Coronavirus Newsletter -- Contact Tracing

General Update / Contact Tracing: Intro / Digital Solutions / Privacy Concerns / Apps in the US

Today, I've decided to concentrate on contact tracing ... see if I can break this down into understandable chunks. It's been a while since we've heard about this on the news, but it's still a vital tool in the fight against epidemics of all kinds.

General Update
Overall, new cases are dropping. Active cases are still trying to go down (a good development). Deaths are still climbing at about the same rate, but should start going down sometime soon.

A lot of new cases seem to be associated with colleges and high schools opening up. For example, even though NC is roughly stable overall, the counties with schools are showing much higher activity.

Iowa, South Dakota, and North Dakota have blown up like crazy.

Everything else is about the same as usual.

Both presidential candidates in the last couple of weeks have presented comments on the coronavirus -- you can probably guess which candidate agrees with me, and which one is clueless. But neither one of them talked about contact tracing, and that concerns me a little.

Contact Tracing: Intro
So, what is it? Contact tracing has been around for centuries. The idea is that in order to stop a disease from spreading, you employ a little detective work to find out where the sickness came from and where it's going. Then you can figure out who to isolate and/or quarantine.

Hundreds of years ago, it was more difficult, but as technologies advanced, people could use tools to aid and speed up the effort, and save more lives. Imagine investigating an outbreak, figuring out the patterns and homing in on Patient Zero (remind you of any movie plots?).

At the beginning of the COVID-19 outbreak in the US, you probably heard some of the contact tracing results in the news, such as how the one nursing home in Washington infected several visitors who then took it to different cities. You may also remember that in these early stages, these people were quickly put into quarantine so that couldn't infect others.

Ultimately there came a time in late February when it became clear to everyone that the virus was loose and everywhere. It seemed that contact tracing stopped, but not really. It mainly happens in the background, but we still hear reports of "clusters" in the news. These are areas where it becomes clear that someone at some place infected many -- such as a nursing home, church, or parties.

And how do we know that these clusters are responsible and not a coincidental convergence of people who had already caught the virus from other places? It's because of the patterns. Whether you use Bayesian inference, Occam's Razor, or whatever you want to call it -- if you can see one group over here that's infected, and this adjacent group of people are not infected, it's very, very likely that the infection happened at the first gathering.

Or put in different words ... recently we've just had high schools open up. All of the kids start off healthy, but then within the first day, John's class has an outbreak of 10 kids, and Susie's class down the hall has none. Wouldn't it make sense to assume that someone in John's class infected the other 9, and that it happened in John's classroom? It would at least be the easiest explanation.

On the other hand, if every classroom showed infections in the first week evenly spread out, it's actually simpler to believe that the spread happened before the kids even came to school.

And guess which of the two patterns are being witnessed. If you answered that it's the chunky here and there outbreak pattern (rather than the everywhere pattern), then ... ding, ding, ding! You get a star.

That's contact tracing.

Contact Tracing: Digital Solutions
We Americans are actually pretty good at contact tracing, and practically anyone can be trained on how to do it. In fact, in response to the current pandemic, hundreds of thousands of people have been hired to do just that. And it really is amazing how we can find these patterns effectively.

But there's just one problem ... it's too slow. Very slow. By the time we figure out a cluster, it's too late. The virus has already spread and is likely starting the next set of clusters. Especially with asymptomatic spread, it becomes very difficult to beat and get in front of this virus. And that's why we currently have millions of people with active infections.

However, we have the technology to speed things up dramatically. In fact we could have already been done with the virus, and back to our normal fully open economy.

China and South Korea are extreme examples of countries who have used advanced technology to efficiently combat the virus.

Parts of China use a mandatory tracing app in conjunction with high-tech surveillance and Artificial Intelligence (face recognition) ... just like you may have seen in the TV Show "Person of Interest." When an infection is identified, the system goes through history of phone locations and video surveillance history to home-in on people most likely to be infected, and sends their phones a signal to trigger a red/yellow/green indication.

Green means "perfectly okay and able to do anything they want." Yellow means "intermediate risk of infection, and is restricted from certain activities." And red means "infection imminent, must stay in quarantine." And the result: they've gotten active cases down to practically zero, and new cases at a slow very manageable trickle.



South Korea has likewise incorporated their own surveillance and mobile phone system to battle COVID -- very similar to China, though not quite as invasive. They've done an excellent job keeping the virus at bay, all while avoiding a total lockdown (though they have shut down individual businesses when infected as well as hotspots like bars in some locations).

