Various Letters of the COVID Kind
Concerning “One of Our Bees is Missing”, you have probably answered this somewhere in the last couple of weeks, but if we had not shut anything down, how many thousands more do you think would have died? Or do you think perhaps the shutdown and quarantine really didn’t help reduce infections that much? It seems to me that the numbers would have been tens or maybe even hundreds of thousands more who perished. Trump does seem to recognize that it may not have been millions when he talks about cutting that number “in half” several times, and that if even 500,000 died, that would still be similar to the Civil war (but yeah, he’ll put out the millions to score political points as well, quite clever).
My thinking was that we should have had the elderly and especially the elderly with pre-existing conditions remain at home, and the rest of us who are far less vulnerable continue working. I am still of the opinion that if we did nothing, things would have been much worse, but what we actually did do at this point is probably as bad as doing nothing and having hundreds of thousands die.
Thanks,
Thomas
Thomas, the debate extends to multiple issues. One level would be assuming that across-the-board quarantines work, but is the economic price too high to pay? If that were the case, I would still say no (probably), but if you take it to the next level, there are a number of epidemiologists who argue that shutting everything down interferes with the onset of herd immunity, which should be our basic line of defense.
What suggestions do you have for a C.S. Lewis reading list during the quarantine? What does your top 10 list look like? Many thanks,
Dave
Dave, the way things are going, you probably won’t have time to finish before you are let out. But I would say: 1. Narnia 2. The Screwtape Letters 3. The Great Divorce 4. The Ransom Trilogy 5. The Weight of Glory 6. Mere Christianity 7. Preface to Paradise Lost 8. The Pilgrim’s Regress 9. Miracles 10. The Discarded Image
Doug, you are missing the obvious here.
The Bible promises that God will harshly judge nations that don’t welcome immigrants (Malachi 3:5; Matthew 25:43), and tells us Sodom was destroyed, in part, for not strengthening the hand of the poor and needy (Ezekiel 16:49). It says that the king’s duty is to feed the people (II Samuel 5:2). It tells us that the love of money is the root of all evil.
Yet despite these clear warnings and admonitions, we have exchanged governance that favors the poor and the immigrant for governance whose only concern was a roaring economy. So, God is judging us in the economy, and this is just the beginning. Whether Trump is or is not reelected is almost a side issue at this point. Unless and until we provide for the poor — at the governmental level, as the Bible commands — and welcome the immigrant, we will not prosper. This whole notion that God is a conservative is utterly without Biblical foundation. As between Jesus and the Pharisees, who were the political conservatives?
Mike
Mike, the problem here is that you are opposing two things that cannot really be opposed. You are opposing “feeding the poor” and the “production of food.” Dispense with the roaring economy, and there is nothing to feed anybody with.
I must say I have never in recent years seen so evenhanded an article on a controversy like yours as the Examiner article. Do you folks have someone on the inside?
Mark
Mark, nobody on the inside that I know of. But the Examiner is a good magazine.
Doug, my verbal tool chest is not yet full enough to be able to thank you in proper terms for being one of the few sane, rational voices on this panic-pandemic and how you rightly apply the sword of God’s word to combat the tyranny that is happening in society today. Immensely thankful for your faithfulness.
Seth
Seth, thanks for your kind words.
Please allow me to recommend an article on the CV19 thing by Larry P. Arnn, President, Hillsdale College, in the latest issue of Imprimis.
I urge you to read it. It provides a cogent summary and analysis of the situation, reinforcing and advancing some of the same points you yourself have made. Please consider referencing it in a future posting and adopting/endorsing any points you find worthwhile.
David
David, thanks for the recommend.
I confess to some confusion as to how we’re supposed to move forward on the Christian response to the pandemic and its fallout.
I left your March sermon on the trampling of the courts, about this being God’s judgment, with a strong conviction about learning from this, repenting through this. That the church needed to use this time to consider our complacency, our sin, and the need for repentance. That the nations were being called to repentance in this new plague.
But now I’m getting more of a message of “This is a government overreach thing, and so this isn’t the time of Isaiah and Joel calling us to repent so much as a Christians in the catacombs being forbidden to gather or worship kind of situation” (or a foretaste, anyway . . . we’re certainly not under great duress yet)
Feels like we’re caught between two gears, not sure whether we should shift downward into “This is the Lord’s judgment and we ought to pray and endure and repent and grow in this trial, and accept the judgment against our trampling of courts,”” or shift upward into “This is political skullduggery and should be called out and treated as merely that”.
Or is it a bit of both?
Kevin
Kevin, I hope to avoid even more confusion in this answer, but I would not say “a bit of both.” I would say a lot of both. I don’t believe it is inconsistent to say that the government is way over-reaching, and also to say that we will be in no position to resist this (as we ought to) unless we confess the sins that brought us to this point.
