Rebane's Ruminations

Scattershots – 25apr20 (updated 27apr20)

George Rebane

The C19 timeline again shows that the WSJ does not walk on journalistic water.  In its 29jan20 edition the newspaper published a whopping load of bullcrap, reporting that “Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar told President Trump the coronavirus epidemic was under control.” Turns out he said no such thing, nor did he say/imply a number of other claims that the article by Rebecca Ballhaus and Stephanie Armour reported.  The Federalist has a detailed timeline (here) that should dispel the other lies that also continue from the Left’s lamestream about how Trump’s administration fell down on the job responding to C19.  Should be interesting reading, especially for those suffering from chronic TDS.

Death by ‘doctor’.  Longtime RR readers know of the respect I have for the medical industry that is lead by the untouchables who hubristically exhibit their exalted position in our society and resort to high dudgeon whenever their opinions or performance is called into question by the lay public.  It turns out that I have been a bit soft on the sawbones and the whole lot that supports them when I have cited that they and theirs kill almost 200,000 of us annually through what are swept under the rug as “under-recognized medical mistakes”.  Well I was wrong.  Johns Hopkins Medicine, you know the data guys on C19, has just concluded a new study that shows “medical errors are now the third leading cause of death in US.” (more here)  Almost 10% of all US deaths are due to medical screw-ups.  Today that amounts to over a quarter million (251,454 to be exact) buckets kicked prematurely even way back in 2013.  What would you say if America’s airline industry plowed three wide-bodies chuck full of passengers into the mud every day, day-in and day-out, year after year?  And our political leaders and the media don’t make a peep.  They keep their high-flying jobs by making it very hard to get that MD after your name, and reducing the types of available healthcare providers who could more economically minister to our everyday ills.  ‘First and foremost, do no harm.’ (Primum non noceres’, as the ol’ Hypocrites used to say.)  Hah!  Double Hah! 

California’s next economic enema.  The state is in dire financial straits because of the way it has set up milking its high earners for tax revenues while buying votes from the welfare throngs who pay little or no taxes.  The Hoover Institution explains the matter here, and points out that “in every recession, California inflicts its own fiscal wounds by relying on a tax system "that is explicitly designed to collect gobs of revenue during booms, but which completely goes in the tank during downturns, much more so than any other state. … To give you a sense of the inefficiency of California’s tax system, consider California’s economy just after the financial crisis of a decade ago. In fiscal year 2010, California revenue fell by 20 percent, compared to less than a 2 percent drop in state GDP.”  And the double dummy Democrats in Sacramento have brought this upon all of us as the decades-long political custodians of the once Golden State.

[26apr20 update]  How to respond to the coronavirus pandemic.  From time to time RR presents various pieces of generally useful information as a public service.  This is a short video that summarizes the comprehensive recommendations from our authorities on how to correctly combat C19 in these trying times.

The C19 interviews with ‘experts’ and talking heads are getting beyond boring.  If you can predict exactly how the person will answer, it’s like playing the same record over and over again.  And it is very easy to do once you know whether the person is a Lefty or healthcare professional, or a Rightie.   If your choice was to add another trillion to the national debt or accept one more C19 death, then the answer for most people is easy and it bookends the dollar value of a human life.  And if your choice was to pay $10 more in annual taxes to save a particular person from dying, most people would pay, thereby establishing the other bookend value of a human life.  So now that we’ve established that human lives have a dollar value, we can cut the ‘… if it can save even one life, then we should …” crap.  The problem that makes TV interviews boring I covered in ‘Fighting C19’ where we illustrated the different utility functions for the Right, the Left, and the healthcare people in the middle.  The latter only concern themselves with policies that would save one more human life, so you know what they’re going to say.  The Right is concerned with saving the economy by assuming risks to minimize additional C19 deaths; the Left simply wants the economy to tank, preferably while keeping the death rate high.  After all November is just around the corner.  Meanwhile the pabulum pours out of the boobtube.  So, dear reader, if you’re a thinking person, how many additional dollars would you add to national debt to prevent another C19 death?

[27apr20 update]  Today’s WSJ reports on a “Secret Group of Scientists and Billionaires Pushing Trump on a Covid-19 Plan."  They are working around the clock to cull the world’s most promising research for what they describe as a virus-era Manhattan Project.” (here)  This self-identified group of “America’s top scientists and a collection of billionaires and industry titans” with high-access to the Trump administration has been doing a lot of research on C19.  They have published a short readable report on their conclusions to date that you can download here – Download Scientists_to_Stop_COVID19_2020_04_23_FINAL.  Bottom line, some of their pharma recommendations on repurposing of existing drugs are already dated (e.g. the hoped for effectiveness on Gilead’s remdesivir - here), but their assessment of tests and testing strategies are valid and totally in line with what my fevered brain deduced starting a month ago – no one knows jack about test reliabilities, and effective testing programs require tests administered wholesale and frequently to everyone who desires to be out and about.  The rest of today's hyper-ventilation about tests and testing is just that.  They give short shrift to herd immunity and see the conquest of C19 to be based on medicines and new vaccines.  Until then they accept the RR recommendation I gave (here and here) for getting our economy back on its feet.  

A Nation Risk Averse - Scared, Cowering, and Compliant

George Rebane

In the middle of the 20^th century we lived in a world filled with ‘unconquered’ infectious diseases that were both life threatening and life limiting.  Everything from measles to polio lurked in places unknown.  And, of course, we had the rates of mortality and morbidity to show for it.  Nevertheless, life went on in full recognition of the hidden dangers laying in wait.  None of us thought of shutting down the country and cowering in our homes until someone somewhere in authority would make the dangers go away.

The 1918 Spanish flu pandemic killed 50M worldwide and somewhere well above half million Americans died of the disease.  But life not only went on, it thrived in the years after WW1 with the country’s economy growing while people were still coming down with the virus and other maladies.  Little to no mention of the disease made the news nor required special government dispensations affecting the entire population.  The flu was there, it would stay for a while, and then it would go away – meanwhile try not to get sick.

The same happened later in the century when we weathered the ‘Asian flu’ in 1957 – over 110,000 deaths in the US and 1M worldwide.  And then there came the ‘Hong Kong flu’, another Asian flu in 1968 – 100,000 deaths in the US and 1.1M worldwide.  From the NIH we learn that “within the past one hundred years, four pandemics have resulted from the emergence of a novel influenza strain for which humans possessed little or no immunity: the H1N1 Spanish flu (1918), the H2N2 Asian flu (1957), the H3N2 Hong Kong flu (1968), and the H1N1 swine flu (2009).”  They summarize these pandemics in the following table.

And then there were others like the avian or ‘bird flu’ which killed 70,000 Americans; and even more - it’s all very confusing.  But the bottom line is that people didn’t lose jobs, companies didn’t go out of business, the fed and state governments didn’t go autocratic, no one panicked, life went on.

Local Launch of Left’s New Covid-19 Narrative

George Rebane

The country’s Democrats are in a wholesale, smelly-sweat panic about the upcoming election – in reality a progressives’ pandemic.  They have wound up with an unelectable presidential candidate-in-waiting.  No one knows this better about Bumblebrain Biden than the DNC and its congressional leadership.  What to do?

The obvious answer - now that all the other years-long forays against Trump have not only come up empty, but also left the party’s faithful with maximum egg-on-face as November approaches  - is to loosen their lamestream lackeys along with its local acolytes with a new narrative about the causus belli du jour, and how President Trump mishandled the country’s C19 response, thereby causing thousands of additional deaths.