But get this -- after their initial first wave and after they began instituting their system, South Korea has had two further noticeable outbreaks, and they both involved a collection of people who had circumvented the contact tracing setup, allowing the virus to spread. The first outbreak (a little one) involved LGBT concerns, starting with gay bars, which then inspired infected people not to cooperate, being unwilling to out their LGBT friends. It took about a month or so to bring cases back down. The second outbreak (much bigger) involved a big church in Seoul, caused by a desire to stop safety precautions and let people have the freedom to do whatever they want (sound familiar?). I'll write about this in more detail next week. It'll likely take at least another month if not two to bring these cases back down again, but I have faith ... as Korea is demonstrating that the technology-aided contact tracing works ...

... as long as the people cooperate.

Contact Tracing: Privacy Concerns
Up to now, if you're a red-blooded American like me, you're probably saying, "This would never work in the USA," and you're probably right. In fact, at the end of that video on China I shared above, it talks about how part of the code is sending location and timing information to the police, though not being disclosed to the participants.

So, yes, it's scary. I think this is why both the Republicans and Democrats shy away from this type of technology. There's no way we could institute anything that would violate our privacy and jeopardize our rights and freedoms.

If only there were a non-invasive technology solution -- some kind of compromise. But wait ... there is!

Google and Apple have worked together to produce such technology -- the backbone of an app -- and it's already installed on all Google/Apple phones with Bluetooth that has upgraded in the last couple of months. (Don't worry -- it's useless without an app to activate it.)

Before you get scared off, you need to understand how it works. And you'll have to believe me when I say that in terms of privacy, this technology is much more secure and privacy-protecting than practically every single app you're already using on your phone.

I found this cute graphic that explains the idea in simple terms ...

Just in case this picture expires, I'll repeat it here in my own words. Each phone creates its own random string, and nobody knows who this string belongs to -- not even the central database.

As you walk around, your phone's Bluetooth will talk to other phones and swap random strings, and stores the information for 14 days. So after a couple of weeks, your phone has a collection of everything your phone has broadcasted, and a collection of random strings received from other phone, and also possibly how close you were and how long the encounter was.

If you catch COVID-19, your phone sends the 14 days worth of "sent" strings to the central database. Keep in mind that nobody knows who sent which messages, and absolutely nothing can be traced to anybody. But how do the other people find out that you got COVID-19?

Simple ... their phones will check the central database -- if any of their "received" messages matches what's in the database, they will get a message: "You have been exposed to the virus for 10 minutes -- you should get tested" -- or perhaps some other message: "You need to self-quarantine for five days."

But in no case can the sent or received messages be hacked to reveal its sender ... it's mathematically impossible. This is similar to the double lock and key encryption methods used to secure communications daily. That works like this: Sender A puts a lock on his message and sends it to Receiver B. Then Receiver B puts a lock on the message and sends it back to Sender A. Now there are two locks on the message. Then Sender A can unlock his own lock, send it back to Receiver B. And finally Receiver B can unlock his own lock and read the message. No one else can intercept this message because either Sender A's lock or Receiver B's lock will be on the message.

Of course, there exist higher-level hacks or indirect hacks that can take advantage of any secure setup. For example, Criminal C in the message scenario above can pretend to be Receiver B and use his own key to get the message instead of Receiver B. This happened to me once when I went to a bad Yahoo News page and typed in my credentials to join a discussion -- my email account had been hacked.

And there are ways to trick a COVID app -- such as broadcasting a false positive report just to be malicious (though we could lock that down by requiring a doctor's key to send a positive report). Also, human contact tracers might be able to find out where you've been if a whole bunch of other people from that same place test positive at the same time -- not through the app, but through good old fashioned detective work.

Despite these high-level hacks, people still can't get any of your personal information -- it is safe in that respect. Compare that to the apps you love to use today, but then you get bombarded by ads about those items you Googled yesterday. Now, those are apps that know who you are.

Here is an official announcement from Google/Apple explaining in their own words how their Exposure Notifications System works (repeating a lot of what was said above):



Lastly, I must point out that no COVID app can run effectively without the backing of the government. Everyone has to use it. If everyone is using different apps, it just wouldn't work, as App A can't see App B. Several countries in Europe either use the Google/Apple technology or something similar to it, and countries using the same technology may be compatible with other countries. See this article for more details:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-europe-tech/europe-pins-hopes-on-smarter-coronavirus-contact-tracing-apps-idUSKBN23B1OA

Contact Tracing: Apps in the US
In the US, alas, there is no national tracing app, so that framework sitting on your phone right now is doing absolutely nothing -- just sitting there. Each individual state is handling contact tracing in different ways. Starting in August 2020, some states have started using the Google/Apple technology. Virginia was the first with Covidwise. And then North Dakota moved from their privacy invasive solution (Care19 Diary) to the Google solution (Care19 Alert). And supposedly, 20 states are in the works to launch their own versions soon.