I should first say that I have both personally benefited from and been inspired by your writings, podcasts, the documentary Collision, your [Amazon] series Man Rampant, as well as the writings of your son, Notes from the Tiltawhirl, and 100 Cupboards, as well I have shared them with brothers and sisters in Christ and friends curious about our faith. That was a long sentence, just wanted to give some provenance.
I have listened to Blog and Mablog completely, and the Plodcast largely. I love and admire both. I listened lately with some concern as you warned of federal overreach via unnatural/unlawful powers being seized by the presidency due to pandemic. Honestly, I considered such fears something like conspiracy theory hokum, at first. Then I was amazed by the president’s recent assertion of ultimate authority, states be damned. While I see that this sort of rhetoric aligns precisely with your predictions, I haven’t heard you address it. Also, on a personal note, worrisome to me is the last Blog and Mablog, in which you appear to insist that we should have kept the economy roaring as usual, since the predictions we heard did not come true as of yet. I live in Texas, and we are not expected to reach peak until the end of the first week in May. Also, it seems clear to me that the measures taken — the stay at home rulings by state governors — are likely the reason the numbers of deceased have not reached the predicted numbers. Do you not think that a sudden reopening of the economy would lead to new hot spots, and new mass mortalities, only in areas other than NYC, LA, Seattle, etc.? What if a reopening on May 1st means 200,000 dead by the end of August?
Just my thoughts. I believe God is in control. I believe Romans 8:28. So regardless this is for the good of those who love Him, and who are called according to His will. However, I wonder if we should not rush to put economy over lives, and perhaps walk through real recession — even depression — in order to save lives that can then be reached (after social distancing (that’s a bit cheeky)) who will have the body of believers to rely on for not only prayer, but sustenance, provision, etc.
I hope you take my questions in the spirit meant, not of a challenge, but that of query from a layman to a pastor.
Matt
Matt, thank you. I do believe that there ought to be a vigorous response to this. It ought not be a “do nothing” approach. I believe that vulnerable populations should be isolated, for example.
And on the president’s assertion of ultimate authority, you are right. Jonah Goldberg said (rightly) that if Obama had said anything like that, talk radio hosts everywhere would have set themselves on fire. But this is because such a statement would have come out of what Obama really believed, while Trump’s crazy talk (and it is crazy) is simply him running his “art of the deal” play. Which he does over and over again, because it works. It actual fact, in this crisis, the ongoing federalization and centralization of power has been reversed.
I have followed your work for a number of years (podcasts, blog, sermons, debates, books, etc), and I admire your ability to look past the “here-and-now” to reveal implications down the road; as well as your ability to understand the play that is being run on us. After reading your post “This Shambling and Shameful and Shambolic Shamdemic,” I agreed with everything and my blood was sufficiently boiling to the point of almost communicating with my family on the matter . . . but something stopped me. A response I could see being lobbied to the crazy economic crack-down and measures we’ve taken is this: Everyone agrees that New York was on the verge of being overrun, but it looks like we were successful in mitigating that storm. Could it not be said that if the rest of America did not take the actions we did, more places (if not everywhere) would look like New York? Therefore — the response of our government (local, state, federal) was appropriate.
How would you respond to that line of reasoning?
Daniel
Daniel, we have to look at all the possibilities. And one of them is this: it is starting to look as though this virus got to our shores a lot sooner than we thought, is a lot less deadly than we thought, and a much larger percentage of the population than we thought has antibodies already.
In our ongoing Romans 13 discussion during this shutdown, it has been said that never in history have America’s churches been shuttered in this way. While I do not desire to be a scofflaw, I’ve been reading your Worship and Reformation primer along with Meyer’s “The Lord’s Service”. Learning to distinguish between “online church” and Biblical worship has fueled my outrage against these shutdowns.
Then the Lord showed me Malachi 1:6 through 2:9 where the Lord discusses how displeased He is with improper worship, and specifically Malachi 1:10 where He says it would be better to shut the doors.
I am neither a theologian nor a scofflaw. Please help me contextualize or synthesize all of this.
Ron
Ron, I would say that it is a question of who thinks he has the right to shut the doors. Both things can be true — God could be shutting the doors of worship because He doesn’t want anymore of the anemic treacle we offer Him, and He will also judge the magistrates for their hubris. Both can be true.
Random Question
General Question: I’m often troubled when I come across the history of the early Native Americans and the fact that most of them were wiped out by European diseases after little to no contact with the gospel. My inner skeptic says, “These civilizations seem like they had no purpose, like this was not governed by God, but just random historical occurrences.” How do you suggest we teach and think about such things. How would you respond to a genuine student question like this in history class? Are there some assumptions in the question that need to be brought out and/or corrected? I recognize that sometimes the answer may simply be “God knows and we don’t,” but other times there may be more insight available to us. I am hoping that you can answer the question better than I’ve been able to ask it.
Thank you for your work and teaching here.
Neil
Neil, sometimes the answer really is “we cannot know.” But as Abraham said to the Lord, the “judge of the whole earth shall do right.” Whatever these lost tribes encounter, it will not be injustice.