A long-languished letter

[Way back when, before C19 conquered the media, I was taken to task in its lead 13mar20 column by a Union reader about my views on the electoral college and democracy.  I submitted the following rebuttal which became a coronavirus casualty.  Its posting here is for the record, and an acknowledgement that not all my submissions get published.  So there.  gjr]

An Electoral College dialogue continued

Mr Dick Sciaroni wrote ‘Electoral College reform – it’s up to us’ in the 13mar20 Union, a measured and civil response to my 7mar20 Union column, ‘Democracy Destroys the Electoral College’, wherein he concludes with, “Is it time to reform the Electoral College system? Perhaps. It’s up to all of us, the citizens, to decide. That means dialogue, not diatribe.”  However, a more careful read of what I wrote would reveal that nowhere did I oppose a national dialogue on the continued utility of the Electoral College in the governance of our republic.  What I do oppose is the current approach to its sub-rosa and de facto elimination through the little known National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.

Mr Sciaroni writes, “The Founders’ decision how they should choose a president should have no overriding claim on 21st century America such that we cannot change it. After all, we are talking about our government. It’s ours. Why can’t we change it?”  In this he implies that I oppose any such change.  I don’t, but I do oppose what’s going on now.  The NPVIC is intended to surreptitiously sidestep a national dialogue, and most certainly subvert a constitutional process, through the leftwing mainstream media’s daily diatribes that call for a precipitous elimination of the Electoral College.  I highly doubt that more than one in a hundred Americans are aware of the NPVIC’s existence, its role in eliminating our EC, and current progress toward that goal – all happening without the national dialogue which Mr Sciaroni and I would welcome. 

In his piece, nowhere did Mr Sciaroni acknowledge that my arguments were directed against imposing governance by direct democracy on large diverse populations, in accord with our Framers.  Instead he did repeat the Left’s talking points that the configuration of the EC by our Framers was a devious stratagem to keep wealthy white men in power, and therefore is now a dated construct of our government that needs major overhaul, and perhaps removal altogether.

And his main point about the pervasive role of money in our elections ignores recent evidence that undermines his arguments.  In 2016 Hillary outspent Trump by far, in the current election Steyer, Bloomberg, and Bernie have all outspent our former VP Biden, and most certainly President Trump.  Yes, modern campaigns demand more funding to get out the message, but the evidence at hand is that it still continues to be the message, not the money that shapes the voters’ preferences.  In sum, such evidence should weigh heavily to counter Mr Sciaroni’s “final analysis” wherein he maintains that “the downside of the Electoral College is that it works hand-in-glove with moneyed interests to give a small number of people – not surprisingly, white males – access to the presidency of a country in which they are the decided minority.”  By all means, let us all talk about this.

George Rebane is a retired systems scientist in Nevada County who blogs on Rebane’s Ruminations.

Testing to determine population fractions – extended (updated 23apr20)

George Rebane

In ‘Testing to determine population fractions’ I introduced the reliability aspect of tests for both infection and immunity.  This is still not a serious consideration brought up in the daily WH C19 briefings, and, of course, nothing of this level of complexity is covered in the media for various reasons ranging from the acumen of their ‘journalists’ to the media-perceived acumen of their audiences.  Here we are not deterred by such deficits.

In the referenced post the strong point was made that it is not appropriate to take the uncorrected fraction of tests positive from a random sample, and apply that to the target population from which the sample was drawn.  The correction formula was derived and illustrated, along with how errors in the poorly known test sensitivities and specificities propagate into even the corrected estimates of target population fractions.  Since then I’ve done more work to graphically illustrate these mathematics in a visually accessible manner by introducing the population fraction correction surface on which these mathematical concepts can be illustrated for the non-technical reader.  The updated technical note that explains all this can be downloaded here - Download TN2004-2v200420  The figure below is a sample of the explained correction surface for a scenario in which 45% of the tested sample yielded positive test results.  Two tests of different reliability are shown in the figure, details in the technical note.

[21apr20 update]  Tonight we hear from the FDA that more than 50 different immunity testing kits are being developed by the private sector, and submitted for regulatory approval by the agency along with corroborating data derived from the companies’ “self-validations”.  But the FDA's report and subsequent questions from the nation's top reporters sitting in the WH press room are woefully inadequate for any inquiring mind.  Not one word is said about what kind of test reliability data will be required, collected, and supplied from the self-validations.  (Readers who understand and care know that the seminal information about ANY test includes first and foremost its sensitivity and specificity numbers along with their error bounds.  Without those numbers, the rest is bullshit.)  And not one word is said or asked about what kind of testing is intended to support what kind of C19 response policies.  Again, the simple inclusion of the word ‘testing’ in the media blather is considered sufficient for a nation seen as consisting overwhelmingly of double dummies.

[23apr20 update]  Bootstrapping parameters for a new test.  There may be times when we want to introduce into field use a new test for reasons having, perhaps, to do with cost, ease of application, rapid results turnaround, etc.  We want to get the new test online as quickly as possible, which requires that we also must quickly determine its performance parameters without having to go through the more lengthy and costly formal process.  Given the development in the above described TN2004-2, a method for bootstrapping such parameters for a new test is introduced in TN2004-3 which can be downloaded here -  Download TN2004-3v200425

Ruminations – 20apr20

George Rebane

“We are all in this together.”  Who make up the “we”?  What defines the “this”?  Porter Stansberry makes a very compelling cast that this assertion by the governments and their loyal lackies is the Big Lie of today (here)  – we are not all in this together, and the ‘this’ is different for all of us who live in various regions of the country. Its main purpose is to convince good-hearted people to overlook the realities of the C19 epidemic and follow the ever more invasive and pervasive dicta of the authorities who laying in command and control procedures that will survive the end of the epidemic by decades.  What’s happening now that we’re hunkering down is training us to accept a whole slew of new constraints on the liberties that our Constitution guarantees.  Again, harbinger Numero Uno is when they come for our guns.

The Great Divide confirmed more than ever.  Cohesive nation-states have always come together and shown their fundamental unity when confronting an external threat or national emergency.  America has been a posterchild of such unity since the War Between the States (erroneously still called the Civil War).  No more.  As we have been observing now for over a decade, the divisions between us today are unfathomable and too large to overcome.  Nowhere is this demonstrated with greater unambiguity than in our response to the C19 pandemic.  Here in this election year, one party is doing its best to heal the nation and return to normalcy, while the evil party is doing everything possible to extend the human misery, bring longterm destruction to our economy, and blame America under the current administration for any and all ills across the world.  Their goal is to bring the US to its knees as the disease abates, in order to present the global collective a fundamentally transformed nation that is weak, compliant, and chastened.

Under ‘Autocracy Rising’ we are getting reports of new egregious behaviors by our LE cadres as they start imitating Stasi tactics across the land during this pandemic.  One Florida student who caught C19-type symptoms on a high school band trip and recovered, posted her experience on Instagram.  The school became enraged and sicked the local cops on her.  These showed up at her residence and threatened to “start taking people to jail” for “disorderly conduct” unless she immediately removed her post, which she did.  Later it was pointed out that our Constitution makes no “pandemic exception” for denying 1A rights.  Sign of the times – bend over and spread ‘em. (more here)

More on Autocracy Rising - NYC mayor and its Stasi’s Oberführer Bill de Blasio is now exhorting New Yorkers to report social distancing infractions by neighbors to the authorities (here). He wants the citizen snitch to take a picture of the scofflaws, and send it immediately to the police so that “we can get help there to fix the problem.”  Gotta love them Dems – give ‘em an inch, and they’ll take … .

What is the purpose of testing???

George Rebane

This may be the most definitive evidence that dumbth is the established order of the day in America.  Everyone has been screaming about testing, and continues that to this minute.  But no one has told us why test – what kind of metric is testing supposed to provide to public policy makers, and how will it be used to support those policies.  I would think that this would be something that we would be briefed on instead of hearing from one side that there are not enough tests, and the other citing the numbers of tests that have been administered and shipped.

