Okay, you guys. I'm tired. You're tired. We're all tired of COVID-19. And my power got knocked out by Zeta, so today's newsletter is going to be a ... recap!
First, the latest updates ...
General Update
I gotta give you some good news. Evidently, this fall/winter's flu season is off to a late start, largely because of our fight against COVID-19. We usually begin flu season by receiving it from the southern hemisphere who have just now ended their season, but not so many people are traveling here. And social distancing measures, and possibly even mask wearing, has caused the flu virus to take a big hit. So ... a pleasant surprise. It could help to offset some of the COVID deaths that are about to hit the next few months ... we'll have to see. I'll let you research this one on your own, but to get you started, here's just one of many reports on this.
And what does the NY Times dashboard tell us this week?
New case counts per capita over the past week:
The five worst states are: North Dakota, South Dakota, Wisconsin, Montana, Wyoming.
North Dakota and South Dakota also have the highest Total Cases per capita in the nation ... yes ... even more than New York and New Jersey.
The five best states are: Vermont, Maine, Hawaii, New Hampshire, New York .
My state of NC has counts still rising ... breaking records in the 7-day averages. And my county of Forsyth ... rising again after having started to come down a little after the Trump bump last month.
Death counts per capita over the past week:
The US remains in 8th place and Peru remains in 1st place, with 2nd place Belgium coming up fast.
The five worst states are: North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Wisconsin, Arkansas.
The five best states are: Vermont (none), Maine (none), New York, Oregon, California.
The Recaps
Okay ... over the past couple of months, I've been providing weekly coronavirus newsletters, striving to bring together data and trying to explain things in a way that most anyone can understand. If you want to learn ... it's all knowledge that's available from all over the web. I've attempted to compile much of this information, and have even provided my own analyses. So, check out the topics below, and pick your poison. What would you like to learn more about?
Or, you could read these in order ... I tried to order them in levels of importance.
Here we go:
The Simplicity: What is the goal of epidemiology, and what simple things can *we* do today to help lower the number of active cases?
The Anti-Hype: What is the source of so much misinformation and contention? Learn about nefarious forces that are working to weaken our nation and maximize death. What is the best way to determine what information is good, and what is bad?
Voting: Is it safe to vote in person? (It's safer than you may think.) What are other alternatives to ensure your vote is counted? I placed this one high in importance just because our election is only a few days away.
Contact Tracing: What is it? How does it work? What can I do to help fight the virus?
Masks: Are they effective? How other other countries faring? Are masks against our freedoms?
Lockdowns: Do they work? Can we avoid them? Or in other words, is it possible to open everything up and protect our vulnerable at the same time?
Herd Immunity: What does this mean? Can we obtain it? And how much would it cost?
Building Immunity: What can we do to build our immunity, just in case we unfortunately catch this virus?
Trump's Report Card: How is Trump doing in the handling of this epidemic? Note: I was very tempted to add more recent events to this today, but decided against it. The results of his efforts speak for themselves.
Churches: What can we do to protect churches from spreading the virus like wildfire?
Schools: What can we do to open up schools and protect our children -- and more importantly the older staff, parents, and grandparents?
Miracle Cures: There are so many "cures" out there for those who have caught the virus. Which are effective, and which are more akin to snake oil? Written three months ago, it's already a little outdated!
And finally, about all this "tired" talk that I keep hearing about... Here's a video to remind us that some people will not be tired. They will continue doing their jobs ... people on the frontlines in the hospitals and in the funeral homes. I will also not be tired, but will continue doing my best to help us work together to end this. Giving up is the worst thing we could do at this moment. So, I'll be back next week.
General Update / Why Masks? / Masks in the World / Masks in the States / The Future
Today I'm going to talk about masks. So many times you've heard me say, "Put on the masks," but I haven't really explained why -- until now. If you'd like to learn the facts, keep on reading.
But first ...
General Update
The numbers keep rising. As the third wave begins, new case counts (on average) will shortly match the peak of mid July. Active cases are now already higher than they've ever been. Death rates are starting to rise again this week after being largely level for a few weeks.
New case counts per capita over the past week:
The five worst states are: North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Wisconsin, Idaho (knocking Nebraska to 6th place)
The five best states are: Vermont, Maine, Hawaii, New Hampshire, Oregon (knocking New York to 6th place)
North Carolina is thinking about going back down again ... come on, my state -- you can do it!
Death counts per capita over the past week:
The US is still in 8th place in the world. Peru is #1.
The five worst states are: North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Arkansas, Kansas (knocking Missouri to 6th place)
The five best states are: Vermont, Maine, Alaska, New York, New Hampshire (knocking Connecticut to 11th place, Oregon to 10th place, and New Jersey to 8th place)
Why Masks?
So why do so many people say we need to wear masks? And why do so many people say no? Are masks really that effective? How do they work? Are they affronts to our Constitutional rights? Let's take a closer look.
But keep in mind the main goal of epidemiology: to keep R(t) < 1.0, or in other words, create an environment where active cases are always decreasing. We don't have to be perfect in fighting the virus, but if we can get R(t) = 0.999 or lower, then the virus will die on its own ... simple math.
Now, let's go way back. I think the first time I remember seeing masks was during the 2003 SARS outbreak. I saw pictures from Asia, which showed all these people wearing masks.