Family Worship Question
I discovered Man Rampant about six months ago which was my first introduction to Canon Press. Ever since then, my wife and I have been devouring your materials and they have been of great benefit to us.
My question regards discipline during family worship. We practice family worship nightly with our four children who are still young (6, 5, 3, and 1). This has been a steady practice in our house for about a year. The struggle we have is when our children exhibit the rebellions typical of small humans during family worship. How do you suggest handling discipline during family worship?
Thank you!
Paul
Paul, I would suggest three things. First, if the issue really is rebellion, then I would stop everything, take the offender down the hall and administer church discipline. But, second and third, if the issue is just the pre-school squirmies I would deal with it by first, shortening your family worship time to something within their capacity (or just beyond it so they can grow), and deal with the occasional fidget through affectionate admonition. “Enough of that, square bear.”
Censorship
The fact that Google is suppressing any app that even mentions COVID-19 is scary. The fact that Christians are defending this move because “at least they are not only targeting Christians” or because “well, there is a lot of bad information out there” or “it only affected that heretic Wilson anyway” is TERRIFYING.
We have been groomed to accept censorship and trust our elite technical superiors who no better than we do.
Buzz
Buzz, yes, you are right. It is terrifying. At the same time, on the bright side, Google restored our app without requiring us to change anything. So I would like to thank Rod Dreher again, and The Washington Examiner for spotlighting it.
FYI: While perusing a number of comments regarding this story I saw more than one person recommend moving to a modality called a Progressive Web Application (PWA). Apparently these reside upon the mobile device and are hosted by your private server.
I do not think that the major platforms will reverse course and move in the direction of liberty absent some irresistible motivation.
Gray
Gray, thanks. I would be interested in learning more about this. Friends, the comments are open.
Last Question
I read through your book “Ploductivity” last month — what a help, especially the second portion. The post “Seven Thoughts on Time Management” was found after a quick Google search for more thoughts on managing and using my time well. Would you be able to give a few more words on #6, regarding taking in more than you are giving out? In what specific ways? I am . . . giving out. A good bit of it is the season of life that I am in and particular circumstances (child with a chronic disease, another with learning and cognitive disabilities, recently moving to a new state to get help for both). But all of those circumstances are for the long haul, so some wise “taking in,” whatever that may look like, sounds like a good idea:)
Chastity
Chastity, thank you. I obviously don’t know your situation, but I suspect that my answer to your question about #6 might be found under some of the other principles. Run an inventory on your daily schedule, and ask yourself if there is any unused “dead air” time. For example, my daughters have a podcast called “What Have You,” which you can listen to while ironing, or doing the dishes. Place productive “taking in” time in any places where it might fit. And God bless you.
The goalposts continue to shift. Nearly 45,000 Americans have already died, it looks likely that the number this year will be in the range of 60,000-100,000 even WITH the extreme measures taken. It seems rather obvious that without those measures, tens of thousands more people would have died, potentially twice as many or more. But with the death toll rising, you’ve suddenly stopped quoted the death toll (only a month ago one of your readers claimed it was a “drowning in the bathtub” level event and you left that without challenge) and are now just reaching out to critique any… Read more »
J’,
The objective math on the virus, requires a correct, reality based denominator. (Total infections)
My Doctor friend seems to be saying that the correct USA denominator is not yet known.
He further suggests that antibody testing, of an appropriate sample group, would be the beginning of accurate math on the virus morality rate.
In the USA, what is the denominator?
If you don’t know, doubts about anyone’s math are reasonable.
That would be true to calculate the death rate from infection.
However, we can see the total death rate without knowing that denominator at all. Without any information on total infections, we can still clearly see that we have only lost 130 people/million so far, while other countries have lost 500 people/million and climbing. Thus it is undoubtable that whatever the infection rate, deaths could be at least four times higher than what we’ve experienced so far.
How many are really dying of covid versus how many claimed to have died. I understand hospitals get money for covid deaths. If true, skewering the numbers is going to happen.
You should really read this then. The # of Covid-19 deaths is almost certainly undercounted, not overcounted.
In New York City alone, total deaths since March 11 have been 17,000 higher than normal. That’s THREE TIMES more deaths than would usually happen in that time period. Only 13,000 deaths have been attributed to Covid. Meaning there’s an extra 4,000 deaths that haven’t been explained, many of which are likely COVID-19 unless you have some answer for a mystery killer suddenly taking thousands of souls in NYC at the exact time COVID hit.
How do you answer that?
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/04/21/world/coronavirus-missing-deaths.html
We’ve seriously resorted to completely ignoring actually TOTAL death tolls 300% higher than normal, and instead start baseless rumors that medical professionals are liars falsifying documents for profit.
Again, all the people claiming the death numbers are fake, how are you explaining that 17,000 more people have died than usual in New York City alone? How can the hospitals fake 17,000 extra dead bodies?