The dumbest thing I hear from the daily briefings is that we have now given over 3 million infection tests – really!!?  BFD!  What the hell are you going to do with the results of 3 million infection tests, results obtained willy-nilly from all over the country over the last 5-6 weeks?  I don’t hear the Drs Fauci or Birx telling us jack about how the test results will be used.  And what should be even more amazing – but is not – is that our crack journalists, double dummies all, have never thought to even consider asking for the purpose of testing.

Some silly shit answer like, ‘well, it’ll tell the healthcare people if the tested person has C19’ – so what?!  If the sumbich already feels poorly with C19 symptoms, it isn’t the test that’s going to get him admitted into a clinic or hospital.  And if he isn’t symptomatic, then it’s pure happenstance that a serendipitous test of unknown reliability tests positive, and he’s then advised to get off the streets, and wait until his symptoms appear before he bothers anyone.

And then some other worthy will explain to the peanut gallery that we need testing to find out the extent of the pandemic and identify new C19 hot spots early.  Does anyone at NIH or CDC have a clue about the kind of testing program required – its extent, frequency, and duration – for that??  We hope that someone there passed a stats class somewhere in their career, but today they sure as hell don’t act like it. 

Infection testing needs to be conducted continuously on random samples drawn from critical target populations – remember, infection tests are snapshots the results of which can and do change overnight.  To be fair, Dr Fauci last night finally acknowledged that neither the US nor any other country has the ability to do the kind of infection testing for early identification of hot spots.  And don’t get me started again on factoring in test reliabilities into any kind of a non-existent organized testing program; no one has even made a peep about that. 

Immunity (antibody/antigen) testing gives time-dependent enduring results that tells us the extent of herd immunity that may already exist in a target population.  However, Dr Birx also finally admitted that today’s immunity test reliabilities are so bad that it’s futile to use them with any confidence to determine the recovered share of target populations.  When and if such tests become reliable, at that point if the recovered share is sufficiently high, then even ‘lives over profits’ policy makers can start staging back-to-work policies.  And if the recovered population grows too slowly, then that advises that the target population is hunkering down too hard, and we again need to loosen things up a mite to start making progress against C19.

But in the meantime, what in hell is going on out there with our political leaders and their teams of so-called ‘experts’??  Given what we can and cannot do in the testing field, the known attributes of C19, and the general dynamics of virulent epidemics, it’s past time to start a programmed loosening up of America’s commerce.

The Second Wave of Covid-19 (updated 15apr20)

George Rebane

[A rewrite of this piece for broader audiences - 'The big decision and the second wave' - appeared in the 18apr20 online and print editions of The Union.]

As we start to turn the corner on the initial wave of C19 infections sweeping the land, people are already talking about the second wave and what it may look like after we carefully restart the economy.  I did some noodling with Epidyne about what a second wave might look like as it takes another cut at us in California.  Our state is thought to have had a large TBD fraction of people who already became immune last fall and early this year through asymptomatic infections.  This is plausible from what we now know about the 2019 timeline of the Wuhan virus.

This assumption goes a long way to explaining why California’s infection, morbidity, and mortality numbers are so low, especially since we are one of the major Asia gateways into the US.  The bottom line here is that we in our state already had developed a high level of herd immunity (q.v.) when the real C19 hit the country in early February of this year.

I ran a number of scenarios of a second wave using the latest CDC max reproduction rate of 2.6 which gets whittled down as herd immunity grows.  And everyone now says that the Germans have calculated the most accurate death rate of 0.4% of the infected for developed country healthcare systems.  Using these numbers on California’s 40M population, and letting the immunity fraction from the first wave vary from 0% (no one became immune) as an unrealistic bookend, to 50%, which most epidemiologists now think is closer to truth, I generated the infected population curves shown below.

The Epidyne model (here) illustrates the highly non-linear nature of epidemic spread experienced in populations with various levels of herd immunity.  We see the impact of the disease weakening as the percent immune increases in a fairly orderly way with little change in the second wave’s onset and its duration.  This begins to markedly change as the immune percentage passes 30%.  Then we see the curves flattening out with a delayed onset and a longer duration.  Keep in mind that the infected cohort is made up of the asymptomatic, pre-symptomatic, and those requiring professional medical attention.  The latter comprising of about 10% of the infected according to the latest figures.  It is also from this cohort that we derive the mortality numbers.

The table below shows the maximum infected, the maximum hospital load, and the number deceased for the second wave as a function of the initial percent immune.

From the graph above we see that the duration of the wave for the lower immunities is about 2.5 months, and for immunities above 40% the epidemic’s onset is later, of lower intensity, and lasts about 3 to 3.5 months.

We must also note that the above numbers don’t reflect any imposition of a second statewide quarantine.  Were we to take a more reasoned look at what kind of second wave we would have, I would agree with those who calculate that California’s immunity percentage would be very close to 50% coming out of the first wave that includes the cohort of pre-first wave immunities.  Of course, if a second widespread quarantine is imposed that impacted proportionately the uninfected vulnerable and immune populations, then the intensity curves would all be lower and also more spread out.

Important in all this policy making is the ability to conduct immunity (antibody/antigen) testing on random samples from the state.  I have extensively discussed testing previously (here and here), and also introduced readers to Epidyne (here).  And when all is said and done on running these numbers, it sure looks like we should be ready soon to loosen the reins on our economy, and then not be too apprehensive about the so-called second wave - it will be quite manageable.

[update]  So what all should policy makers actually consider as they wrestle with the decision of when and how to reopen the economy?  Items definitely to include involve and understanding of the scenarios I have illustrated above regarding second wave infections.  (We assume they have access to spread models at least as powerful as Epidyne.)  But before that, one needs to take a measure of the situation in answering the question, what is and/or should be the immunity level in the target population I’m considering opening up.  From above we saw that the immunity level should be somewhere north of 40% so that herd immunity can kick in and reduce the severity of the second wave after we have again started doing business in the land.

That decision will again involve another round of testing a random sample drawn from such a population.  This time the test will be for the presence of immunizing antibodies/antigens, and these tests will also have their own levels reliability expressed in their sensitivities and specificities.  More formally these are respectively the probabilities of test positive given the presence of the ‘antis’, here P⁺. and test positive when no ‘antis’ are present, here P^-.  I explained the whole process here, for those needing a review.

The remainder of this update has a couple of squigglies in it that makes it easier to read from this pdf - Download SecondWaveUpdate 

[15apr20 update]  The Epidyne second wave results shown above are now beginning to be described by prominent contagious disease experts and epidemiologists in interviews and columns that forebode ill if C19 returns to a population with a still WIP herd immunity.  They are now doing some Monday morning quarterbacking on the governments' policies of people quarantining, sequestering themselves at home, and social distancing on their infrequent forays to gather their necessaries (more here). Their arguments about “unintended consequences”, of course, make sense.  All epidemics burn themselves out primarily through the beneficial action of herd immunity among the survivors of the disease (else they just kill everyone infected).  But herd immunity is inhibited by premature and too comprehensive and longlasting quarantines.  This means that once the people are ‘released’, any residual contagious agents will necessarily reinfect and start the disease cycle all over again.  I have illustrated that with the Epidyne spread model, generating a number of epidemic return scenarios as a function of various levels of herd immunity being in place when society was opened up again.

Documentary on the origin of the CCP virus

George Rebane

A reader sent me an interesting piece in the Epoch Times, an independent non-partisan news outfit rapidly gaining a reputation for their no-nonsense reporting.  They have put some effort into assembling a detailed documentary video on the origin of C19, aka CCP virus, aka Covid-19, aka (longer and more detailed labels).  The information presented in this documentary (here) is definitely explosive if some other name news outfit or organization confirms their findings.  I was impressed that respected syndicated columnist and China expert Gordon Chang lends his name to this documentary.  Those who on a reasonable basis reject the evidence presented in this somewhat exhaustive journalistic enterprise, then have a lot of counter evidence to present.  American Thinker picks up on this story here.

