthrown! (Sort of.)

Since we can't have 100% certainty on anything, we must settle for "settled science" to mean "we're 99.9% sure this is right." There's nothing wrong with challenging even the most stalwart theories, but in order to get things done, scientists and engineers need to accept what's close enough to reality for practical purposes. Thus, experts tend to hold to the stalwart theories and follow them until something better comes around.

Back to Flat Earth ... so what do you think? Is the Earth a sphere? Is it settled science? The number of people who believe FET is very small. Though, there are still some otherwise competent mathematicians and scientists trying to challenge the notion of Round Earth. We find it easy to laugh at these guys because it's just a very, very small following. We can all pat ourselves on the back because we know better.

Then, there's something called "Occam's Razor." It's the idea that if you have two competing theories to explain the same phenomenon, chances are, the most simplest explanation is the true one. When it comes to FET, I might be able to successfully create an isomorphism from Round Earth to Flat Earth Theory -- it would require a very complex set of equations and rules, such that it would be much easier to accept Round Earth Theory, as its equations are simpler, and it just "makes sense." This is the power of Occam's Razor.

In fact, everyone who does anything related to world travel uses Round Earth Theory. Planes tend to travel in Great Circles around the world, because that's proven to be the shortest distance (rather than a straight line). Satellites are placed in orbit around our planet using Round Earth Theory equations. Otherwise, our satellite TV wouldn't work, and neither would all of our GPS devices.

So, the Flat Earthers can believe what they want, but the people doing the navigating are all using Round Earth Theory -- without even giving it a second thought. Why should they care about competing FET ideas when Round Earth Theory works perfectly fine?

And finally, from the start of this post, you already know where I'm headed with all of this -- the recent pandemic.

When it comes down to it, pandemics are really simple math. The SIR Model explains the movement of a disease through a Susceptible population. As each person gets Infected, they will eventually Recover (or die), and eventually one of two scenarios play out: #1) the disease dies out, infecting only a portion of the population -- with some people reaching the Recover/Death stage, and the rest remaining indefinitely in the Susceptible stage. OR #2) the disease infects everyone until everyone reaches the Recover/Death stage.

This model along with other competing models rely on a set of underlying simple differential equations, and we have a long history of outbreaks to study, and fine tune our models.

The current coronavirus outbreak (SARS-CoV-2) is not unlike many of these other past outbreaks. In fact, some mathematicians have expressed wonder at how closely the spread of the disease matches popular epidemiology models. (Though, there are some local off-ages as this particular strain exhibits a "superspreader" nature -- where it seems to spread in chunks rather than in smooth patterns like the flu.)

From earlier, similar outbreaks, epidemiologists have determined what tactics and strategies work in combating viruses. In the case of respiratory diseases ... universal mask wearing works very well. We have not only seen this in earlier outbreaks, but we've even seen it already in the current SARS-CoV-2 outbreak. Countries that are used to outbreaks put on their masks with hardly a second thought, and have already effectively eradicated the virus -- except for onesies/twosies coming mainly from foreigners. And countries who later adopt mask wearing enjoy a sudden drop in cases after a couple of weeks of consistent habits.

In a sense, this is all pretty much settled science. Or at least, prior to 2020, there had already existed plenty of experience to support these ideas. And much of what I know on outbreaks I had learned prior to 2020. You can't really learn basic modeling of data without having some exposure to exponential, S-curve, and other distributions that describe outbreaks. In fact, one of my textbooks was on how to truncate data effectively, geared more toward medical applications.

I suppose a little bit of inconsistent mishandling of the pandemic by the WHO and a lack of direct experience in the US has led to our current situation where most people don't seem to know how to behave in such a way to effectively fight the virus and eradicate it (as many other countries have already successfully done). And perhaps it's the whole idea of "free thought" in the US that has given credence to competing theories.

Unlike FET, where a very small people believe the very few skeptics, we have a situation where a very large number of people believe the very few skeptics ... and most frustratingly, it has become yet another highly charged politicized topic -- which has unfortunately led to too many unnecessary deaths.