And I'll be honest ... I didn't understand why they were wearing masks, and I thought back then, "Better them than us." I was glad it wasn't here in the states. It eventually infected over 8,000 people and killed 774 (almost a 10% mortality rate -- but perhaps that case count is an undercount).
And again in early 2020, this new SARS outbreak, what we call COVID-19, started again in Asia, and they put on masks. It started in the Wuhan area and quickly spread to the rest of the world. Some think that the masks worn across Asia helped them to contain it quickly. If it worked in 2003, perhaps it would work in 2020, and most Eastern Asian countries have had very low COVID-19 deaths per capita.
In contrast, Sweden, which has less than 1% mask coverage -- possibly the worst in the world -- is currently in 14th place in the world for deaths per capita.
Was it really the masks? Let's keep going.
The idea is that masks filter out the virus and allow us to breathe in virus-free air. We believe that the virus transmits primarily through "droplets" that we breathe out, and possibly through smaller "aerosols." The virus can't live very long outside of these shields of moisture. Droplets are heavy and tend to drop to the ground pretty quickly -- which is where the 6-feet separation rule comes in. Aerosols are much smaller and can linger in the air for much longer -- up to 30 minutes or more. If they are a major vehicle for virus transmission, then one can catch the virus more than 6 feet away ... and even from people who have already left the room. And aerosols are small enough to go directly into our lungs where the virus can do the most immediate damage.
To understand droplets and aerosols (microdroplets), I recommend this very information video.
The greatest takeaways from this video are:
Aerosols can be a big issue if they do indeed transmit COVID-19 (and evidence seems to support that this does seem to exist in super spreader events).
Plexiglass dividers may stop droplets effectively, but aerosols would have no problem floating around them.
The biggest defense against aerosols is airflow. This implies that outside is better than inside, and the most dangerous environments would be closed rooms with no airflow.
What does this mean for masks? We know they're really good at catching droplets, but maybe not so much aerosols -- some may seep out. Here's a fun video showing more "shadowgraph" shots of people with and without masks.
If it hasn't become clear yet, you've probably picked up from that video that masks work best in holding in the virus -- more so than it does in keeping the virus out. However, in a recent outbreak of the virus in and around the White House, Senator Thom Tillis (one of the few Republicans who regularly wears masks) appears to have caught the virus even though he wore a mask to the suspect Supreme Court Nomination party. The mask didn't stop the virus, but he most likely caught it from someone not wearing a mask (my money is on Senator Lee being the main culprit). Also, masks quickly lose their effectiveness if you're going around hugging people and getting close. I hope you saw in the video that some airflow does seem to get through the mask, but doesn't travel very far.
I won't get into the different kinds of masks ... I'll let you research that on your own. But it turns out that the mask doesn't have to be perfect to get R(t) < 1.0. If you infect just one person instead of ten, then the mask is worth it. And get this ... with universal mask coverage (when almost everyone wears a mask), the effectiveness is more than doubled because the virus has to get through two filters and not just one. Check out this video discussing the math behind this idea ...
In other words ... many people wearing imperfect masks really can lead to the eventual disappearance in the virus. In fact, I think we witnessed a taste of that when mask usage in the US increased in July and new cases started coming down (toward the end of the 2nd wave).
By now, I hope you see the potential use of masks. If everyone were to wear masks ... say 85% coverage, then it really could allow us to more fully open up our economy. Maybe a few of us would still catch the virus, but with R(t) < 1.0, the virus would quickly go away, and then we'd be able to shortly take off the masks and go back to normal.
But as you're about to see, masks aren't the only factor.
Masks in the World
I'll start by pointing out some outliers. On the most part, wearing masks seems to stop the virus, and not wearing masks allows it to spread, but not in these two countries ...
Peru instituted a universal mask mandate in place early on ... wear the mask or be thrown into prison. By mid-April, they had over 80% mask coverage.
BTW, I'm getting these mask coverage estimates from the IHME COVID-19 website. It was the only place where I could find these figures for each country in the world (and every US state), but I have no idea as to their accuracy. They do seem reasonable when compared to reports I've heard from around the world. At the website, scroll down to the "Mask use" chart for each country to see % coverage throughout the year.
So, Peru had nearly perfect mask coverage, but they also have the highest deaths per capita in the world.
And on the flip side, look at New Zealand, where mask coverage never went above 17%. Yet, they've had one of the lowest deaths per capita in the world.
Does this blow up the mask theory? Not necessarily. Peru had a lot of spread due to poor sanitation issues. The people were wearing masks, but many of the poor weren't washing them, and being in close quarters made the masks practically useless.
And New Zealand? They instituted a very strict lockdown protocol ... even stricter than in the US. It brought down the virus counts quickly, but at a very steep cost. Their economy took a big hit. Perhaps if they had used universal mask wearing, they could have opened up their economy much sooner (or even avoided a lockdown all together), and keep COVID-19 counts down.
So, I thought I'd try some fun and look at some selected countries. I took the top 10 countries in case counts and added some countries I have been following over the past few months. BTW, I like to get my data from worldometers. It provides awesome data at granular levels, and I think that the numbers are actually more accurate than the numbers John Hopkins reports.