Virtually all the models, from the very beginning, assumed that the large majority of cases were mild or asymptomatic and only a handful of cases were severe/deadly. The question is the exact % that are severe/deadly, and that is something we STILL don’t know. While you cherry-pick small clusters where 30-40% tested positive for antibodies, you’re ignoring other clusters where only 3% or so have tested positive. That’s a huge difference, a factor of 10. I’m sorry, but this is a good example of why it’s so dangerous for amateurs to try to use statistics. The “factor of 10” here… Read more »
You’re right, I took a shortcut there. That was my bad. While it is true that we’re still quite ignorant as to what the baseline mortality rate is and antibody numbers are just coming in, writing “10x” there was a mistake for the exact reasons you describe and didn’t actually add anything to the conversation.
Now, since you wrote so much about the “10x” buried in the middle of that comment, which you rightly point out is misleading and meaningless, are you going to address any of the substantive portion of my comment or anything that followed?
The point I was trying to make is that, as the virus seems to be much less deadly and to have already spread much more thoroughly than expected (probably quite a lot before the lockdown started), it’s not clear that the strategy taken was either a) the best one to have selected, b) started soon enough (by its own internal logic) to do the job right, or c) effective enough to be worth the enormous cost. A number of experts have suggested that a better strategy would have been to identify and isolate the vulnerable populations, putting extra effort into… Read more »
No, it doesn’t “undermine almost every part of the argument” unless you make significant assumptions and conclusions from those antibody numbers which you yourself admit that you aren’t prepared to make. This can be seen by simply taking that sentence out and noting that the rest of the argument performs exactly as it did without the sentence. 1) My words about the antibodies data being extremely preliminary and us knowing little of the baseline are true without any calculations at all. 2) The death toll is already substantially higher than the “this isn’t a big deal” crowd was predicting at… Read more »
There was absolutely no one saying, “Sure, 45,000 may die in the next month but that isn’t that bad if the infection rate is high.” That’s a tremendous shift in the goal posts that suggests the level of lives lost is actually pretty irrelevant to the people making the argument. I was frequently rather annoyed a few weeks ago hearing comparisons of COVID-19’s total death rate (with relatively few cases known) to the seasonal flu’s total death rate (having infected perhaps as much as 1/6 of America in 2018), but if, in fact, the IFR really is in the neighborhood… Read more »
I’ll try to make discreet points. * Comparing additional deaths to a certain number of preexisting deaths doesn’t show anything. That’s like saying that 9/11 wasn’t devestating because 15,000 people already died of murder that year. It ignores that these are ADDITIONAL deaths. We already had a bad flu season this year totally independent of COVID-19, these are new deaths on top of those already yearly expected deaths. Otherwise literally everything could be compared to heart disease or abortion totals and we could cynically say that no new catastrophe ever matters. * It appears almost certain that the COVID-19 totals… Read more »
Most of the rest of your argument is basically based on a high value for the economy and a strong aversion to spending money. My personal position would go along these lines. 1. We are the wealthiest nation in human history, with something approaching $110,000,000,000,000 held before this pandemic hit. Interpreted with the most grace possible, you could say that we are Joseph’s Egyptians and we’ve been saving up a whole lot of fat cows. 2. This disaster has not devestated infrastruture. It has not destroyed our natural resources. It does not eliminate the already available stock. With a strong… Read more »
Mike’s using the same old tired, “woke” proof texts again…with no context, of course. People who throw around “alien and stranger” verses to support open borders never bring up Lev. 24:10-17. That’s the account of a half-Egyptian getting stoned to death for blaspheming. Aliens were welcomed in OT Israel, but had to follow the laws–and it was nothing like modern U.S. You couldn’t build a shrine to whatever god you wanted to worship. You and your descendants couldn’t sit on your fannies for multiple generations and game federal and state welfare programs. You couldn’t sleep with any woman or same-sex… Read more »
To put it much more simply, Italy, Spain, and Belgium will all soon surpass 500 deaths/million (Belgium in fact already has). Their epidemic spread more quickly through a more concentrated urban population. We are only at 130 deaths/million, though that will continue to rise. Our lower numbers are attributed in part to a more spread-out, rural population, which combined with lockdown number significantly reduced the spread of the disease and kept the worst outbreaks contained to certain areas. Do you understand how big the difference is between 500 deaths/million and 130 deaths/million? If we hadn’t gone on lockdown and people… Read more »
I looked at the CDC website several weeks ago and read they were counting “probable” deaths from COVID-19. This was well before the media reported this. When you add in a huge “follow the money” factor (more deaths could mean more equipment & more money) along with pride (“we were right!”) and political points, the death data starts looking really sketchy. Anyone who’s done real quantitative work should be skeptical–especially those who know how people twist things to suit an agenda.
https://wmbriggs.com/post/30429/
New York City has had 300% more deaths than normal since March 5th. Over 17,000 more people have died than would typically have died in that time period, even though many causes of death (such as murder and traffic accidents and stress-related illness) have actually gone down. Even counting “probable” cases, NYC has only attributed 13,000 deaths to COVID-19 so far. Which means there are still 4,000 more unexplained deaths than normal (and likely more as you would have expected other causes of death to drop). The same is true everywhere COVID is hitting. We’re almost certainly undercounting the deaths,… Read more »
Two people downvoting it, yet no one can explain where the 17,000 extra dead bodies in NYC came from if not COVID.