To me, the solutions are very simple ... we could have eradicated this thing months ago, and avoided a nationwide shutdown. But we were lazy and we let it get out of hand. In April, our lockdowns helped us to get a handle on things -- numbers were going down, but then we thought it was safe to reopen everything, and we didn't do so safely. So (as what exactly happened in 1918-1920), cases in the US have blown up to levels not seen anywhere else in the world.

Instead of taking simple measures to win, we're flooded by crazy conspiracy theories ... the Democrats are trying to nuke Trump's reelection chances ... Bill Gates is trying to sneak in microchips in the upcoming vaccine ... masks are activating COVID that's been around for at least a decade ... hospitals are lying about the deaths and attributing them all to COVID, and so on.

There really is no difference between FET and these pandemic conspiracy theories, and I'm not sure what I can do about it. I can only watch in disbelief, and hope for the best. How can someone really ignore what is going on outside of our borders?

Despite the fact that these conspiracy theories are enjoyed by a large chunk of people, the theories are still worthy of ridicule and scorn. Unfortunately, this is very difficult to pull off on social media, because your friends are likely to take it personally. I always try to attack the ideas and not the people, but peeps today are very fragile. My goal is to help people understand so they can behave in such a way to help fight the virus ... together. But that's not how they take it.

Most people are being manipulated by forces intent on dividing our nation and to increase the spread of the virus -- encouraging "not settled science" as their battlecry, and "1st Amendment" / "freedoms" (without realizing that wearing masks is a means to enjoy more freedoms), and "you can't stop this virus -- no one can" (even though so many countries have demonstrably done so), and so much quoting of bad science studies.

I wish you all well, and be smart! Listen to the experts because they've been doing this for years. Ignorance can only kill, and intelligence is the only way to win. My hope is that if you can see the silliness of FET and understand how some people come to believe in it, then you may also be able to see the exact same things in COVID conspiracy theories today.

Coronavirus Newsletter 2020-07-25

Source: CDC

In today's newsletter: Introductions / Personal Update / Excess Death Tool / Conspiracy Entrenchers / Trump Update / Hotspots

Introductions
Over the past couple of months, I've been maintaining a weekly coronavirus newsletter, however I got tired of the Facebook interface and its boring lack of pictures. I decided to move it to my writing blog this past week. But then later decided, it belongs here on my Economics/Politics blog. So, here we are ... a quick cross-post from my writing blog, and this will be the final location of future coronavirus newsletters.

For those of you following this blog -- you can see prior coronavirus newsletters with this Facebook search string I've put together.

Why do I do this? Because I'm concerned. I don't think the general public is sufficiently informed on all matters coronavirus, and I believe that if we all fully understood what was going on, we'd all know how to work together to fight this virus and end it for good.

I'm an actuary (associate), a modeler, a mathematician, a programmer, a logistician, a process improver, and a staunch follower of science. Part of my learning included how to handle medical related data, so even though I'm not an epidemiologist, I feel that I can offer a unique perspective on this outbreak, and explain things in a way that you may understand.

Personal Update
In earlier newsletters, I've mentioned that over the past month and a half I've been experiencing COVID-19 related symptoms off and on -- except no fever, and no loss of taste (though there is sometimes a funny taste). I got tested back in June and received a NEGATIVE result. And I got tested again last week at my doctor's request. After five days, I got back another NEGATIVE result. Both of these tests appear to be the same "emergency" or "quick" test and not the official FDA-approved test, though I'm not sure what the difference is.

I'm still frustrated because I don't know my current situation. I highly suspect I caught the virus in late May or early June, waited too long to get tested and had already fought the virus, and now may be fighting the remains ... randomly stored RNA fragments able to re-trigger symptoms.

Or it could a simple bronchitis infection. Either way, I'm having difficulty getting in to see a doctor, and I'm giving up because it's just not that bad. It's not worth the headache, and I'll revisit if I ever get a fever. Though, I do plan on getting an antibody test shortly.