Hunker Down Diary – 11apr20 (updated 12apr20)

George Rebane

Today is HD35 for the Rebanes.  And all things considered on our ridge top overlooking Deer Creek Canyon and the Central Valley, we are doing well.  We’ve gone out twice now for groceries and haven’t even come close to hitting our ‘large scale emergency’ stash.  We continue to meet online with our respective organizations, and there has been plenty of time for books and projects.  Most of you have caught a whiff of my squiggly pushing projects, specifically in epidemic spread modeling and testing.  Playing different scenarios through these models has been both revealing and educational (I’ll share some of these in the by and by.)  

I am a dyed-in-the-wool numbers guy and confirm daily that people who don’t know the numbers on any given issue, don’t know what they’re talking about.  And knowing the numbers is just the start on the road to understanding anything in the public arena – then you run into things like different utilities to support decisions, and various collections of knowledge shared by decision makers.  What is most frustrating to me is how little our government bureaucrats know what is going on, and what it takes to gather such knowledge.

The medical industry has never impressed me, quite the opposite.  They are primarily good-hearted technicians and journeymen operating in the dark, trying to follow dated rules and regulations while suffering through the usual human frustrations and weaknesses.  As covered elsewhere, their mistakes cause around 200,000 deaths annually.  The only hope to make that industry more beneficial to society is to allow its practitioners to have more freedom to devise and apply better methods for healing, and allow entrepreneurs easier access to bring the fruits of their labors to bear on the sick and suffering.  Instead, we appear to be going exactly in the opposite direction both by bumbling and on misguided purpose – half of us want to supersize regulatory control and apply central one-size-for-all planning.

Testing to determine population fractions

George Rebane

In ‘Testing’s Tower of Babel’ I promised to inform readers of the reliability of testing in order to determine the fraction of a target population that has a defined attribute.  Today the whole country is supposed to be interested in the extent of the C19 infection, and also the extent of the recovery from the disease.  Such test results are supposed to inform government policy makers about the stage of the pandemic, and whether to respond with more draconian quarantines or begin reviving the nation’s economy – important information indeed.

Let me begin with the punchline of this treatise – to determine a population fraction is more complex than people (and policy makers) are led to believe, and the ‘naïve’ approach of just taking the number of those testing positive from a random sample and dividing that by the size of the sample gives answers that are significantly in error.  That is apparent by just recognizing that a real test is unreliable, having less than perfect sensitivity – it misses infected people – and also specificity – it counts some uninfected as infected.  Such a test will give a wrong answer for the fraction infected when using the naïve approach on a tested random sample from the target population.

That motivated me to take a closer look, and after pushing some squigglies, the solution to calculating the correct fraction of infected emerged.  As expected, the formula involves sample size, and the test’s reliability parameters.  All such theoretical developments need confirmation, so I wrote a program to simulate real test results that takes into account errors in all parameter values involved in such testing.  The results were heartening, the derived correction formula nails the actual infected fraction, its confidence bounds are easily computed from the relevant input error distributions.

I provide the supporting details for all this in a technical note that you can download here – Download TN2004-2

As a teaser for some more noodling about assessing the state and progress of the C19 pandemic, we read that it’s not only the Chinese who have been lying through their teeth about what happened in Wuhan and what is still going on in the country.  Our own mavens of morbidity have not been all that professional and meticulous about the data they publish.  Here is a piece in the American Thinker that exposes our CDC which now confesses to having lied about C19 death stats.  In ‘The CDC Confesses to Lying About COVID-19 Death Numbers’ we read, “How many people have actually died from COVID-19 is anyone’s guess … but based on how death certificates are being filled out, you can be certain the number is substantially lower than what we are being told.  Based on inaccurate, incomplete data people are being terrorized by fearmongers into relinquishing cherished freedoms.” (H/T to reader)

This also has a bearing on testing.  When composing a random sample, how do we treat those in the sample who have recently died of C19 (or something else) or have already been diagnosed with C19?  Different approaches will inform different policy decisions.  Our media are not smart enough to either understand or report on any of these considerations.  And does anyone really care about such details, beyond just using their misunderstandings to cast aspersions at each other from their ideological perches?

Now for the downside on the call for all this testing.  No one knows how reliable the tests are, especially the new ones. (more here)  Somehow all of that has passed by our entire news industry, showing again what kind of pikers they are.  Since we know neither the average sensitivity and specificity of the tests, nor their probabilistic dispersions, all of these calls for testing are nothing short of an exercise in politics and emotions.  Has anyone even heard Drs Fauci or Brix bringing up test reliability, or showing even a smidgen of concern about that overarching reality in the use of tests and testing????  We'll see what kind of interest RR readers show in this issue.

Victor Davis Hanson nails it

George Rebane

Noted historian, American classicist, and syndicated columnist Victor Davis Hanson writes a comprehensive column ‘Corona Meltdowns’ that details the demonic evils of the Democratic Party in this time of crisis for our nation.  He echoes and substantiates what we here have posted and discussed over the years, more frequently since the election of President Trump, and most recently under ‘The Demonic Party reveals itself’.  This is must reading for all who frequent here, especially those fervent acolytes of the Left.

Testing’s Tower of Babel

George Rebane

In these pages it is always a bittersweet experience to encounter the extended comments of one of our progressive readers who so absolutely confirms their signature attributes, recorded here over the years, and at the same time illustrates their gross misunderstanding of the issue at hand.  Testing for the presence of the C19 virus – both broadscale and at the individual level - is the current widely misunderstood issue at hand.

The progressive reader, firmly clad in the armor of his ideological (socialist, collectivist) and topical (TDS, election year) narratives, comes with lamestream embedded, evidence-free notions about the function and efficacy of tests in fighting the C19 pandemic.  In addition to being burdened with these narratives, such readers are almost always from the nation’s cohort of those whose knowledge of the maths is thin, and whose understanding of the fine arts of probabilistics has yet to form – those multi-generational millions of innumerate Americans turned out by our woefully dysfunctional public schools.

These people, here and across the country, share a common and murky misunderstanding of what information testing under various formats for the presence of C19 infection will provide the individual, healthcare workers, or policy makers.  They believe that somehow any and all kinds of test applications will do everything from protecting the tested individual, and provide information that would let our political leaders and healthcare authorities devise stratagems to eradicate C19 sooner than later – most certainly within a much better schedule than the current administration is prosecuting.  Yet they ignore, or cannot understand, that there is no evidence yet to support such beliefs.  Citing the comparative experience of other countries illustrates the futility of their fanatical grip on such beliefs (more here).

Before we again dive into the impact of testing numbers on our progress in this ‘war on C19’, we review some critical definitions without which any reasonable discussion is not possible. Sensitivity - a highly sensitive test means that there are few false negative results, and thus fewer cases of disease are missed – i.e. probability P(TP|V) is high. The specificity of a test is its ability to reliably designate an individual who does not have a disease as negative. A highly specific test means that there are few false positive results – i.e. probability P(TP|¬V) is low.  (more here, here, and here; but unfortunately the trigger warning for those references stands)

Some realities to consider before the numbers –

• “Even if you test negative for COVID-19, assume you have it, experts say” (here)
• “The whole testing field is in flux,” said Bill Miller, a physician and epidemiologist at the Ohio State University. “The thing that is different this time is most of these tests are going through a really rapid validation process. As a result we can’t be completely confident in how they will perform.” (here and here)

Fighting C19 (updated 10may20)

George Rebane

Here are some points about our country’s approach to fighting the C19 coronavirus.

The main reason the media reporters and the administration are talking past each other about what C19 response policies to follow or even how to evaluate what’s being done is that no one is astute enough to put their finger on the widely different and competing utilities or figures of merit that the various parties are trying to maximize.  Here are three distinct ones.