On a normal day in New York, less than 150 people die on average.
Since early March, 680 people have been dying in New York on the average day. An extra 500+ people every day.
How are you explaining that? Y’all really going to keep your heads in the sand just because your president claimed it was a hoax?
Jonathan, I’m not sure about the supposed stats on NY “average” deaths. But I would venture to guess that it would be far easier to explain that away than it would be for the entire European continent’s mortality rate to magically adjust downward to accommodate COVID-19’s additional deaths.
https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/covid-19-tracking-european-mortality/
Your link shows the European mortality rate spiking wildly upwards, and then coming back down but still above normal after countries went on lockdown. If you click on the link within that page you can see it broken down country-by-country. Countries with significant coronavirus outbreaks (Belgium, France, Italy, Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, UK) all show unprecedented mortality spikes. Meanwhile, countries that have controlled their outbreaks (Ireland, Germany, Finland) actually show significant drops in mortality, likely because lockdowns and careful behavior are leading to less illness than normal, fewer car accidents due to fewer cars on the road, fewer stress-related illnesses… Read more »
Actually, the link is from a group of scientists at Oxford University, who are explaining that the current mortality in Europe is right in line with seasonal averages. Whatever other conclusions you want to draw from that is up to you. But one thing it certainly doesn’t do is lend “scientific” support to your conclusions. And your grouping of the countries that have had significant outbreaks includes those who have imposed draconian lockdowns, like the UK. The only one of note that hasn’t is Sweden, which obviously has fared no worse than some of the other surrounding countries who have… Read more »
I’m having trouble seeing what you’re not understanding because your claims are blatently false. Look again. https://www.euromomo.eu/graphs-and-maps On that chart you can see that UK (England) reached +18.5 above normal, they had never been over +11.1 any time as far back as that data goes. Belgium reached 14.2, most before was 9.1. Italy reached 18.3, they had never been over 10.3. Netherlands reached 16.7, they had never been over 11.3. Spain reached 18.0, they had never been over 12.5. Sweden, Switzerland, and France also hit numbers they had never reached according to that chart. In order to make unprecedented death… Read more »
Everything I said is absolutely true. First off, the charts at that link only go back 5 years, not “ever”. Second, the number you mention from the UK is not 18.5 “above normal”. Normal is about 10 for this time of year. However, if you had bothered to read the actual blog post from Oxford, you have noticed that they said variations above normal of that size happened 5 times in the past 3 years. Third, the UK reached 18.5 in 1999, which you would have known if you had actually read the article from the researchers at Oxford. The… Read more »
Again, anyone can look at the exact charts in those links and see which one of us is quoting them accurately. No, 10 is not “normal for this time of year”, 10 is normal for the peak of a very bad flu season and we are not in flu season, that already ended. Most of the Z values were around 0 to 1 or even negative the very week that coronavirus hit so it is outright wrong to suggest that 10 was the norm for this point, otherwise we would have started spiking from 10, not from 0. And you… Read more »
Okay, I’m looking at the article you linked and seeing how you misread it. The scientists say “the number of deaths has exceeded 3 SDs on five separate occasions in the past three years.” You interpreted that as, “similar excess death rates have occurred on five separate occasions in just the last 3 years.” But 3SD is NOT a similar excess death rate. Maybe that was true 2 weeks ago when those scientists prematurely made their claims in your first link. But now deaths are 13SD above normal!!! That’s wildly, wildly higher. Those two dots representing the last two weeks… Read more »
I’ll refer you back to the overall mortality graph for Europe. Because it takes into account 24 countries, we get a good overall picture of mortality in Europe. Yes, there are variables. But there are always variables.
The point is: is the European continent suffering any more mortality this year than normal? The answer is definitively no so far. Any conclusions you wish to draw beyond that are your imaginations. I’ll leave you to it.