I'm not happy about having to wait five days for the results this last time, and I hear some people are waiting for weeks for results. This tells me that we've reached our capacity of testing again, and as "actual" cases continue to rise, we won't see them in the official counts, because we can't keep up. And how can we effectively fight what we can't measure?

Excess Death Tool
I'm often asked: why do people care so much about COVID-19 deaths? Why don't people get upset with influenza deaths? Aren't these people dying from secondary conditions and not really from COVID-19? How can we trust the official numbers when hospitals are mis-categorizing unrelated deaths as COVID-19? Or how can we trust hospital counts when they have incentives to pad COVID-19 hospitalization/death counts?

For me, excess death statistics provide the answer to all these questions. Excess deaths = "Total actual deaths from all causes" minus "Total expected average deaths from all causes." What's nice about this metric is that it is very difficult to manipulate. It doesn't matter if a death is categorized as COVID-19 or as a heart-attack, because all deaths are the same. Then you can look at the big picture and ask "did a significant event occur at this time?"

In the graph at the top of this post, I've grabbed a screen shot from the CDC's US excess death tool for the City of New York. The blue bars show weekly total number of deaths from all causes for NYC for 2017 through today. The orange curve is an expected death threshold -- if the blue bars cross the orange line, deaths are noticeably higher than usual and an event is said to have occurred. These are marked with red plus signs above each breach of the threshold.

Note one breach happens the first month of 2018. This was a noticeably bad flu season for NYC -- and possibly some extra deaths due to a blizzard. It looks like a small bump, but it was enough to stress the hospital system.

And then look at 2020. Starting at the end of March, there is a very large breach -- a ridiculously high number of deaths not seen in NYC in decades. Not even the WTC attacks in 2001 had this many excess deaths. And the Swine Flu of 2009 showed practically no excess at all in NYC. (You can see 2001 and 2009 in the graph from this NY Times article.)

So, what can we say about the current COVID-19 pandemic? Is it "real"? Should we be concerned with so many deaths happening at the same time? Would it be good to continue trying to avoid further deaths?

I'll try to embed the tool here, but I'm not sure how successful it'll be on your device. Should it fail, just click on the picture at the very top of this post and it'll take you to the CDC Excess Death page. With this tool, you can select any state and a couple of selected cities, and see what kind of excess deaths have been happening. My home state of Georgia has a pretty sizable excess. My current state of North Carolina -- not so much. Utah -- hardly much at all except for the last couple of weeks. Arizona and Texas -- they were doing well except for the last month or two.

Conspiracy Entrenchers
Yet still, the conspiracies continue even today. I wrote about this a couple of days ago. Usually, I think these conspiracies are cute and easy to ignore, but unfortunately, this time it's leading many people to behave contrary to what needs to happen to eradicate the virus. This time believing the conspiracies is dangerous not only to the believers, but also everyone else ... not just the deaths, but also the destruction of jobs and the weakening of our economy.

More and more, I've witnessed many people, including friends, entrenching themselves in these dangerous beliefs. And over this past week or so, I've noticed an uptick of sincere pleas from these entrenchers, expressing a desire to be able to express their increasingly unpopular beliefs, to exercise their First Amendment rights, and to be respected instead of ridiculed. "Who is to say your science is better than my science?"

After a quick experiment, I was able to determine that these entrenchers' plea for respect seems to go only one way. They want respect for their ideas while maintaining the right to ridicule other people and their seemingly errant thoughts ... absolutely no attempt at all to try and understand opposing points of view.

And they all seem to agree on one thing: "I am never ever going to wear a mask." And so much anger. I'm sure you've seen videos of people attacking mask displays in the store and even other people wearing masks.

And I wonder ... how do people get like this? How can so many people turn against simple science and math, and simple strategies that have already helped several countries to nearly eradicate this virus?

I know a lot of it is Trump's fault and his lack of clear leadership ... sending mixed messages to the public, confusing even the knowledgable, and helping to create a perfect environment for conspiracy theories to thrive.