U_Trump tries to find a balance between the economy (GDP$) and the mortality of C19 (total number dead) by appropriately trading off weighting constants C1 and C2.  I’m not sure that any of them on Team Trump are either bright enough or courageous enough to tell the President that this is what his gut is telling him to do, and that this can be put on a more rigorous basis for making defensible policy decisions.

When we listen to medicos like Drs Fauci or Brix, they claim to be apolitical, and the policies they recommend attempt to maximize U_Medico by minimizing the number of dead.  None of those guys concern themselves with the economy or the longer term health impacts of an economically destitute country.  They focus on the here and now of saving lives, period.

And then there’s the Democrats whose utility is all about getting back into power and putting the country on a solid road to socialism cum communism.  They could give a big rat’s ass about a recovering economy or minimizing the number of C19 deaths.  Their utility U_Dems is the converse of U_Trump.  The want the economy to take the biggest conceivable hit, and have as many people die as possible, all of which, no matter the numbers, they will blame on Team Trump.  Their Big Lie will be that things would have been much better under a Dem (Hillary?) administration, and we’ll be happy dancing again as soon as we throw Trump out of office.

If those reporters would understand any of this, they could perhaps quit asking profoundly stupid questions and write some cogent reports that sort out the apparent differences between the gaggle of factions in the public forum.

Then there’s the matter of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and azithromycin (AZ) the policies toward which I have covered elsewhere in these pages.  Trump and I promote the use of these proven malaria fighting and anti-biotic drugs for ameliorating C19 both as a prophylactic and as a therapeutic.  The tests (albeit of limited sample sizes) that have been done with these drugs in treating C19 have already delivered impressive results.  And a big study is underway to measure its effectiveness.  But I (and Trump?) take great hope in promoting their immediate use in that they are already being successfully used in the US in this pandemic, and healthcare workers, led by the physicians, are prescribing them for their own use and hoarding the supplies of HCQ and AZ whenever they can get their hands on it.  They know these drugs are safe, and they have nothing to lose in taking them.

So here’s the Rebane Doctrine for the prescription and use of HCQ and AZ.  The Dems are on record vilifying the President for being a proponent of something they consider to be unproven, ineffective, and possibly dangerous.  Whether they believe their own crap is irrelevant, refer again to the utility function discussion above.  Almost everyone on the Right wants HCQ and AZ as quickly as they can get their hands on it.  And if we believe the numbnuts on the Left, they want nothing to do with it, and would be glad to have the folks on the Right scarf it up.  So as these two drugs become available, let's have the Repubs and the Dems agree on a distribution policy based on party registration.  Those who are registered Repubs are first in line to get the drugs, and those registered as Dems either don’t get them, or are last in line if they have a belated epiphany.  Both sides win; what’s not to like?

[6apr20 update]  And here is some more dismal news on how government bureaucracies are impeding the fight against C19 in their approach to approving and/or promoting the use of HCQ and AZ by hospitals and our personal physicians. These are the same guys to whose care and feeding our Left wants to turn over our nation’s healthcare industry.  And here more evidence from the field comes in.  (H/T to readers)

[10may20 update] HCQ as a SARS prophylaxis was discovered over 15 years ago, and (to my knowledge) first published in the Virology Journal here.  HCQ’s successful clinical uses against C19 have been reported from both Wuhan and Singapore, and most recently its robust use in Costa Rica (here).  Further reports about its successful uses, especially preventing progress of the disease in early onset patients, is becoming available in dribs and drabs from all over, including the US.  Why ‘dribs and drabs’?  That is because here in America the Left has politicized the attempts at its widespread clinical uses for the obvious reasons involving President Trump. (more here)  We recall, that ALL things new in science and technology have had to surmount intense opposition from the then entrenched establishments, both technical and political.  In this litigious land it takes rare courage for physicians to wander too far from the CYA comforts of ‘standard of care’, and the Left and their lamestream lackeys have driven a stake in the ground about HCQ being the one therapeutic that is too far afield – ‘Physician, be forewarned!’

But rejoice, the pushback on the Left has now progressed from ‘HCQ is ineffective, harmful, and dangerous’ to a ‘Large Study Suggests Malaria Drug Hydroxychloroquine Doesn’t Help COVID-19’ in the just published 7may20 New England Journal of Medicine.  Therein the strongest statements against HCQ that the authors can make is that (all italicized emphases mine)

• “Hydroxychloroquine has been widely administered to patients with COVID-19 without robust evidence supporting its use.”
• “The study found no significant link between use of hydroxychloroquine and intubation or death.”
• “Our strong feeling is the drug should not be routinely administered to patients with COVID-19.”

What they all avoid denying is the effectiveness of HCQ in the early onset phases of C19.

As more evidence of the ‘dribs and drabs’ that substantiate HCQ uses, consider two recent French studies – here and here.

The bottom line is that no medicine is 100% effective for all cases of any single disease in all of its phases.  But HCQ is now known to be sufficiently effective in the treatment of C19, enough to scare the bejeezus out of Left’s leadership as they attempt to fashion their anti-Trump campaign, while saddled with their champion Bumblebrain sporting Pelosi’s kerchief in his gauntlet.

Epidyne – At first blush

George Rebane

As promised, I finally finished the V1.0 version of Epidyne during this enforced C19 self-quarantine, or hunkering down period as it is better known.  The stay at home has allowed a lot of things to get accomplished on everyone’s ‘do list’.  At our house we have not had a boring moment – so many interesting projects, and now some uninterrupted time to do them.  For me, developing a working epidemic spread model has been a lot of fun and also very consuming.  I hope the interested readers will also be stimulated by and gain a better understanding of the terrible C19 pandemic now sweeping the world wreaking havoc on lives and livelihoods.

Motivation.  In light of the daily reported dilemmas of widely divergent epidemic spread models that are being consulted by our national C19 response planners, and also the background reports of their various vintages and provenances that make them all more or less difficult to use, let alone upgrade or even maintain, I decided to develop my own version so that I could play out various recorded data and policy alternatives, and inform RR readers of results I considered insightful, informative, or at least interesting.

Objective.  My objective was to develop a model that was sufficiently complex to simulate and predict realworld experiences and outcomes, but no more than that.  The model had to have an adequately rich input space (think of them as control knobs) that could be set to represent both policy alternatives (such as time/size dependent quarantines, and regional populations), and also incorporate field measured data (such as infection rates dependent on virulence and vectors, contagion durations, and onset time lags).  Most certainly the model had to be able to handle the critical infection rate dynamics driven by the process known as ‘herd immunity’.

RR readers got an early peek at Epidyne, my home-brew epidemiological spread model, in the last ‘Hunker Down Diary’ post (here).  Since then I’ve finished testing it and fixed the inevitable collection of bugs.  In this post I will do a first cut intro to describe the model and demonstrate its workings through a few scenarios.  Epidyne has been programmed in both an Excel™ spreadsheet and the system development language Matlab™.  A portion of the spreadsheet model is shown below.

Epidyne models the time history of the sizes and change rates (time derivatives) of four inter-related population cohorts that comprise a regional population into which an infectious disease is introduced that has the potential of becoming an epidemic.  These cohorts are comprised of pU - those uninfected yet vulnerable; pI - those currently infected; pR - those who have recovered and are no longer infectious; and pD - the deceased.  pU may also be mediated by timed quarantines which can reduce the size of pU or increase it when the quarantines end or are (partially) ignored before the epidemic runs its course.

As shown above, the population flows from vulnerable uninfected cohort to the infected cohort, which then feeds the non-decreasing recovered and the deceased cohorts.  The asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic infected continue to reduce the uninfected population at a variable ‘reproduction’ rate rI (cf. herd immunity).  The course of the disease in an infected individual is completed within nI weeks after which the individual has either recovered or died.  The mortality rate of the infected is given by rD.