And that way of looking at the data is just nonsensical. Let’s go back to your original claim: Jonathan, I’m not sure about the supposed stats on NY “average” deaths. But I would venture to guess that it would be far easier to explain that away than it would be for the entire European continent’s mortality rate to magically adjust downward to accommodate COVID-19’s additional deaths. You chose to ignore New York’s 300% increase in mortality to claim that Euope’s mortality rate had “magically” adjusted downwards to accomodate additional COVID-19 deaths. I pointed out to you that in the country-by-country… Read more »
What is nonsensical is to assume you understand all the facts involved and can explain away rather normal mortality numbers for a late seasonal viral outbreak. By all accounts, the graphs at that link show some of the countries are in the normal range, and others are higher. And some of the ones that are in the normal range locked down, and some that locked down spiked. To any open-minded person, that would suggest caution before coming to conclusions. I know you are absolutely sure you know what’s going on, but I am going to go with the suggestions of… Read more »
You started off the discussion claiming that Europe’s mortality numbers had “magically” adjusted downwards to accomodate coronavirus deaths. If you weren’t claiming some level of deception/manpiulation on the part of authorities when you said that, then I have no idea what your point was. We already have the individually tracked person-by-person coronavirus death totals to tell us how serious the outbreak is WITH our strong countermeasures. All the total mortality data is doing is reaffirming that, and in fact pointing to a somewhat higher total, when you actually look county by country rather than trying to obscure the numbers by… Read more »
Very few people are “absolutely sure” they know what is going on, and it’s pretty likely all of them are wrong. But I speak to people who know quite a bit on a very consistent basis, and the degree of uniformity among the people who know something about epidemics is rather strong. Just yesterday I attended a web seminar by two epidemiologists I’m connected to, they’re two of the three epidemiologists who I speak to personally about the epidemic in additional to a public health expert and several medical professionals. And once again I had my basic impressions of the… Read more »
Yes, anyone who wants to look at the charts can see who is referring to them correctly. 10k is the “normal” for the UK in April according to the chart. The peak during a normal flu season is 13k. In 2018 the normal was closer to 14-15k. In April of 2018, for instance, there was one week with nearly 13k deaths. 1999 was an abnormally bad flu season with the death total at 18.5k for the last week of that year. My point in referring to the 3SD’s above normal was to say that it is not unusual to see… Read more »
I’m sorry, a 13-sigma event is NOT like a 3-sigma event. For you to claim “oh, 3SD deviations occur so a 13SD deviation is no big deal” just makes no sense at all. Just look at the chart! You’re suggesting that the fact that deaths occasionally spike by 1-2 thousand above the norm means that the spikes in the last two weeks of 6,000 above followed by an additional 8,000 above are no big deal! And remember, you started this conversation about European data trying to claim that mortality had “magically” adjusted downwards to hide coronavirus deaths, now you’re looking… Read more »
I wasn’t claiming that the virus didn’t cause any deaths, or wasn’t causing more deaths than a normal healthy season. I’m not even in the camp that says this is a hoax or something. But I am skeptical. I was pointing out based on data from some scientists at Oxford that the hysteria was perhaps overblown. That perhaps this virus is not as dangerous as we were led to believe, but in fact is somewhat more in line with a late seasonal viral outbreak. Maybe it’s something that doesn’t happen “normally” but it may be something that does happen occasionally.… Read more »
Again, that conclusion is nowhere to be found in the links you sent. Perhaps you need to quote exactly what you think backs up that conclusion. Because the actual data suggests that even with extreme measures taken, we suffered an unprecedened spike in mortality, and all suggestions are that it would have been much worse without those measures. The fact that Sweden has a death rate 6x higher than the very similar countries of Norway and Finland, despite Sweden encorporating a great deal of lockdown itself and being in a very advantageous position, gives the beginnings of an idea of… Read more »
“Comparing the excess death curve with that of previous seasons we see the trend is consistent with previous outbreaks. The peaks and troughs are reflected in the stratified baseline (the red line), which is following a similar seasonal pattern to previous years.”
That’s the conclusion of the Oxford scientist who was analyzing the graph I pointed you to. It’s fine if you think that conclusion is “nowhere to be found”, but he disagrees. I’ll go with him on this one.
Yet another example of how much you misread them! The question they’re answering was whether the outbreak deaths could be verified via the total mortality count. The researchers are saying YES, the excess death curve indeed reflect the pattern that we see in a disease oubreak. That’s supporting my entire argument and a statement AGAINST the people like you who claim that the total mortality counts don’t reflect the coronavirus numbers. On the other hand, they are NOT saying that the excess death curve is the same degree as previous outbreaks, they made clear that this is a 13-sigma event… Read more »
And I would hope that an argument from the facts was enough, but since you insist on an argument from authority, it turns out the author you are misreading has been even more explicit in another statement: https://www.ft.com/content/67e6a4ee-3d05-43bc-ba03-e239799fa6ab Carl Heneghan, professor of evidence-based medicine at Oxford university, said the deadly effects of Covid-19 were much more marked than during a bad outbreak of seasonal influenza. “I don’t think we’ve ever seen such a sharp upturn in deaths at that rate,” he said. The 2017-18 seasonal flu outbreak may have killed 50,000 in the UK but “the reason we did not… Read more »
As if the crisis and suffering weren’t already bad enough, the next week’s numbers came in and they’re even more unprecedented. There are now three dots to the right that greatly outpace anything before, with the latest week showing 50% more excess deaths in a week than England had ever registered.
That is according to the very site you promoted to suggest that this was not an unprecedented or unusual event. You can see how tiny the “normal” flu outbreak peaks registered compared to what COVID-19 has wrought.
This has been a cataclysmic event in a number of countries and the overall mortality absolutely confirms that the deaths are not being exaggerated, they continue rather to be undercounted.