For each of these countries, I estimated the most recent 2-week R(t). And I compared the results with current mask usage as per the IHME website. And I put the numbers into Excel and added pretty colors. Let me show you the results:
Green means good in these graphs, and Red means bad. Currently, you can see that 7 of these selected countries have R(t) < 1.0, which means active cases are going down, and those countries are becoming safer. And all of those countries have 65% or more mask coverage.
And looking toward the bottom of the graph, the mask colors tend toward the orange side. Of course, you'll notice some outliers. I already mentioned Peru had been doing very poorly, but they've finally turned it around. I'm surprised to see China's mask coverage so low at 59%, but this could be because they've had very few cases these past few months. They are only recently having a small resurgence in cases. Sweden is starting their next wave, and projections are for a very bad winter for them. Spain, who has the highest mask coverage, only recently got it up to 90% in the last month and a half, and their COVID numbers started to go back down, but in the last week have started coming back up.
I have no idea why Italy's doing so poorly. They've clearly been doing something wrong these past two weeks after having done so well. They've also been slowly ramping up mask coverage over the past month.
Masks in the States
And what about in the states? Since the data existed, I decided to look at all 50 states. Sometimes the results can be screwy -- especially in the low population states, but I went ahead and did it to see if I could find similar patterns. Our states are kind of like tiny little countries, each with their own governors.
So, first I sorted my data by best R(t), and this is what it looks like ...
For the four states with R(t) < 1.0, the mask coverage is at least 61%. I'm surprised that Georgia is doing so well, but maybe that's good news that we only need 60+% coverage. There might be something else going on, though. They had been pretty high in the recent past.
But overall, I see more green and yellow than I do orange in the "Masks" column. It is interesting that the highest mask wearing states in this collection are experiencing R(t) > 1.0. A reminder that mask wearing is just one factor in the big equation ... if we're not doing contact tracing and adequate tracing and quarantining, or if we're allowing many indoor events or close contact, it could help lessen the effectiveness of masks.
Plus ... keep in mind that I only grabbed a snapshot in time, which may not provide a full accurate picture. For example, Vermont, not on this exhibit, has 76% mask coverage, but is currently experiencing a small outbreak, bringing their R(t) to 1.5. If the masks are effective, we'll see this quickly come back down, much like what we've seen a couple of times in South Korea.
But look at this ... I decided to sort the data with worst mask wearing on top, and check it out!
The only three states to have mask coverage under 50% are all doing terribly. Also, in this exhibit, I see more red and yellow cells for two-week R(t), than I do green cells.
Georgia is the first state to appear with R(t) < 1.0, and we already talked about them.
The Future
What comes next is up to us. We struggle because we value this thing called freedom. You can't tell me what to wear on my face. Even though I understand this, I'll be honest ... it rubs me the wrong way. If I see a cheap method to save lives, I'm going to implement it, because I care about my country and I want it to succeed.
This cartoon captures the sentiment I have toward those who choose not to wear masks ...
But you know what? I think eventually, the vast majority of us are going to choose to wear masks very soon. We're almost at 70% coverage today, and it's slowly inching upward.
What's going to happen is that as deaths ramp up in combination with flu deaths starting in December and lasting through February, I think we're finally going to drop this strange Anti attitude, and we're finally going to band together and do what it takes to kill off this virus for good. How do I know this? Because I've already seen it happen.
In my state of North Carolina, a healthy 19-yr-old student died of COVID-19 complications and almost immediately, students started wearing masks. In Spain, the latest increase of mask wearing has been in response to a scary second wave.
Of course, we would all be better off if we were to comply now and save a lot of lives this winter. But we'll probably wait until we're compelled to wear a mask, and then it may already be too late. How better it would be to do it now rather than to be compelled later.
Conclusions: it appears that masks do have a level of effectiveness. They're not perfect, but again they don't have to be. Most states and countries that are succeeding have higher mask coverage. However, it appears mask wearing doesn't work alone. It seems other mitigation factors are still needed to work with mask wearing to get R(t) < 1.0, such as better contact tracing, testing, or better mitigation techniques such as holding events outside or increasing air flow inside of buildings to scatter and/or destroy aerosols.
I hope you stuck with me through this exposition ... I tried to make it fun and informative. It's not too late to work together to get R(t) < 1.0 ... to do our part to help out our country and open it up more safely. Perhaps you learned something, or at least I've given you something to think about. If you liked what you read, feel free to share with your friends. There's a whole library of truth waiting for anyone who really wants to learn it. They just have to do a little research and find it. And that knowledge will wait for those who become ready for it.
General Update / Lockdowns / Sweden and South Korea / The Future
Today I'm going to talk about lockdowns. I hate them, and I hope we can avoid them going ahead. But how? I can tell you exactly what we must do to avoid the upcoming Christmas Lockdown, and it's not too late.
But first ... going on now:
General Update
It's not looking good for the US. The third wave is officially underway. We still have time to stop it, but I doubt it's going to happen. This newsletter is one last-ditch effort to get people to listen. Take a look at these stats.
The lowest point of recovery at the end of the second wave (mid-September) was slightly higher than the peak of the first wave -- and this is the point from which the third wave begins. Really sad.