I also know that foreign actors are using our social media to feed us AI-generated posts scientifically engineered to maximize the division of our nation over this past decade. This is not just my own conspiracy theory, but rather a very well-documented development (of which I'll dedicate a post at a later time).

Also, ultra-conservative and ultra-liberal news sources have both contributed to this entrenchment, and I'm growing increasingly tired of watching all this intentional division.

We, the people, lose. I know a lot of these entrenchers personally, and they're all good people. I don't want to lose friends over this. As always, my goal is to get people to work together to fight this virus.

I've learned the hard way that shaming and pointing out logical errors is not the best way to convince these people to see the light ... rather, it seems to push them further into entrenchment.

When I'm diplomatic, my "contrary" friends and family react positively. They come to learn things from me, and I come to learn things from them (I've even included some of their ideas in these newsletters), and we all come out on the other end feeling more informed on the virus. I've watched several of these friends come to the point of: "Okay -- I'll put on a stupid mask, but I'm not going to like it."

But recently, I feel increasingly that we're running out of time and it's becoming more difficult to be diplomatic ... it feels so slow a process. Still, non-diplomatic solutions don't work -- so we must do our best not to shame others, and we should keep up the mutual respect, while not fearing to remind them to respect our ideas in return.

Trump Update
Which brings me to a very important message to my liberal friends. I know that Trump has been very disappointing in his leadership as per COVID-19. But back in April, he was really trying. After a couple of months of downplaying the epidemic, he helped to encourage lockdowns, and to help us through a most difficult time. But the liberal-leaning actors continued to ridicule Trump.

Right about the time Trump was ridiculed for suggesting using irradiation and injecting detergents to fight the virus, he stopped his daily briefings. He stopped talking to Fauci, and he went right back to downplaying the virus, and pushing for everything to open back up, which in hindsight was a disaster.

However, as of a couple of days ago, Trump has started his briefings again, and has told us we need to do the patriotic thing and put on our masks. Difficult times are coming again.

And please, please, please, please ... I beg of you ... we need to reinforce Trump when he's doing the right thing. We don't want Trump to revert to downplay mode, and if that happens, I'll guarantee you that his base will continue to refuse to wear masks, and deaths will continue to rise.

It's okay to pat Trump on the back and reinforce his good decisions ... then he'll see that he's finally doing a good job, and he'll continue ... and then perhaps his base will be convinced in time so that we can all finally get on the same page and fight this virus together.

If the Democrats can take the higher road, set aside politics, and work with Trump on this, I think we could have a chance at succeeding. If we instead wait four months for a hopeful changing of the guard, it could likely be too late to stop what's coming next.

Hotspots
And finally, to end ... I'd like to report that the New York Times has finally updated their hotspot map coloring scheme to now show the highest rates of new cases per capita, so now it's much easier to see where the bad spots are. And they appear to still be mainly in the South. Louisiana looks pretty bad now, and practically the whole coast of the Gulf. South Carolina is still pretty bad, and North Carolina has medium growth. California, Arizona, Idaho, Washington still look to have some strong hotspots going.

You can click the picture below to see the whole New York Times dashboard.

Thanks for reading ... and stay safe!

Trump -- Midterm Report

A couple of years ago, I made predictions of Trump's first term. Now that it's more than halfway over, how did I do?

Has it been interesting so far? Check.

LGBT concerns: I think Trump is tracking pretty much as predicted. He hasn't gone after gay marriage, but has indeed pushed for religion freedoms for those who disagree. He did make some questionable calls, such as banning trans-people from serving in the military.

Obamacare: Trump and friends failed to repeal and replace this legislation. Evidently the Republicans were unable to agree on a replacement. Though, the mandate penalty (my biggest complaint of the law) is now officially lowered to $0. As an actuary, I wonder what this means long-term, as without a replacement, this could spell disaster. Health costs are still high, and the insurers are still a pain to work with.