Other states are using home-grown apps, which are usually on the invasive side, storing location information (and in the case of North Dakota actually selling the information to 3rd parties), and they really aren't that good. Some involve filling out questionnaires, but no real tracking.

And some apps actually mimic Google/Apple.

Here's another article on states using the Google/Apple solution ... I strongly recommend reading it and watching its embedded video to get more information.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/08/17/coronavirus-exposure-notification-app/

In my opinion, the Google/Apple based apps are the safest to use in terms of privacy. Some of the other apps (not Google/Apple) being used throughout the states may have other invasive features added, such as sending GPS location or phone numbers. If at all possible -- you want to stay away from those apps because they really are invading your privacy when a much safer alternative exists.

Here's a quick list of public apps I could find in the US:

• Alabama: GuideSafe (Google/Apple)
• Alaska: COVID Secure (sounds invasive -- you can receive notifications of positive test results from friends and employees, and location collection unknown -- claims information is "safe" on their servers -- sounds mandatory in some cases)
• Arizona: Covid Watch (Google/Apple) -- limited locations -- only college campuses?
• Florida: CombatCOVID -- sounds similar to Google/Apple, and they claim not to use or collect location information, but I'm having a hard time finding out for sure. And right now it's only being used in the southern counties.
• Nevada: COVID Trace (Google/Apple)
• North Dakota: Care19 Alert (Google/Apple) and optional Care19 Diary (location -- don't use it)
• Pennsylvania: Coming Soon (Google/Apple)
• South Carolina: Coming Soon (Google/Apple)
• South Dakota: Care19 Diary App (location -- don't use it)
• Utah: Healthy Together (location -- don't use it -- hardly anyone uses it)
• Virginia: Covidwise (Google/Apple)
• Wyoming: Care19 Alert (Google/Apple) and optional Care19 Diary (location -- don't use it)

I actually spent quite an amount of time trying to expand this list, but realized it was taking up too much time. If your state provides a state-wide app, please let me know and I'll add it to the list. I've found that most states don't have anything. As for NC and GA (two of my favorite states), nothing appears to exist outside of college campuses.

This alternative app also looks interesting, but I'm not sure where it's being used other than college campuses: NOVID. Instead of using Bluetooth, it uses the microphone to pick up high-frequency signals from other phones using the same app.

Will these apps work? This is still up in the air, though Europe seems to be doing well with them (until a country stops using them). We'll see if they continue to catch on.

So, keep an eye out ... if you see an app in your location that protects your information as I described above, then go ahead and turn it on, and help us defeat the virus. It would really help us to more fully open up our economy without giving much up in return -- it seems to me to be a no-brainer.

If you have any questions, or would like for me to explain any aspect of these apps, just let me know.

Keep well, and stay safe!

Coronavirus Newsletter -- Herd Immunity

General Update / Herd Immunity: What Is It? / Achieving It / 20% Theory / An Alternative / What Comes Next?

The good news is that new cases are down, deaths are slightly down, and with recoveries increasing, active cases may be going down soon. It's enough to tempt some to think this thing is finally ending, but not so fast ... there's actually much more opportunity for this virus to spread -- as you'll learn about shortly.

Today we'll be talking about herd immunity -- what is it? How close are we? How, if ever, will this pandemic end? But first ...

General Update
The hotspot map for the US is lightening up overall, though a few places are still showing high activity: east Georgia, west Tennessee, northern Florida, east Texas, northern Mississippi, eastern Oklahoma, splotches all up and down the mid-west, highway corridors of Idaho and Washington, and central California.

Louisiana is looking much better, and maybe Alabama as well.

I'm sad to report that South Korea has had a resurgence, mainly due to a large non-compliant church in Seoul -- I may talk about this next week -- I'm still thinking about what next week's topic will be. I have full confidence that Korea will get on top of this and get back to being awesome.

Spain is having a major resurgence, which may be similar to our mini-second wave. Japan has had a second wave that makes the first wave look like little stuffs ... and deaths have already started picking up.

Brazil at its current rate is likely to surpass the US in total death counts in the next month or so, and then Mexico and India may be next to surpass the US.

But enough of this diddling ... let's get on to herd immunity.