The five worst states right now are: North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Wisconsin, and Nebraska.
The five best states right now seem to be: Vermont, Maine, New Hampshire, Hawaii, New York.
My state of North Carolina is almost back up to where it peaked in mid-July. I'm not sure how much of this is due to the Trump rally last month, but I'm certain it's the main reason for the influx in Forsyth and surrounding counties.
Looking at deaths per capita:
The US is now 8th in the world (not counting San Marino and Andorra, whose populations are too small for comparison).
The world average total deaths per million is 142.2, and in the US, we only have five states below the world average: Alaska, Vermont, Wyoming, Maine, Hawaii.
The Five worst states for current death rates: North Dakota, Arkansas, Missouri, South Dakota, Kansas.
The Five best states for current death rates: Maine, Connecticut, New York, Oregon, New Jersey.
For a really cool breakdown of our current third wave, check out this impressive overview from the NY Times. It contains a graphic that shows the cases per capita throughout the US from March 15 to October 13. It's such a cool graphic, I wish I could embed it here. While watching, you should repeat to yourselves, "The virus is disappearing." If you want to get a taste of reality and an idea of what's going on now in this nation, you should take a look at that link. (Or you can ignore it and find out what comes next the hard way.)
Lockdowns
Coming back to the discussion at hand, I'll first remind you what the main goal of epidemiology is: to get R(t) < 1.0, or in other words, bring down active cases in order to eradicate the virus. (If you don't know what this means, I strongly suggest reading my explanation at the link.) Anything working against this is what I call the Anti Hype.
One could, of course, always institute a lockdown -- that always drastically drops R(t), but in many ways it's like using a sledge hammer to screw in a nail, because it has so many side effects. Lockdowns kill economies. They cause isolation and depression, which can lead to suicides and other deaths.
You should check out (again, NY Times) this article showing how COVID-19 does not account for all excess deaths in New York and New Jersey. Many of the extra extra deaths may be due to lockdown-related pressures.
Here's just one picture of how our economy has performed because of the lockdown. This is not normal:
But at the time, it was necessary. The nationwide lockdown (in most states) successfully slowed down the spread of the virus, giving us time to prep our hospitals and to help us reach warming temperatures, which considerably slowed down the spread over the summer.
In March, R(t) for the US got scary high ... peaking at about 9.5 in mid-March ... we had no other choice but to lock down. The effects of the lockdown took a couple of weeks, and then R(t) dropped like a rock week after week: 4.1, 2.3, 1.6, 1.3. Beginning of May it was around 1.2. At the end of May after we had started opening up, it briefly got down to 0.996 ... those were an exciting couple of weeks. But then the 2nd wave hit. But get this ... during the second wave, R(t) peaked at around 1.13 -- not really that bad, but still > 1.0. I really think warmer temperatures helped to keep R(t) low.
When mask wearing became more prominent, it brought down R(t) back down to 0.991 in September. We were doing a lot better! But now, that appears to have come to an end, and now we got colder temperatures knocking on our door. Last I checked, R(t) was at 1.02 and rising. Not bad, but a really bad sign if we don't nip this in the bud.
I have every reason to believe that if we take no action, R(t) will get back up toward 9.5, and it will force another lockdown ... a Christmas Lockdown. And this will make all of 2020 up to now look like nothing. This isn't fear-mongering -- just cold, hard math and science.
But it's not too late to avoid a lockdown. All we have to do is whatever it takes to get R(t) < 1.0. Even if we keep it at 0.999, there isn't going to be a lockdown.
If we are smart, we can keep the economy open AND kill off this virus at the same time.
Sweden and South Korea
Several times now, you've seen me compare Sweden and South Korea ... two countries that have implemented very little lockdown measures have very different results.
South Korea: total deaths per million currently sits at 9. (Yeah ... you read that right. Compare that with the US figure of 674 -- which is 75 times higher than South Korea's.) With no lockdowns, South Korea has used a combination of testing, contact tracing/quarantining, and wearing masks. Similarly, Japan has a similar record (13 deaths per million) from mainly wearing masks, social distancing, and really good hygiene -- and also, no lockdowns.
South Korea (and several other countries) have shown that it's possible to keep the economy open AND keep deaths down to a minimum. Throughout the year, R(t) < 1.0 for most of the time. This is through "smart opening." Say it with me now ... smart smart smart smart smart.
Sweden: total deaths per million is at 585 (13th place in the world) -- which is 65 times the amount of death than South Korea. They kept most everything open, didn't do much testing, and they still wear hardly any masks at all. Throughout the year, R(t) > 1.0 for most of the time. This is what I would call a "dumb opening." Say it with me ... dum dum dum dum dum.
And what rubs sand in our wounds ... the US had a lockdown and we're still faring worse than Sweden.
BTW, here is a kind-of positive newsletter on Sweden's current state. I like it because it describes measures that Sweden has taken that are not really that readily shared by the media ... such as shutting down schools for older high-school students, which likely helped to reduce R(t).
But looking at Sweden's numbers, they're starting to rise again, so ideas of them hitting herd immunity are looking doubtful, and I don't think their story is over yet.
Also, NYC, which has also been thought to have reached herd immunity by some is starting to have some unsettling new outbreaks.