Immigration: Trump has indeed kept many of his promises. He's finally started working on his wall. I was a little happy to see an increase in enforcement, but at the same time I'm deeply saddened by some of the policies that he's adopted that are frankly inhumane. Potential asylum seekers are placed in prison-like conditions and are sometimes separated from their children (some of whom are still not reunited). People are dying while reaching out to our country for safety, only to be rejected because of blanket asylum policies aimed specifically at Central American countries. Many who try to come legally through the gate are met with months of runaround until they can no longer wait, and they ultimately decide to cross illegally in desperation. Trump has created a mess, and to fix it he sends troops and construction workers instead of social workers to help handle the load. There has to be a better way to handle this.

H1-B visas: Yes, he's cracking down on these. I fear for my foreign friends whom I may not see anymore.

Muslims: Surprisingly, Trump has laid off big time in this area. He did try one travel ban that included a religious test, which was rightfully contested by the judicial branch. But then Trump removed the religious test, and the revised travel ban was allowed. Though Trump is mostly leaving Muslims alone, he's still indirectly pushing "religious freedoms" when he really means "Christian (and Jewish) freedoms."

Black people: I still hold that he is not racist toward black people. It's just not there. He continues to say stupid things that sound racist, but really aren't. It's so easy to take things out of context. Though, I do think that he really is racist toward Mexicans (see above).

Trump as Hitler: He's nowhere close. There are no concentration camps (the detention centers at the border are not concentration camps). No thought police. Before, I said his ignorance would bring on a disaster, and so far that hasn't happened.

Fake news: I'm still appalled at Trump's continual attempts to discredit news outlets. However, I've come to learn that he is not "silencing" them ... just helping them to look stupid. I've also watched the quality of CNN and other liberal-leaning outlets drop like a rock in response. Now everyone seems to be as bad as Fox News.

Federal Reserve: Yes ... he's trying to tell them what to do, but at least he's not taking any measures to undermine this intentionally-independent organization.

Corporations: I'm very happy about the tax cuts, but am disappointed that it wasn't balanced out by raising capital gains taxes and reduced spending in Congress. Our deficit is growing at a rate faster than it had on average during Obama's 2nd term. Still, the markets are high and there are more jobs.

Foreign concerns: I'm sure Russia loves Trump to death, because everything he's done has helped them to become stronger -- not because of any collusion, but because of his ignorance and his susceptibility of being manipulated by Putin. Even our recent withdrawal in Syria has allowed Russia to strengthen their position.

National unity: Much to my disappointment, Trump has done everything in his power to increase the divide between conservatives and liberals. His tweets, name-calling, attacks on news outlets, and silly distractions have done nothing but galvanized his base and pushed liberals more into the unconstitutional "Resist" movement. We are truly in a sad state, and I see no way out of it. I, personally, would love to see Trump removed from office so we could have someone more sensible like Pence to help bring us back together. All of the Democrats running for office seem to me to be just as bad, and more than ready to push dangerous agendas just to galvanize their own bases. Can we really not have a good moderate president that won't divide us further?

Summary: Trump has accomplished a few things that makes me excited, but has also been a great embarrassment to the conservative cause and to our country overall. I no longer feel like he's going to lead us into a disaster, but I really wish I could trust him. I wish I could see him as being "presidential." I wish he could grow up and actually start leading ALL of us and help us to be proud to be American again.

Goals for 2019

I'll be honest ... I'm not exactly sure what to do in this blog. I had created it as a place for me to talk about economic and political concerns (rather than in my writing or music blogs). I also don't have very big plans over here in the near future as I work on other aspects in my life. Not to mention that my day job basically centers around these concerns every day, and it's not often that I feel like spending more time on this outside of work.

Yet, I still have a lot to say. It just takes a lot of energy to write these posts, and then there's the time afterwards dealing with the reactions, which are usually heated. Thus, when I do post here, it's usually on a topic that I believe deserves attention.

Since I'm still very concerned about the current state of our nation and also because I've rebooted my writing habits, I expect that I will write several posts here this year.

Thus I'll go ahead and make this goal: I will write at least 5 posts here this year.

