As the COVID case count rises dramatically in Texas, and even in my little county, which sprang from 5 to near 40 cases in a few weeks, the controversy I'm following most closely is whether the case increase also portends an increase in deaths. So far, thank goodness, there have been no deaths in my county. The death rate in Texas has increased modestly, but nowhere near as quickly as the case rate. I'm not inclined to celebrate just yet, because death is a lagging indicator, but the case increase has been going on for several weeks now. If the death rate were going to spike, it probably ought to have spiked by now. I'm holding my breath and hoping for good news in the coming week or two.
This
Reason article has some encouraging statistics in it. The sad news is that one reason the death rate was so high early in the pandemic, besides the doctors' need for time to develop better treatments, was that we gave it carte blanche to rip through nursing home populations. Now that the average age of patients is dropping, so is the death rate.
The mask/no-mask controversy continues to rage, distorted by a bizarre insistence that masks must be either 0% or 100% effective, and that all masks are alike. My own view is that passing laws equating bandanas with effective N95 masks is basically an admission that what we're talking about now is a government-mandated symbolic expression, never a good idea in my book. Still, I readily admit that I can't prove the widespread wearing of masks outside the home is useless, much as I suspect it is.
Locally, we're also at each other's throats over whether closing the beaches is prudent and compassionate, or useless and fascist. On the one hand, the beaches are an excellent place to be, far better than hanging out indoors for all but the most severely isolated and careful people. On the other hand, in my county, keeping the beaches open inspires visions of a huge human wave of tourists from the dirty, dangerous cities--and tourists will pack bars and restaurants rather than staying on the nice, clean beach. My approach is not to frequent bars and restaurants, but my neighbors legitimately fear that when others frequent bars and pick up the virus, they don't keep it to themselves. Again, that's why I'm not going out much. Barhoppers are not coming into my house. But that approach is cold comfort to people who still have to encounter the public at work every day.
There's a lot of fear-fueled fury. I continue to urge people to be more patient with each other about how we all interpret some unclear and contradictory data. As usual, that's a losing battle with many. Facebook is even more hysterical than usual. I view my job there as pointing out as politely and dispassionately as I can that we're leaping to conclusions about some things, and that while caution is useful when the data are unclear and the maximum downside is severe (however rare it may be), we don't have to believe passionately in the most pessimistic possible interpretation of events. Surely that message reaches a handful of people.
I'm particularly interested in one area of confusion. We
know that a large percentage of virus carriers are asymptomatic, maybe something like 40% overall, with huge differences in specific populations like jails or children. We also
hypothesize that asymptomatic carriers are X% as contagious as symptomatic carriers. There are pretty good ways to get a handle on the first number, while the second remains elusive. A surprising number of people conflate the two, and become convinced that 40% (if not 100%) of asymptomatic carriers are contagious, and not just a little bit contagious, but just as contagious as a severely ill coughing, sneezing patient with a high fever, and furthermore, that "science has proved it." This conviction appears impervious to information or argument in most sufferers. If I say we have no consensus yet on how contagious the asymptomatic carriers are, I get back, "But how can you deny that lots of carriers are asymptomatic!" There's just no disentangling the two ideas in many people.