The above is from the technical note that describes Epidyne and illustrates its use.  It may be downloaded here.  Download TN2004-1_Epidyne

Face Masks – A considered view

[Dr Hullett is a longtime friend, colleague, and RR reader.  As systems engineers and developers, we have traveled much of the long road together.  He has given permission to publish this personal correspondence.]

Wayne Hullett, PhD

The coronavirus particles are too small to be seen. A doctor on Youtube suggested thinking about coronavirus particles as the glitter worn by some people at festive events. If you have ever gotten any glitter on you, then you know how difficult it is to get off. As George has pointed out, the source of this glitter is the lungs of people who have the disease, most of whom do not yet have symptoms and thus probably do not know they have it. The glitter exits their bodies with normal breathing, talking, coughs and sneezes, and becomes an aerosol in the air. It can float in the air for several minutes before it settles on the floor, on nearby surfaces, or gets inhaled into the lungs of someone nearby. Those who inhale enough of it also become infected, and after an incubation period, they too become a source of the glitter. Anyone who touches a surface that has accumulated some glitter and then touches their mouth, nose or eyes also lets it into their system and can also become infected, thus becoming another source. This is how it spreads exponentially.

Here is a good discussion of the size of virus particles (the glitter) and how well mask materials trap them.

Three common materials and the amount of virus particles they trap are:

Hankerchief    28%
Surgical Mask    80%
N95 Mask    96%

There are two reasons to wear a mask: 1. to keep particles out and 2. to keep particles in. If you wear a mask to keep from catching the virus, you would want an N95 mask, which requires some care and training in fitting. This is what our doctors and nurses wear when treating coronavirus patients. And the patients (I hope) wear surgical masks to protect the medical personnel.

Now, I am guessing (I am an engineer, not a medical doctor), that the body's immune system can deal with a small number of particles, which is why the N95 masks, at 96% effectiveness) seem to work. Also, older people's immune system does not work as well as when they were young, which would explain the increased mortality with age.

The best reason to wear a mask, it seems to me, is to keep the particles IN; to keep from spreading them. A surgical mask (the blue pleated mask you see in hospital TV shows and any street scene of an Asian country) traps 80% of the particles. This, to me, is huge. If only 20% of the particles are getting into the air and on surfaces, then much fewer people will get infected. I am not sure whether it is 1 for 1 (80% fewer infections), but if the body's immune system is able to handle a small amount of particles, then common sense tells me that there will me many fewer infections, thus reducing the impact on the hospital system and buying us more time to develop an effective treatment or vaccine, resulting in fewer deaths.

So, while social distancing is effective, the next best thing we can do is for EVERYONE, especially the younger who may have only a mild case and not even know they are carriers, to wear surgical masks most of the time. Older folks should stay at home, and wear N95 masks when they have to emerge to buy groceries.

I am troubled by the CDC party line that masks do not help. I think they issued that statement because there is a shortage of masks, and by claiming that they do not help they hope to avert a rush to buy and horde masks, thus denying them to the medical professionals who have a greater need. Even the Surgeon General was defending that lie on TV today. I think the correct approach is to not lie, but to tell the truth and to cure the shortage. There are around 330 million people in the country, and the masks are single use, so I am thinking that we need a production capacity of somewhere between 100 million and 500 million surgical masks per day, and maybe 10% to 20% of that of N95 masks. Considering production capability this country developed in WWII, I would think that is readily achievable, for as long as it takes to develop and get approval for a vaccine. They should be on the supermarket shelves next to the bread and milk (and beer), and cost less than a penny each. In the interim, the CDC and Surgeon General could help not by lying but by showing us how to make the most effective homemade masks from commonly available materials. There are already a number of Youtube videos that show how to make masks of various qualities.

So, the key, for most people, is not to wear the mask to keep from getting the virus, but to keep everyone else from getting it from you, because you may not know you are a carrier. Protect your fellow citizens by wearing a mask.

**** [In my reply I included the following.}

Thanks much Wayne, I will definitely post this.  My take on masks may be a bit more broader than yours.  Not only do they reduce the fraction/size of the exhaled aerosols, but also capture a significant fraction (perhaps not as great as the exhaled part) of the infectious aerosol particles during inhalation.  Bottom line, a wide use of masks will help in two ways to reduce the ‘reproduction’ factor/rate among a population of infected pre-symptomatic and vulnerable uninfected people. 

Scattershots – 31mar20 (updated 4apr20)

George Rebane

Happiness is being tested positive for C19 antibodies.

The US has five times as many per capita ventilators as does the UK.  This was reported on the news tonight along with other real stats showing the comparative lead the US has over other countries in fighting C19.  Concurrently we have the Democrats doing everything they can to lie, misconstrue, block, extend, dun, … any and every area of progress we have been making in tackling this global disaster, one that the country has not experienced in at least a century or perhaps ever.  Team Pelosi/Schumer are filling the lamestream’s bandwidth with snark, lies, and misrepresentations of data in order to pave the way for Bumblebrain Biden in the fall.  They blame it all on Trump in the most vicious ways possible.  None of them mention that the bat-originated coronaviruses were identified and the warnings published in October 2007 as the Bush2 administration was ending (one of our readers dug it up for us here).  Obama did NOTHING over his eight years to prepare the country.  In states, governors like our Moonbeam dismantled the preparations that Schwarzenegger had put in place.  EU nations with socialized healthcare have responded woefully late and ineffectively to the virus, as we have shown in these pages, while attempting to replicate US policies.  None of this makes no never mind to our socialist Left.  After spending three extremely disruptive years to impeach Trump the first time, Pelosi is already making plans to start impeaching the President once more should he be re-elected.  The Demonic Party cares only for the power over the people that they can garner if they can make Trump look like he delivered too little too late, and then only when the Dems made him do it.  Ignoring Trump’s way with words, he is doing the right thing at every turn with the information and wherewithal the country has.  Just calling out the Dems’s Big Lies grossly understates what those people are really doing to our country.

[1apr20 update]  Multi-attribute utility – that is the set of horns America is attempting to balance on today.  Such a utility does not present a stark choice as in ‘Your money or your life?!’, it’s more nuanced and real like ‘Your health or your economy?’.  In the latter you can see the utility of maximizing measures of the country’s health through policies that minimize the near-term C19 morbidity and mortality, while teetering on the other end is maximizing measures of our economy like continuing employment and GDP.  In decision theory these are competing attributes of a single utility function (Figure of Merit, if you prefer) that computes to a single number which you try to maximize through correct decisions.  Coming up with a broadly accepted utility is ALWAYS an exercise in compromising subjective values, and therefore always hard.  Even if you agree on the attributes to be included, placing weights on them becomes the next contention to overcome – say, you accept U = w1*(GDP) – w2*(total deaths) to be maximized over the next twelve months.  What values should we accept for the weights w1 and w2?  Capice?  That’s the kind of exercise staffers versed in this art are attempting to educate their principals so that more rigorous analytics can then be brought to bear on candidate policies (i.e. the decisions) to evaluate their relative merits.  For a variety of reasons, most politicians hate utility functions and rigorous analytics.

Eschewing President Trump’s daily C19 briefings.  The demonic Dems have a conundrum since all but FN have decided not to broadcast the briefings, labeling them as nothing but ‘Trump campaign rallies’.  The problem is that these cynical dufuses know that these are anything but political rallies.  They consist of factual information and data delivered by domain (here, healthcare) experts in understandable formats that summarize the progress of C19 across the land and explain the technologies and logistics brought to bear in fighting the pandemic.  They include our political leader’s exhortations, apprehensions of policy, and expressions of hope – all proper content in a perilous time such as this.  And then all of them can be questioned by the few attending reporters (most there for 'gotcha' questions).  His political enemies, media mouthpieces, and the country’s inculcated pretend to abhor and ignore these daily sessions, all the while carefully watching FN so that they can have something to say during their hours of vituperation.  The Dems really have a problem – no viable candidate, no policies, nothing but TDS to tell Americans, and now how to pick and promote an alternative (e.g. Cuomo) during our national hunkering down time when the election has taken a back seat, and all attention is focused on the doings of Team Trump.