So, what comes next? It's all up to us. Are we okay with a Christmas Lockdown? If so, we can keep on doing what we're doing now and keep R(t) > 1.0 (Anti Hype).
Or we can choose to do a few simple things to get R(t) back under 1.0. And yes ... wearing masks is the simplest way we can accomplish this. IHME estimates we're nearing 70% mask coverage. If we can get this up to over 90%, it can really help to turn the tide.
What also helps: testing and contact tracing. If your state has a reputable tracing app (Apple/Google technology), then download it and turn it on -- if enough of us do it, it could make a difference.
I know that eventually, we will do what's needed. In Spain, when the 2nd wave was getting bad, they got up to over 90% mask coverage, and their numbers are starting to turn around. Here in NC, at Appalachian State University, a healthy 19-year-old student died, which triggered everybody wanting to wear masks.
If we wear masks now, we can avoid a Christmas Lockdown. If, on the other hand we wait until we see all the Christmas deaths, then it will have already been too late.
So, it's really up to you. I know most of you reading this are tired of hearing about COVID. And many of my readers have stopped reading because they see this as having become anti-Trump and they can't handle the cold, hard facts. But it really is up to us to take action on our own and protect our vulnerable.
This and maybe next week are probably going to be the last newsletters where I try earnestly to get you to join the fight against COVID and turn things around. Get R(t) < 1.0. Then after that, I will probably become more subdued ... realizing that nobody is listening. And then later when many will say, "None of us saw this coming," little happy me is not going to be silent.
Information is available NOW to all who really want to know. I've inundated you with a bunch of links. If you still think this is a hoax, then get educated. I can bring you to the water, but I can't make you drink. You can open your eyes NOW as to what is about to happen, and not get caught off guard when it all goes down.
Four years ago, I hated Trump and Clinton equally. I really could not care less about who between them would win. So, I went third party with Gary Johnson -- a decision I have yet to regret, though I knew that half of my friends would condemn me no matter what. My Clinton friends still tell me I let Trump win. And had it gone the other way, my Trump friends would have said I let Clinton win. I explain this logical fallacy here, and reveal who's really to blame for Trump's election.
This time around, I really don't like Trump nor his policies. I do like Biden, though I may not agree with every one of his policies. There doesn't seem to be that perfect candidate for me this time around ... but what about Jo Jorgensen, the Libertarian option? Could I do third party again?
One thing I notice right off the bat ... it seems that hardly anyone knows anything about her. This time four years ago, the mainstream media was mocking Johnson and his "moments." (Though, I did and still think he was much more intelligent than he portrayed himself -- and the media took advantage of unfortunate soundbites that were numerous.) But Jorgensen has practically no media coverage at all. She might as well be Andrew Yang (inside joke).
She is impressively professional in speech and demeanor. She has many traits I wish Biden and/or Trump had. So, is she my choice?
Let's take a closer look. She has an official website, the first place I went to research. The website features this impressive campaign video on the home page ... a "Let Her Speak" campaign.
I definitely agree with the whole "let third party candidates join in the debates" thing. Jorgensen appears to be polling at about 5%, which seems sizable enough for inclusion. And I hate the duopoly thing. Screw Duverger's Law!
If you watch the video, you'll probably pick up immediately on all the Ayn Rand parallels. And sure enough, exploring her website where she spells out issues and Q&A's, she is clearly a Libertarian candidate ... probably even more so than Johnson was.
And that's a problem for me. And here's why ... pick any issue, and ask "what should government do about that?," and the answer is 95% of the time: "Absolutely nothing." Yeah, I get that that's Libertarian philosophy, but if I ran a presidency like that, you'd probably wonder, "What would you say you do here?" That would be great for me as president ... I could do lots of golfing, do a few speaking gigs here and there, watch TV even.
I'm all for small government, but I think Jorgenson goes too far in this respect. The federal government is good for some things (long discussion).
Also, she gives some strange answers such as being for term limits on Supreme Court justices, which is something clearly (mostly) spelled out in the original Constitution. She also comments on NAFTA as if it were still in effect (maybe she wrote the Q&A earlier in the year).
BTW, of you who have done your own research, did you pick up a little connection or possibly a conflict of interest in Bitcoin? Maybe it was a coincidence ... I just thought it was weird that Bitcoin kept showing up in searches next to her. And one of her questions speaks of Bitcoin.
She has a whole page devoted to coronavirus. I'm impressed that she condemns our national handling of the epidemic, but in her view of things, the government failed by instituting burdensome medical requirements on approving COVID-19 tests. She also seems to think that more testing is the solution to fighting the virus -- which is good, but doesn't do the job alone. She mentions nothing about contact tracing. She mentions masks, but doesn't push them. And she condemns lockdowns, which ironically did delay the spread of the virus until the warm weather hit to slow it down naturally (more about that tomorrow in the coronavirus newsletter). In other words, she really wouldn't have handled the pandemic much differently than Trump had.
And I think the last part is the kicker for me. I like Jorgensen -- looks good and professional -- possibly up to the job. But I'm not excited about her platform, and I'm in no way impressed by her COVID-19 answer. So, it looks like I'm still voting Biden.