Herd Immunity: What Is It?
This term -- herd immunity -- has been floating around the news for months now. Most of the time, it seems that people don't really understand what it is or what it means.

In a nutshell, herd immunity is supposed to describe a situation in which so many people become immune that the virus has a harder time finding people to infect and starts to die out.

More technically, herd immunity is when the current reproductive number falls below 1.0 under normal circumstances (no lockdowns, no restrictions, economy fully open, etc.). Or another words, active cases start dropping on their own.

Check this picture out from worldometers.com, as it will help to understand the terminology.

This shows currently active cases for the United States. You can see our first wave from March to May, and then as recoveries started kicking in and new cases dropped, active cases went down for a few days. I remember being excited about it, but then the second wave started. Now near the end of August, it looks like we're at another turning point. Maybe it'll start going down this next week. Eventually, we could get it all the way back down to zero.

The end of June, and the end of August (I hope) are what I'll call moments of artificial herd immunity. What this means is, we, as a society took artificial measures to slow down the spread of the virus. The first immunity in June came from nearly-nationwide lockdowns through mid-May, which successfully brought down daily new cases to lower levels. The second immunity that might come next week is likely a combination of continual self-distancing, warmer weather, and wearing masks more consistently.

But this isn't a "true" herd immunity, as that can only be measured when there are no artificial measures being taken ... that is, no masks, no distancing, etc. In other words, if we were to do away with our current artificial measures, cases would likely continue increasing until we hit "true" herd immunity.

And even then, it's nearly impossible to pin down "true" herd immunity because of a wide variety of factors. You may have heard that we need at least 60% infected to achieve this immunity, but in some areas where population density is lower, it could happen at 40%. In more dense areas like New York City, it would probably happen more like at 80%.

Weather can also play a role. There appears to be evidence that hot weather does indeed slow down the virus, so herd immunity can happen sooner. But as soon as cold weather hits, a higher threshold might be needed.

So, pinning down the exact immunity percentage needed for herd immunity can rely on an ever-changing set of complex variables.

BTW, You're probably wondering how experts estimate the herd immunity percentage. Well, have no fear, I'm about to reveal all.

It all comes from the SIR model. To understand this model, I've found no better video than this one I've shared before on my Facebook page:




In this video, herd immunity is represented in the "do nothing" scenario when the orange Infectious curve starts to go down. The initial Reproductive number, usually called R0 (R-naught), represents the speed of infection at the very beginning of an epidemic. Some people think of this as an average number of people one person may infect over a certain amount of time. As the disease increases, the Reproductive number will drop as more and more people become immune. This is usually called Rt (R at time 't'). And herd immunity happens when Rt falls under 1.0. You can think about it in this way ... if Rt = 0.9, then one person is infecting less than one person -- in other words, the virus is going to die out -- if I infect 0.9 people, they're going to infect 0.81 people, who will then infect 0.729 people, and so on until it dies out.

And after running all these SIR models, and even comparing with actual epidemics, epidemiologists have come up with a nice formula. If you can measure R0 at the very beginning, then the needed herd immunity threshold happens at 1 - (1/R0).

Example: Measles has an estimated R0 of 12-18, which provides an estimate of herd immunity at 92% - 94%.

For COVID-19, R0 is estimated to be from 2-6, which translates to herd immunity at 50% - 83%.

The Spanish Flu was estimated to be from 1.4 - 2.8, with herd immunity from 29% - 64%.

You can get all the boring details of R0 and the herd immunity formula in this wiki article.

Before moving on, I need to clear up one more misconception. Some people seem to think that when we get to herd immunity, people will stop getting sick, but that's clearly not the case. In my 0.9 example above, the 0.9 people I infected in turn infected more and more people until a total of 10 are infected before it dies out.

Or think of it this way -- if I haven't yet gotten the virus, and we've hit herd immunity, and if I lock myself in a room with an infected person, do I somehow become magically protected? I hope you answer no and realize that people will continue to die even when we hit herd immunity.

Herd Immunity: Achieving It
So how do we get there?

The easiest way is to just do nothing ... open everything up, and let the virus run its course. This is indeed an option -- in fact, many have suggested it. The UK tried this approach from the beginning before resorting to lockdowns, and as a result has one of the highest deaths per million in the world. Sweden also kind-of tried a version of herd immunity, which also led to similarly high deaths per capita.

The idea is that if it happens quickly (but yet slow enough to where our hospitals can handle the demand), then we can get it over with and then watch the virus die out in the end.