[2apr20 update]  Daniel Pearl murderer gets reprieve from death sentence (here) .  Omar Saeed Sheikh, along with others, were convicted by a Pakistani court in 2003 of murdering WSJ South Asia bureau chief Daniel Pearl.  Today we learn that the “court reduces charges against British national Omar Saeed Sheikh to kidnapping, cuts sentence from death to seven years.”  Danny’s kidnapping and beheading in 2002 was the first of many such murders by various Islamic terrorists in the years that followed.  His father Dr Judea Pearl is a Turing laureate (2012) and world-famous computer scientist with ground-breaking work in heuristics, Bayesian inference, and causality.  Judea and Danny’s mother Ruth launched the Daniel Pearl Foundation that brought many Muslim journalists for sabbaticals in American media companies as an effort to foster greater understanding between Islamic and western cultures. (more here)

[3apr20 update] ‘Questions About Accuracy of Coronavirus Tests Sow Worry’ (here and here) reports on the concerns that are now beginning to trouble both healthcare workers and political leaders.  RR readers received a thorough tutorial on the reliability of such tests in ‘The Value of Testing’.  Our innumerate citizenry doesn’t really have a clue on the impact of testing on the spread of C19 virus.  At least now some people are beginning to take note that testing is NOT the denied big salvation that the Dems have been screaming about, and using the test shortage as one more reason to attack the administration and divide the country.  I will do an update on the significance of current test performance numbers (sensitivity = Pr(test positive given you have C19), and specificity = Pr(test negative given you don’t have C19) which are still a mystery to the medicos.  Right now I’m trying get out the first post on my epidemic spreading model Epidyne(V1.0) which should provide some answers to the uncertainty in the predictions that we receive from the daily C19 briefings, and also answer some questions on what levels of infections and deaths we can expect as this epidemic sweeps the country.  As some of you know, the healthcare pros are having quite a consternation on the conflicting reports from their many spreading models (hence the reason I developed Epidyne).

Parents are a danger to their children’s carefully inculcated minds in these times during their enforced home stays.  That is the opinion of an emerging clutch of unionized woke (aka evil) teachers as cited by one of our regular commenters (someone please find the link for me so that I can include it herein, thanks).  These ‘educators’ are afraid that their years of drilling large government socialism into their formative minds will all be washed away when they spend more time with their parents and learn an alternative set of values and mores, and God knows what else with which they may pollute their carefully nurtured brain bones.  The little darlins may even come back to school with an appreciation of capitalism, free markets, and religion (gasp!).

[4apr20 update] Trump’s “off color” joke.  The demonic Dems are showing off their hyper-hypocritical side again by suddenly becoming paramount prudes.  In his yesterday’s C19 briefing the discussion went to the deaths predicted by the models.  After Dr Brix finished her contribution on the various results from the various models, the President interjected, “The models show hundreds of thousands of people are going to die and you know what I want to do? I want to come way under the model,” then adding a tongue-in-cheek, “The professionals did the models. I was never involved in a model. At least this kind of a model.”  And the liberal media went ballistic.  Now these are the same ‘journalists’ and media mavens whose demand for freedom of speech focuses on being able to inject “shit”, “fuck”, …, and people humping into America’s films and TV fare as frequently as possible.  Then they get the vapors when Trump delivers his little bon mot.  (As a relevant aside, FLOTUS Melania was a professional model and a business woman when she and Donald were married.)  

Hunker Down Diary – 30mar20 (updated)

George Rebane

When there's a problem, don't bet against government as being its source.

For the Rebanes today is HD23.  Given the comment stream under the 26mar20 posting of HDD, in addition to sharing my own hunker down doings, I am going to make this an ongoing repository of readers’ experiences, views, and opinions concerning the Covid19 pandemic.  Hopefully we will draw strength and get a laugh or two from each other’s fears, feats, and foibles as we cope and spend time with family (and friends?) in close quarters for the duration.

Jo Ann and I have taken this time to finish long-languishing projects, add to our already extensive reading lists, and continue our normal intercourse with family and friends through new means of distance socializing.  My own direction has been, unsurprisingly, to look at our cultural changes and public policies that are driven by the current social distancing and economic slowdown.   When we emerge on the other side, things are going to be markedly different in how we conduct our lives.  I intend to offer a structured list of the affected areas which I hope will draw some stimulating discussion and, of course, expansion from the fertile minds of RR readers.

In the meantime, I share with you the scariest news I’ve heard about C19 that was just published by the LA Times (here or here) – the virus is definitely and pervasively transmitted by aerosols exhaled by pre-symptomatic infected people, aerosols which can dwell for hours suspended in the air we breathe.

An interim C19 ‘vaccine’?  On the more hopeful side, the biggest and most suppressed news is about the efficacy of hydro-chloroquine (HCQ) in protecting against C19 onset, and the combination of HCQ and azithromycin (AZM) in treating the disease after onset of symptoms.  Multiple reports have now emerged about the successes in the use of these drugs in controlled hospital settings here and abroad. (here and here)  So here’s an idea for a possible interim C19 vaccine from Dr Rebane (PhD NOT MD) – administer a sequence or combination of (weakened if possible) C19 virus and/then HCQ, either one after the other, say, a day apart, or together in a cocktail.  The hopeful idea being that the virus would set off the body’s natural mechanism for producing C19 antibodies, and the presence of HCQ would ameliorate the onset of the disease, allowing the individual to recover with an effective level of immunity.  I wouldn’t recommend this to people with pre-existing medical conditions that already make them more vulnerable to C19.  Anyway, as always, readers’ thoughts on this are most welcome.

On the more mundane side, it’s worth noting with some alarm that our stores continue to be out of sanitary and paper products.  Hunker down hoarding continues to take its toll on many things, and now more than ever since President Trump has extended the HD advisory to last through April.

Junk Journalism on Parade (updated 4apr20)

George Rebane

Ignorant, cynical, agenda-driven (you pick) media scribes and talking heads are doing a real disservice to the American public.  Their latest is the reporting of misconstrued pandemic data in ways designed to make the US look like an incompetent laggard in the fight against the virus.  Playing to an innumerate audience, these ‘journalists’ are citing cherry picked raw numbers of everything from total cases, deaths, ventilators, tests, masks, you name it in a way that is totally meaningless.  No one in the audience has any way of understanding the significance of the reported numbers, and more so when these are compared to similar numbers from other countries.

Here’s an example of what I’m trying to convey.  The yellow journalists report the yellow data, and the required information (i.e. data formatted to support decisions) that allows the audience to make meaningful comparisons is in green.  There would be a lot less for the lamestream and progressives to hyperventilate about if comparable per capita rates were reported for morbidity, mortality, materiel shortages/supplies, etc.  From this morning’s Covid19 count we have -

And here is another major contribution of today’s fake news – ‘The Lost Month: How a Failure to Test Blinded the US to Covid-19’ -  from the fallen NYT that blames the Trump administration for 1) the failures of long dysfunctional federal bureaucracies, 2) not anticipating a black swan, and 3) for not doing something (comprehensive widespread testing) that was impossible, unwarranted at the time, and would not have provided the called-out information.  Their main message, “Aggressive screening might have helped contain the coronavirus in the United States.  But technical flaws, regulatory hurdles, and lapse in leadership let it spread undetected for weeks.”  Six ‘journalists’ participated in this misleading hit job.  Such crap from progressive politicians with terminal TDS are understandable, like the one from Pelosi (here).  It remains clear why this vaunted 'gray lady' continues to be the darling of progressives.