I should also add in passing a little something about her running mate: Jeremy "Spike" Cohen. This guy first ran as the running mate for Vermin Supreme, and said some pretty interesting things (time travel, ponies, zombies, etc.) in the spirit of satire. I have no idea how he became the official vice presidential candidate, and it appears Jorgensen wanted someone else ... so ... I guess they do things differently.
If you like her, go for it -- don't give into the duopoly. Take a look into her platforms, etc. You might like what you see.
This week I'd like to dedicate my weekly newsletter to my Aunt Sharon who has given me some valuable advice. So far, most of my newsletters have been all about what we can do to help stop the coronavirus before we all catch it, but today I focus on the question: but what if we do catch it? After all, we're doing so poorly in the states right now, I don't see a path where I can avoid catching COVID-19 unless I continue to lock myself in my house. (It's not like we live in South Korea where one can go almost anywhere with very low risk of catching the virus.)
And you probably remember a couple of months ago when I thought I was a COVID-19 long-hauler, exhibiting several of the symptoms. When I then tested NEGATIVE three times (one of which was an antibody test), I went through this period of depression, realizing I was still susceptible. And maybe if I catch it, I could be one of the unlucky ones. So, I was expressing my concerns to my Aunt Sharon, and she came to my rescue. While I'm great at at math, modeling, programming, etc., she is great at knowing how our bodies work, and she hooked me up with a plan.
But first ... let's check on the goings on ...
General Update
Looking at the NY Times Hotspot Map, I can see numbers going up again. Weekly deaths are either level or starting to rise again. This really has me worried, because as soon as the cold weather hits, we're in big trouble. At this rate, Flu + Covid working together is going to be worse than April ... (but I'll talk about that next week).
The 5 worst states this week (in this order) are North Dakota, South Dakota, Wisconsin, Montana, and Utah in terms of rising new cases. All 5 of these states are also seeing levels of death higher than ever before.
My state, North Carolina is seeing an uptick -- maybe due to reopening efforts. In my own area, I can see a small but noticeable bump in my county and surrounding counties just a couple of weeks after Trump's mostly unmasked packed outdoor rally in Winston-Salem. You can see a picture of this bump right here from the NY Times hotspot map:
In the area of good news ... it looks like Trump is recovering well.
Now back to the topic at hand ...
Building Up Immunity
So, what can we do to get ourselves ready for getting COVID-19? What we do know about this virus is that it seems to be very weak against strong immune systems of certain types. There are a lot of different theories as to what's actually fighting the virus, seeing how the vast majority of us don't get sick, and 99% of us survive.
First off, it might help to understand how our immune system works. Here's a quick overview with cute pictures.
So, we got phagocytes (innate immune system) that kill with brute force, and lymphocytes (adaptive immune system ... B-cells / T-cells) that create antibodies, which provide more specific and long-lasting protection.
We're also learning that a different kind of T-cell appears to kill COVID-19 differently than do antibodies. Here, I'm unclear as to how this works. Antibodies attack antigens, and these other special T-cells attack according to the protein covering? Either way, there's evidence that those of us who have been exposed to other more harmless coronaviruses are proving to be resistant to this new coronavirus, because these T-cells can recognize the similar covering.
However, this response doesn't work if we're unhealthy and not producing as much T-cells. And guess what ... older people have a tougher time making T-cells, so they don't get to benefit from this method of protection. That's one reason, some people think, that older people are more likely to die from this particular virus.
Young children, on the other hand, seem to be able to fight the virus with their strong first line of defense ... the innate immune system. This is another area where older people lack ... they tend to have a weaker innate system.
Either way, keeping healthy is the best way to build up both our innate immune system and our adaptive immune system. Whether it kindles the antibody production, or phagocyte production, or these special T-cells that already know general coronavirus structures, the plan of action is the same ... GET HEALTHY. And we can all start, even now. If our governments can't protect us, then we have no choice but to batten down our hatches and get our immune systems working in high gear.
So, here is the prescription I received. Of course we can all eat well, but on top of that, we can handle larger doses of certain vitamins to give us an extra boost during these dangerous times. And I'll go ahead and tell you, I really hate taking vitamins. Sometimes they make me nauseous if I take too much of certain types. Here we go ... every day I take:
Vitamin A: 3000 mcg or 10,000 IUs -- in the morning. Known to help the respiratory system.
Vitamin C: 1000 mg -- half in the morning, and half with dinner -- I have to break it up or I seem to get sick. Sometimes I feel instantly healthier after eating one of these chewable pills. This provides a general immune system boost -- an antioxidant that can also fight inflammation.
Vitamin D3: 10,000 IUs -- in the morning. This is supposed to help fight respiratory tract infections (which I seem to get with any sickness I get).
Vitamin K2: 200 mcg -- in the morning -- it's common for these to be mixed with D3. Studies have shown that K2 and D3 (not D2) working together seem to be effective increase survival rates against COVID-19.
Melatonin: 1mg -- at night before I go to bed -- it makes me really sleepy and I've been unable to increase the dosage. This one is supposed to reduce inflammation and protect the brain.
I also see suggestions that zinc, probiotics (yogurt), and vitamin B can also help, but they are not in my current regiment.
In addition, I'm trying to get more exercise, which can also build up immunity. I've started running again ... building it up slowly so my bad knees can handle it. Running can also help flush out the respiratory system, and remind your heart how to be stronger.