Topics I'm considering:

• How to combat Russian bots -- there's a simple solution if we're willing to do it.
• A mid-term update on my thoughts about Trump's performance.
• A deep dive analysis on revenue and expenses of the nation -- I'm tired of relying on biased people telling us what's going on.
• Further ideas on how to save our nation from its current highly-charged situation.

I hope we all survive the upcoming year!

Flake's Example Could Save Our Country

Part of me has been excited to watch the Kavanaugh hearings over the past few weeks. It's not every day that politics becomes ... well ... exciting. But at the same time, I've found myself mortified at the whole circus, thanks to actions and attitudes from both sides of the aisle, and on top of that, the irresponsible biased and subjective reporting from practically all media sources.

And then in the midst of it all came a breath of fresh air: Arizona Senator Flake.

While the whole sexual assault allegations played out, both sides of the aisle did despicable things.

Republicans (especially the media) worked hard to discredit Ford and paint her as a liberal liar -- accusing her of taking payment from the Democrats, being coached on how to perform, and how to make demands -- all for the purpose of delaying. Republicans also tried to ignore the allegations (thinking they already had the votes) and refused to request another FBI investigation, which in hindsight could have avoided some of the circus.

Democrats (especially the media -- even a few historically neutrally biased outlets) decided to go ahead and presume Kavanaugh guilty when there was insufficient evidence to support such a verdict. They knew all they had to do was to speak as if Kavanaugh had actually done everything all accusers said, and the liberal base would accept it as fact.

And then the worst part about the whole thing -- we, the civilians. None of us have any influence or power to help decide the outcome of the confirmation process, but yet we just can't keep silent. We must go to Facebook and promulgate memes that represent what we think we believe. Some of us go even further and take action. Some take to peaceful protests, while others follow more intrusive paths. Some even resort to death threats.

Death threats? Really? Where in the Constitution does it say it's okay for us to threaten our selected agents into acting the way we want them to?

Then came the Thursday testimony of Ford. At the very beginning with Grassley's opening statement, it was clear that the senators were going to take every opportunity to grandstand, complain about their opponents, and in general, campaign for their next elections. During the eight or so hours that transpired, very little of the time was devoted to the actual purpose of the hearing -- determining whether or not Kavanaugh assaulted Ford.

Now, the questions asked by Ms. Mitchell were pretty good and professional. I thought it funny that people attacked those questions, as what else was the purpose of the hearing -- to give Ford pats on the back for four hours? Or was it to obtain useful information?

Every now and then a senator would ask a good question. It was Democrat Senator Durbin who helped me to understand why an FBI investigation was needed. He asked Kavanaugh: Do you want to clear your name? Then you should request an FBI investigation.

But I'll admit it. Like most everyone else, I was caught up in the moment. I had chosen my side and had readily internalized the rhetoric I was supposed to believe. The investigations done by the senators and their staff were sufficient, and no FBI investigation was needed.

However, something inside of me kept saying: "Just go ahead and do it. Get it over with, and then we would all have more professional and independent investigation results."

I could also easily see the deep division among all the players. The Republicans in the sub-committee all stuck with the "let's push this thing through as fast as we can" rhetoric, and ultimately all voted for Kavanaugh. All the Democrats stuck with "let's delay this and get an FBI investigation" and ultimately all voted against Kavanaugh.

And you should have heard all the comments I heard at work as I watched a portion of the proceedings in the break room. The US citizen coworkers had a lot to say, and it was all opinionated. Every now and then one would realize the other person was on an opposing side, and whoever felt in the minority at the time would choose to leave the room.

The more foreign coworkers commented more on how silly and worked up we were getting over the whole thing. A couple of them remarked it was more fun to watch us Americans rather than the proceedings on TV.

It's all evidence that we have become a deeply divided nation, dangerously on our way toward a strange type of domestic civil war.

With all of this in mind, I strongly suggest viewing these statements made by Senator Flake a day before the Thursday Ford hearings. He talks about the divide and about what he hoped would be accomplished in the hearing. While listening to his words, it's easy to become saddened to see what we have all become.