Also, Sweden is not a very helpful argument for you at all. As I pointed out, Sweden has had a huge spike in mortality rates, to the point where just two weeks ago the government official in charge of their strategy began to backtrack and admit that he may have made an error. It’s looking somewhat more hopeful now, and hopefully they DID make the right decision. I have family in Sweden who I love and I care for all the people there, I hope things go well for them. But whether it turns out to work out or not,… Read more »
Those are all plausible factors that could help explain Sweden’s relative success in this situation. But they are nothing more than plausible. None of it is undeniable proof. How many of those factors, to a certain degree, also apply to the Netherlands? There are too many factors, Jonathan, to come to dogmatic conclusions just yet. Keep an open mind that there are other factors and explanations. Btw, Germany has a higher infection rate than Sweden, in spite of their lockdowns. Of course, there are many factors that could explain that. But you and I simply can’t know what the definitive… Read more »
I don’t put much credence in “infection rate”, as that’s heavily a funciton of how solid each nation’s testing program is. Germany was lauded early and often for having one of the most aggressive testing programs in Europe. Per capita Germany tested 2.5x as many people than Sweden despite having a lesser outbreak, whch is why only about 2% of German tests were positive while 10% of Swedish tests were. The proof is in the pudding. Sweden has had 200 deaths/million, while Germany has only had 64 deaths/million. Sweden saw their total mortality factor spike to 10.91, double anything on… Read more »
What does the term “relative success” mean specifically, when Sweden is showing death rates 6x higher than its neighbor countries despite itself instituting meaningful (though not as complete) lockdown measures? And your question of how many of those factors apply to the Netherlands? Well, the fact that you’re trying to compare nearly the least-densely populated country in the EU with the most-densely populated country in the EU suggests that no, they aren’t comparable. Once again, the Netherlands is 20x more densely populated than Sweden. The difference is roughly the same as the difference between New York and Idaho. On top… Read more »
The UK took a casual approach through most of March, and the results have been deadly. I think it took Boris Johnson’s brush with death for people to realize that this is not merely the flu. My own dear Snowflake tested positive for it on Monday in spite of her having been out only once during the last five weeks. Either the virus came in on a pizza box or she acquired it during 15 minutes at a rental car office. I would very much appreciate your prayers; this is a trying time.
I will pray for you Jill.
My sister-in-law and her 8yo son both caught it in California. She’s a pharmacist in a hospital and it appeared to have passed straight through the staff. She recovered completely within two weeks. He took longer to recover, I believe that he is still having some breathing issues when he tries to run around, but he’s clearly over the hump.Due to his breathing issues he had to go to the hospital but was never in ICU. Chances are that snowflake will be just fine, demographically she’s in a pretty safe group.
So sorry to hear that your daughter has tested positive. Is she doing OK? You will have my prayers for your daughter and you.
Ugh, I made a basic division error and it’s too late to edit. All the other numbers are right, but the “since March” daily total should be about 604, not 680. About 450 more per day than usual. The 17,000 number was correct as of April 18th, it would be even higher now.
Hi Jonathan, I can’t explain it…but I don’t think COVID the virus is the only answer: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jan/07/americans-healthcare-medical-costs https://www.businessinsider.com/why-nycs-largest-emergency-hospital-javits-center-pretty-much-empty-2020-4 But I’ll lay a theory on you…How many people, prior to stay-at-home orders, were observed, diagnosed, and ultimately saved by their co-workers, their teachers, their neighbors? How many people have had a change in the way their medicine is prescribed and taken, their food comes or their needs get met? I have felt sad through this that I didn’t know how many people die of the flu each year, die of suicide, die of alcohol poisoning. This crisis has made me aware… Read more »
Thank you kindly J.F. Martin. The easiest counter to your theory is in the link that Issac just posted. It shows that death rates actually go down due to lockdowns. In the European countries with major COVID outbreaks, mortality rates spiked enormously when they started, and then came back down after lockdowns. In the European countries with lesser outbreaks, the morality rates fell well below normal levels due to the lockdowns. The same is true in the USA – areas without largescale coronavirus outbreaks that have gone on lockdown are actually seeing drops in mortality, not spikes. That’s likely due… Read more »
Complaining about downvotes again? I suggest you work on your insecurities rather than spend so much time online if your skin is that thin….
Don’t fall into that habit where you talk about me more than the subject. It does not bring enlightenment or grace to any of us. I would really rather focus on the topic, and am only trying to get people to discuss that.
@ JPS
“Anyone who’s done real quantitative work should be skeptical–especially those who know how people twist things to suit an agenda.”
I’ve done real quantitative work and I’m not skeptical. But unlike you, I’m not a follower of Douglas Wilson who has made a good living twisting things to suit his agenda.
You really need to get out more.
Legitimate quantitative work simply requires a denominator that is correct.
When accurate data from objective sampling is quantified, then we will see, and even quantify, who has been twisting things to suit an agenda.