Now that I'm at home most of the time, I'm trying to also get in some yoga, and I need to work in more upper body workouts. Increasing muscles -- or the process of building muscles, can evidently increase the strength of our immune system.
I should remind you that none of the suggestions above can outright prevent COVID from infecting us, but this is one way we can prepare now to build up our natural immune system for when we finally catch the virus -- and then hope for the best. Even with all this preparation, we could still die, but if we can increase the chances of survival with hardly any side-effects, it would be worth it to try.
Of course, prevention (eradication of the virus) is the only surefire way to protect us, but we are currently not on that track, so get healthy ... and good luck!
Okay ... I've had it with ads that play in the middle of YouTube videos. They always interrupt the flow, happen at the stupidest times, and waste my time. So abrupt is the interruption that I almost never pay attention to the ad, or I get so angry I don't want to buy that product.
I don't mind so much the ads that play at the beginning or at the end, and I don't mind the little banners that show up every now and then -- I'm talking about the annoying mid-video ads that we all hate.
There are a whole lot more now because: #1) a couple of months ago, YouTube changed the minimum requirements for mid-video ads from 10 minutes down to 8 minutes; and #2) YouTube decided to default all monetized 8-10 minute videos to playing mid-video ads.
This means a lot more money for YouTube and for the video creators as well, but it makes life annoying for us. But guess what ... we can do something about it. At least I'm trying this new tactic, and I invite you to join with me.
Did you know that the video creators have full control over whether or not ads play in the middle? They can even nudge the ads to play at a specific points of the video, but judging from experience, I think most creators just take the default YouTube gives them (which seems to be twice per video at around 33% and 67%).
And what do video creators love more than anything? Likes and Subscribes. Do you see where I'm going with this?
That's right. We make it so that the creators won't want to give us mid-video ads. It's simple. Give the video a Dislike. If you feel up to it, Unsubscribe (remember that you can still see their videos). And most importantly, leave a comment -- something like: "I gave this video a Dislike because of the mid-video ads. Oh, and I Unsubcribed, too."
If enough of us do this, one of two things will happen: #1) the creators will go to each of their videos and turn off mid-video ads (for fear of losing their audience), OR #2) the creators will complain to YouTube for defaulting so many of their videos to play mid-video ads.
Tonight I want to extend an earnest plea. I feel that we are losing the battle against the coronavirus and we are in no way prepared for what comes next, but we can change that now -- it's still not too late to act.
First ...
General Update
The biggest news is that President Trump has contracted the virus. Some think that the main vehicle of spread was this past Saturday surrounding the SCOTUS announcement meeting and ceremony, where there was much hugging and very little mask wearing.
The only "positive" person who wasn't at the SCOTUS activities and didn't appear to meet with Trump afterwards was Ronna McDaniel. My own quick analysis from this tiny bit of information: either Ronna McDaniel is a coincidence, or someone exposed Trump last week, and then Trump exposed Ronna on Friday, several at the SCOTUS activities on Saturday, and then later Hope Hicks.
If this route of exposure is correct, then Biden is not out of the woods yet, even though he's tested negative so far. His wife, Jill, would probably the next to test positive, if she sat anywhere near Melania, and Biden would test positive shortly after that.
I wish them all well -- we need all of these guys alive.
Overall, the US is still stabilizing at the same level of active cases. New cases are also about level. Wisconsin is plastered in red. Other states doing terribly: North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, Montana.
My county of Forsyth County finally registers a moderate spike in new cases following Trump's rally a couple of weeks ago; and Clark County, Nevada has shown a faster spike after its indoor rally. But overall my state of North Carolina is trying to stay low.
And now comes my frustrations ...
The Loudness of the Anti Hype
Last week I posted The Simplicity of the Coronavirus, which I personally thought was one of the most important posts I've written so far, and it's received one of the lowest number of views. The purpose of the post was to teach the one and only goal of fighting viruses: to keep R(t) < 1.0. Or in other words, cause active cases to go down until the virus is eradicated. From here on out, I will refer to this as the One True Goal.
I also introduced the concept of the Anti Hype, which is basically anything that works against the One True Goal. The coronavirus is a hoax. It's dying out on its own. Masks cause more disease than they prevent. There's a cure, so we don't have to wear masks. Herd immunity is the only way to win, and so on.
But get this ... while my "very important" post got very little views, I see that Anti Hype posts get very many views, lots of likes, and lots of positive comments. And I'm flabbergasted. I lay out in simple terms the simple truth and no one wants to hear it. Other people work up attractive lies, and it gets shared across the whole United States.
It's like I'm over here in a corner saying, "hey guys ... i know how to get us out of this mess, and it's so easy ... we could save so many lives ... and keep our economy open ... can we work together on this?" And I'm in a very loud room of people saying crazy crap. All my efforts seem to be in vain, and it saddens me. I know what's coming next, and I can do absolutely nothing to stop it. (Cassandra Complex.)
And why should you believe me? Because my life's training has made me uniquely qualified to be the perfect armchair commentator during this pandemic. I am an actuary, a modeler, and a programmer. I'm in the 99.9th percentile of math knowledge, and one well-rehearsed in logic fallacies (which I witness every single day). In other words: I AM A NERD, AND I AM IN MY ELEMENT. And I am more than willing to help make these concepts easy for everyone to understand.