And then we all know what happened this past Friday. Flake reached out to the Democrats and made a deal. He would help trigger a one-week long FBI investigation.

I am personally happy with this outcome, as one of two things will happen. #1) The FBI will find something credible and Kavanaugh's nomination will fail. Or #2) The FBI will find nothing, and will help to legitimize Kavanaugh as a valid Supreme Court judge. It would be more fair to all parties involved, and would help to lock in the appropriate plan of action, given more information.

A lot of my conservative friends are calling Flake a traitor, or even a "flake." But the way I see it, he is a hero who represents the attitude we must all strive to maintain. Other than Flake, can you name even one Republican who listens to the Democrats? And can you name even one Democrat who listens to the Republicans? Did a single Republican vote against Kavanaugh, and did a single Democrat vote for him? No -- everyone else voted along party lines -- doing the best to ensure they got to keep their job at their next election.

Flake stands alone as someone willing to reach across the aisle. Note that he's not fully "defecting" to the Democrats. He still leans toward believing the innocence of Kavanaugh. All he's doing is saying it would be prudent to have an FBI hearing just to make doubly sure, and I can't argue that there's anything wrong with it -- especially when it will help to remove doubt.

We, too, can follow Flake's example. Once we realize that we're all being manipulated by carefully crafted memes and biased news articles, we can learn to be more like human beings and think on our own. We can learn to truly listen to our opponents and hear what they have to say. We can come up with compromises, and often even come up with solutions that benefit both parties.

And most importantly -- we can learn to stop hating each other. We can learn how to not de-friend people just because of disagreements. We can learn to work together and solve problems more effectively. We can be human beings that respect each other.

It's happened before, and it can happen again.

How To Handle Anthem Protesters

One thing can be said about the Chinese: they certainly know how to stand up for their anthem. Did you know that in some parts, one can be imprisoned for up to 15 days for refusing to stand? But then again, would you expect anything less from a communist country?

What I love about the United States are the freedoms that we all enjoy. On the most part we are free to do whatever we wish to do, and nobody can force us to do anything against our will. Or at least, that is the standard that we should all strive to achieve.

But wait! What was it a prominent US politician said last week concerning our national anthem?

"The NFL has decided that it will not force players to stand for the playing of our National Anthem. Total disrespect for our great country!"

What kind of country would we be that claims to espouse freedoms, and then compel everyone to stand for the playing of the national anthem? Can you see the irony in such a concept? Shouldn't we be better than communist nations that force an artificial and contradictory nationalism on their people?

I know -- I know. I can't stand the likes of Kaepernick who misuse our beloved symbols in their misguided protests based on fuzzy statistics. But I also cannot be the one to throw a stone and compel them to comply with the rest of us, as what would that make me?

I also ask you to reconsider your positions on this matter. I know that a majority of you are offended by the actions of several football players, but if you truly value our freedoms, can you be that person to throw the stone of compulsion? Is that the type of patriot you really want to be?

It's bad enough that those in high positions in our government are pushing this issue -- urging the NFL to force their players to stand and going so far as to threaten their tax status. Even today, it was said: "Two dozen NFL players continue to kneel during the National Anthem, showing total disrespect to our Flag & Country. No leadership in NFL!"

It's bad enough that the press kindles the fires and keeps this whole thing going for ratings and distracting us from real news.

We don't really need to add to this mess, ourselves. Can we really be that upset about 24 players who won't stand up for the anthem? How could it possibly hurt us? Out of millions of patriotic Americans, this 24 is hardly even a blip. What do we get out of yelling for their coercion? A false sense of patriotic self-righteousness?

Rather, all this getting worked up is unproductive -- especially when there are much bigger issues to worry about.

I have an idea. Let this story die. During the anthem, the cameraman can focus on the other 99.9% of people who are standing. Why should we give Kaepernick any attention? It all went away last year (even when he continued his protests), and it can go away again.

We can get on with life, get back to watching football, and celebrate the fact that we live in the land of the free, and the home of the brave.