Another variant is to introduce vaccines -- to help people become immune. Say we need 70% for herd immunity. If 20% have already caught the virus and 50% get effectively immunized, then that would bring us up to 70% -- it doesn't matter how people become immune -- it just needs to get up to the threshold.

We've already tried artificial means to obtain a lower artificial herd immunity, but if the artificial means are relaxed too early, then the virus begins spreading like before. These artificial means include lockdowns, wearing masks, washing hands more than usual, quarantining the sick and exposed (which requires effective contact tracing and testing).

Herd Immunity: 20% Theory
Before on my Facebook page, I shared a popular theory that's been going around ... that herd immunity for COVID-19 may be closer to 20%. Here's a good summary of that idea:

https://theconversation.com/coronavirus-could-it-be-burning-out-after-20-of-a-population-is-infected-141584?fbclid=IwAR39_cLMtgb0rr4VOUpy_0tzJWPPkpeO0za_bS5h7qYnQ21h0cFJi3ym6bc

In several instances throughout the world, it's been observed that, according to antibody studies, only 20% of the people got infected, and then the virus disappeared. This has apparently happened in New York, Stockholm, London, and even on the Diamond Princess.

And look at Sweden right now ... they've probably hit about 20% exposure, and for some reason, it has suddenly died out. Could there be truth in this theory?

The idea is that most of us already have T-cell immunity from exposure to the earlier much-less dangerous coronavirus that causes a version of the common cold. That is, many of us probably already have T-cells that recognize the protein surfaces of this new coronavirus, because they are similar to most other coronaviruses.

I do think T-cells will ultimately prove to be key in helping to create a type of vaccine or protection once we figure it out, but after thinking about this more, I think the 20% theory is wrong, and here's why ...

• I think we're seeing examples of artificial herd immunity. 
• In Sweden, many people are self-distancing, which is artificially lowering the threshold. Also, lower population density is probably going to require a lower true threshold.
• In some areas, antibody tests have revealed much higher exposures.
• Some sections of NYC have shown exposures as high as 80%-90%. Perhaps higher density destroys the 20% theory? Or these sections of NYC were somehow unexposed to earlier coronaviruses?
• I believe heat in some areas is contributing to a temporarily low immunity threshold.
• And ... if T-Cells really are providing complete immunity (that is -- they don't even test positive for this virus or related antibodies), then it would have shown up in early calculations of R0. 20% herd immunity corresponds to an R0 = 1.25.
• Then again, this virus is exhibiting a super-spreader pattern rather than a smooth spread pattern, which could by itself change the rules and make the SIR model less applicable.
• And finally ... don't look now, but Sweden and a lot of other countries are starting to see resurgences. In a couple of months, I think we'll see that 20% is wrong.

Herd Immunity: An Alternative
I actually hate the idea of obtaining herd immunity, because I think the cost would be too high. The mortality rate for this virus is estimated to be in the 0.5%-1.0% range. If the entire population of the US were to catch this virus, that would be 330 million cases, which would then result in 1.65-3.30 million cases. If herd immunity causes only 270 million to be exposed before disappearing entirely, that would still be 1.35-2.70 million deaths. And right now we're just at 0.18 million deaths.

Also, if we let this get to herd immunity, it greatly increases the chances of it never ever going away. Just like the Spanish Flu, which has since mutated into other H1N1 strains, though we are much more capable of treating its symptoms and have really cut down on deaths.

The only other real alternative is eradication, which is basically obtaining a really low artificially herd immunity through artificial means for an extended amount of time until the virus dies out.

Other countries have shown that this is more than possible. China has practically eradicated several outbreaks. The US eradicated Ebola on our soil around 2014. With COVID-19, several countries had eradicated it, or gotten close: New Zealand, South Korea, Japan, China. Some of these countries have achieved this even without locking down. Though, it's also been shown to be difficult to maintain when other countries are doing a terrible job eradicating and reinfecting them.

Wearing masks, social distancing, effective contact tracing, taking on personal responsibility, and so on, have proven to be effective -- not only in fighting COVID-19, but also other recent outbreaks. If you watched that cool video above, then you've probably already seen that the "quarantine sick and exposed" scenario was the most effective way to fight the virus.

To me, it seems like the much preferred option. I think we could achieve it even now with smart strategies and safety precautions that would relatively quickly kill off the virus -- even before a vaccine is created.

What Comes Next?
So what do we do next? It's entirely up to us. If the entire world were to incorporate smart strategies at the same time, this virus would be gone in a matter of weeks -- not months. And then we could go right back to normal.

The only other option is to let the virus win and take us to full herd immunity -- and that only comes at a high price.

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.