By now, you're probably wondering why I opened with a picture of Trump. Two reasons. #1) Trump is one of the loudest proponents of the Anti Hype in the US, but is by no means the original creator of the movement. And the real reason: #2) posts that feature Trump seem to get more views. But in actuality, Trump is not my target in this post. My goal is to get right down to the source.
And finally comes my plea ...
I sincerely want you all to understand the true source of the Anti Hype, why it's so loud, so popular, and so powerful.
I know that nefarious forces are behind this movement. It's been known for years that the Russians have been working to divide our nation through social media, using Artificial Intelligence to generate memes and statements scientifically designed to catch our attention, cause us to hate our opponents, and ultimately lead us to civil war. We know the accounts that have been identified as Russian "bots," and we have analyzed the language in tweets and messages, and have learned how they manipulate us. (I've been working for years on a post on this phenomenon -- maybe if I have enough energy you'll finally get to see it.)
We also know in general how social media offers us a dangerous reinforcement loop, where as we look at articles and links that support what we already believe, social media will suggest further similar articles and links that will lock us into our beliefs and lose us all in confirmation bias. If you haven't done so already, please read my review of The Social Dilemma on Netflix, and watch it for yourself for a better understanding of how we're all being manipulated.
And if you're religious, or allow for allegories, then yes ... Satan, himself (or the evil that exists in all humans), is behind this Anti Hype. And it's so easy to demonstrate the truth of this, because as the One True Goal is simple, so is the goal of the Anti Hype.
And that goal is to MAXIMIZE THE NUMBER OF DEATHS.
If you want to know if a certain concept belongs to the One True Goal or if it belongs to the Anti Hype, then there is a simple test you can apply. Ask yourself: "Does this idea lead to killing off the virus, or does it lead to killing more humans?"
Let's try it out. If it helps, you can imagine South Park "dum .. dum .. dum .. dum" and "smart .. smart .. smart .. smart" while we try out these tests.
"We need to wear masks." -- If masks have any effectiveness whatsoever, then wearing them can only bring down active cases, and it's a very easy and cheap solution to fight the virus. ONE TRUE GOAL (OTG).
"Wearing masks is against our constitutional rights." -- On the flip side, if there is any effectiveness in masks, this idea seems to allow more infections and more deaths. ANTI HYPE.
"Coronavirus is a hoax." -- If we believe it doesn't exist, then we don't have to do anything. And doing nothing leads to more deaths. ANTI HYPE. (Also, a religious/allegorical angle: the devil teaches us that he doesn't exist.)
"We should cooperate with contact tracers." -- If contact tracers can find infected people more quickly, then they can be quarantined faster and stop further spread. OTG.
"The virus is dying out on its own." Or "We're already at herd immunity." -- If this belief leads to less mitigation factors, it allows the virus to spread -- more deaths. ANTI HYPE.
"We can't stop the virus. Our only outcome is herd immunity." -- This definitely promotes doing nothing, which in turn promotes spread. ANTI HYPE.
"We should test a lot of people often." -- Anything that can help find infected people quicker helps to slow down the spread. OTG.
"These people would have died anyway this year." -- I've seen different variations of this one including a recent one trying to show full year CDC deaths from all causes and comparing to 2020. Believe me ... as an actuary I can tell you that this misuse of math is wrong, and if you do the math correctly, you'd see that opposite is true. (I'm planning a post on excess deaths shortly.) So ... ANTI HYPE.
"We should mock those who wear masks, and accost them, and rip off those masks, and even attack mask displays we see at the store." -- Not only does this exhibit lack of mitigation factors, but removing other people's masks, yelling, and other craziness actually increase the spread of the virus. Definitely -- ANTI HYPE -- big time.
"For now we shouldn't allow congregational singing at churches." -- This one is borderline -- tougher to apply the test, but I include it anyway. Choral singing and congregational singing has already been identified as a vector of spread, so singing increases the danger of spread and death, while temporarily abstaining helps to keep the risks lower (so we can enjoy other in-person worshipful activities with lower risks). OTG.
In a nutshell, if something leads you to doing nothing and pretending that the virus doesn't exist, it's actually promoting spread and death. This type of reasoning is the hallmark of the ANTI HYPE, and its goal is to MAXIMIZE DEATH.
On the other hand, if something leads you to take simple and easy actions to help protect the vulnerable and causes you to work together with others to the goal of eradicating the virus, then it must indeed be a good thing. This leads us to the ONE TRUE GOAL, and its goal is to MINIMIZE DEATH.
So, I repeat my earnest plea ... please, please, please, please, please consider all these words and internalize these simple concepts ... try them out and analyze all the claims that are going around. Do they lead to MORE deaths or LESS deaths? And if you decide to take action, consider the following ... the trifecta:
1) Wear masks.
2) Cooperate with contact tracers ... and bonus: download a Google/Apple contact tracing app if it exists in your state.
3) If you think you've been exposed, get tested.
If you do those three simple things, I think we have a chance. If not, December, January, and February are going to be very painful and make up-to-now look like nothing. It's not too late. We can do this.