Most people don’t need to get out more, to understand that quantitative basic.
We have already seen bad “quantitative” work cause field hospitals to be put up and taken down with out use, and ventilators being hoarded and then redistributed.
All due to poor policy, made from bad quantitative “work”.
You’re assuming that the only denominator that matters is “number infected”. But “number in the population” or “number in the affected sub-population” are also valid denominators for legitimate quantitative work. Knowing how many people have been infected is an important data point but it is not the only one from which important conclusions can be drawn, othewise we would have remained paralyzed from action even until now (as we still do not have that information).
I know the ‘Monday Morning Quarterbacking’ has only just begun, but I do hope there’s more reasonable debate on what to do NOW and why. I live in Southern Idaho, so much of what Pastor Wilson writes resonates with me by location, population density, personal observation in my location. I’m blessed to work in a food plant…but if the results in my plant were the same as a mid-western meat plant, I wouldn’t have time to read this blog. So naturally, I begin my own correlation exercise…what’s different, what’s the same, what are my contingency plans? The Idaho Statesman has… Read more »
I actually agree with you there. I’m not sure either, from the information we have, that a lockdown was necessary in some of our lowest-density states with low infection rates.
Perhaps ideally what would have happened in such states would have been a limit on large-crowd events combined with people doing a good job of masking up, maintaining social distance, and practicing frequent hygiene. And my guess would be those governors didn’t go that route because they assumed that people would do a poor job of conforming to voluntary rules. Which could be a valid assumption.
No, I’m not assuming anything. I’m stating the demonstrable fact that absent a legitimate, quantitative denominator, some officials do twist “things” to their own agenda, with the result of miss-allocated efforts and further public uncertainty.
0,
Perhaps in most cases the agenda is, better safe than sorry. But if you harbor a deep seeded distrust in government, well then, anything goes.
Anybody willing to bet their stimulus check that Wilson has put him money where his mouth is in the recent protests in Moscow, ID?
“…if Obama had said anything like that..” of course points to the fact that Obama was in fact not the one who said it, Trump was. The wishful thinking theme among Trump apologists continues to be Trump the three dimensional chess player. Anything but acknowledge that Trump says dumb things because he really doesn’t know any better.
I’m just flabbergasted how anyone could have watched 8 years of Obama in the White House followed by 3+ years of Trump, and then conclude that Obama was the one who really wanted absolute power and Trump doesn’t. I wasn’t happy with Obama’s presidency, but at least he followed norms, obeyed subpoenas, allowed people to testify, let the rest of government continue operating as normal. Trump’s lawyers literally argue in court that he is completely above the law, he flaunts historical norms for limits on presidential behavior, refuses to obey subpoenas, refuses to testify or allow anyone in his administration… Read more »
“he followed norms, obeyed subpoenas, allowed people to testify, let the rest of government continue operating as normal” Are you serious? Obama’s scandals and power grabs didn’t get nearly as much press, but his administration was full of them. Here’s a small sampling: DACA Much of Dodd-Frank and Obamacare was unconstitutional Extraordinary levels of NSA surveillance before Snowden exposed them Forcing Chrysler’s secured creditors to accept $0.30 on the dollar while labor unions received much more–a purely political move that was unprecedented and violated all sorts of things IRS political profiling EPA and other agencies had authority for things they… Read more »
Strange how a Republican-dominated Supreme Court and Republican-majority House and Senate came up with so little then. What was the most unconstitutional part of Dodd-Frank and Obamacare according to the Roberts Supreme Court? What was the most damning Congressional finding against Obama for all those things you list, and what were the proposed actions to take? Most of the things you mention are bad (though some aren’t even wrong), but any even mildly objective person is going to laugh at you if you suggest they weren’t the norm. Right or not, immigration law has been carried out via executive order… Read more »
You forgot the dead, gay ambassador in Libya. YouTube video with a 100 or so views caused that don’t you know.
Two responses to your Lewis list:
1. Did you forget about Abolition of Man or simply not put it in the top ten?
2. I didn’t love the first 2 volumes of Space Trilogy, but I’m about 1/3 of the way through Hideous Strength and every page has deep insight into the human condition and prophetic insight into current events.
Keep up the good work.
I was typing fast and forgot. That was really bad.
Mike the Oracle declared from on high: Unless and until we provide for the poor — at the governmental level, as the Bible commands… First, let’s define provide for: From Merriam-Webster : to make preparation to meet a need, especially : to supply something for sustenance or support From Oxford Learner’s Dictionary: provide for somebody : to give somebody the things that they need to live, such as food, money and clothing Now, with the definition of provide for established, where does the Bible command that government must give the poor the things that they need to live, such as… Read more »
The KJV in 2 Samuel 5:2 does say, “The LORD said to thee, Thou shalt feed my people Israel.” Many recent translations use “shepherd” instead of feed.
Either way, t’s a rather wooden understanding to think that means that King David (and, by extension, other civil governors) are responsible to literally put food on everyone’s table.