Here’s how to look at aspects of different countries’ healthcare systems – this one from the OECD on what share of out-of-pocket household income people spend on prescription drugs.  Such a presentation allows a more accurate comparison of consumer costs experienced under different healthcare systems and provides a new perspective on the big ‘greedy’ pharma.

In my book there’s a difference between journalists, reporters, and simply media hacks.  Journalists used to hew to a code of ethics about research and reporting – today that practice ranges between rare and long gone.  Reporters are anybody off the street or from another department told to go out for a look-see and type up what they thought they ran into in time for a publishing deadline – these are the learn-while-you-earn types.  A bunch of those still exist.  But today it is the media hacks who fill the overwhelming number of print and broadcast slots.  These are people with good hair and teeth whose job is to shape the news into specified formats that promote the message of the outlet’s political and ideological masters.

[4apr20 update] H/T to reader.

Hunker Down Diary – 26mar20 (updated 27mar20)

George Rebane

When there’s a problem, government is guilty until proven innocent.

Today is HD19 for the Rebanes.  We started hunkering down on 8 March 2020, and finally risked it all this morning by showing up at our local Safeway at 7am, the advertised ‘old folks shopping time’.  Apparently the younger people had not gotten the word, and the store was full with a lot of couples like Jo Ann and me pushing two carts.  Most of us wore gloves, a few had on masks, and all of us social distanced as much as possible.  But what we saw was dismal; something you’d experience in a socialist second or third world country – ‘miles’ of empty shelves of the stuff that everyone really wanted to buy.  Still, we all filled our baskets with what there was and substituted a lot of PlanB items.

What surprised me was that today the younger generation of managers have no knowledge, let alone experience, of the buying patterns during times of emergency and need.  With all signs of the coming hunker down time apparent more than a month ago, no one, starting with FEMA, advised the supply system to put the pedal to the metal on obvious staples and sanitary items.  There was no anticipative ‘push’ in the pipeline.  Everything appeared to have continued on with the JIT (just in time) scheme that works so well during happy days.  The makers and distributers are making do with the JIT schema in spite of the enormous consumer ‘pull’ of empty shelves.

The Value of Testing

George Rebane

Trigger warning: The contents of this commentary may not be accessible to the innumerate reader.

As explained in ‘Testing, testing, …’, the value of testing comes to the fore when you have a sufficiently reliable test that can be administered on a regular and scientific basis over a suspect population.  In that case, it could be used to identify concentrations of infections that can be used for a more satisficing allocation of limited healthcare resources.  In an update to the referenced commentary, I illustrated how to determine the reliability of test results given the reliability parameters of the test administered to a walk-in member of a suspect population (country, state, county, city, region, …).

In this piece I will answer the questions many reasonable people have about testing – ‘why test if the tests are unreliable?  Why test if the test only provides a snapshot assessment which may change within the next hour?’  We start by recalling the advice from our federal and state medicos.  Given the limited availability of tests and processing labs, we are only supposed to request a test if we are symptomatic – fever, cough, headache, … .  Don’t burden the system if you are asymptomatic.

To read the remainder of this analytical commentary full of some algebra and all kinds of numbers, please download this PDF - Download The Value of Testing

‘Your money or your life!’ (updated 21mar20)

George Rebane

Proposition:  Many more lives will be lost and/or ruined by intentionally tanking our economy into a depression, than will be lost to Covid19 going forward with a balanced policy of social distancing and continuing our economic pursuits with due prudence during the waning epidemic.

The iconic and immortal Jack Benny, comic of a bygone era known for portraying a skinflint, performed that classic skit where a robber walks up with a gun and demands, ‘Your money or your life!’.  Benny takes time to react and looks absorbed, prompting the thug to demand ‘Well?!’ to which Jack replies, ‘I’m thinking, I’m thinking.’

At Casa Rebane we are now in HD13 – our 13^th day of hunkering down which began on 8 March.  We are in the so-called most vulnerable age group, even though we are both still healthy, which at our ages can change overnight.  Given this, and the many birthdays under our belts, both of us have had much talk about what direction the country should take going forward.  The alternatives seem to be –

1. Everyone hunkers down, leave home only for the necessaries of life, businesses shut down, millions of jobs are permanently lost, government prints and distributes tons of cash to everyone (with dire fiscal consequences), the morbidity and mortality curves are flattened, and if all ‘goes well’ we emerge losing fewer lives to Covid19 and then dive into a genuine global depression taking years to recover, during which many more (millions) of uncounted lives are lost to poverty and perhaps real war, and more millions of lives are consigned to various stages of destitution.
2. Quickly learn how to manage infection risks with social distancing etc, and go on with prudently modified business practices while preventive medicines/vaccines are discovered and treatments developed to minimize the inevitable morbidity and mortality rates which will rise and take from the oldest and weakest among us. But in doing so keep the wheels of business and industry turning so that we don’t become a second or third world country with the potential for real civil unrest that will inevitably rise from our great and chronic socio-political divisions.

Rebane Doctrine calls for taking #2 as the wisest and best approach.  Executing such a well-considered and purposeful plan forward will allow us to emerge economically strong, and most certainly wiser about how to manage our affairs in preparation for the next pandemic (Covid19 is NOT the last one we will encounter).  And showing leadership with #2 will allow us to set an example to the rest of the world and support them in taking their own prudent risks and cope with small to moderate losses.

If our national measure of utility is to reduce the number of premature deaths over, say, the next five years, then it’s a no-brainer to avoid #1.  So while you are doing your own thinking, consider that no poor and destitute country has ever been able to take care of its own, let alone help others and contribute to preserving the environment and providing a satisfying quality of life for its citizens.  Fearfully hunkering down will guarantee that we will suffer such a dreadful future, in short America opting for #1 will be penny wise and pound foolish.

I am reminded of the encouraging words of Sgt Dan Daly, the holder of two Medals of Honor at Bellau Wood, “Come on you sons of bitches, do you want to live forever?!”

[21mar20 update]  ‘Low Wage Workers Face Brunt of Coronavirus Crisis’ (here) is one of the many news articles explaining to us the obvious – it was ever thus.  Yet these low- and mid-wage workers are continuously pandered to about the feds bailing out Wall Street capitalists and greedy corporations.  They don’t grasp that giving money only to such workers will not help, for they will have nowhere to spend it for their necessaries – if only the grassroots libs would attempt to think about that.  But they don’t; they don’t comprehend that the low- and mid-wage workers don’t create jobs, instead, they benefit from having jobs.

It is America’s business owners and investors who create and sustain the companies, and take the risks to make the stuff we need while creating the jobs that make our quality of life possible – it is called capitalism.  But today, one of our political parties and its academia, media and entertainment industry allies are doing everything possible (including crisis enhancement) to convince Americans that government can do it all much better than the private sector – they take pride in being called socialists and communists.

“Testing, testing, testing” – Really? (updated 23mar20)

George Rebane

Those words from Speaker Pelosi summarized her three most important aspects of the pandemic legislation now going through Congress.  But once more I believe that the lady misses the point here.  Testing will do demonstrably little to stop or even slow down the inevitable and incipient explosion of Covid19 infections in the land.  The emphasis of governments at all levels now should be to facilitate manufacture and distribution of life’s necessaries and healthcare equipment/supplies to treat the daily growing cohort of the infected requiring medical treatment.

A couple of useful definitions for discussing the pandemic – ‘asymptomatic’ means “showing no evidence of disease”, and ‘pre-symptomatic’ means having been infected but not yet showing symptoms.

The pandemic will stop only after 1) all have been infected (meaning it never stopped), or 2) it dies out since no more infections and the lucky infected have survived and are no longer infectious.  The best and fastest way to achieve the latter without inevitably overstressing our healthcare system is to self-quarantine and STAY AT HOME.  The head fed expert on infectious diseases, Dr Anthony Fauci, reinforced this prescription again today when he advised everyone to maximize the time they can “stay at home” (here).

A lot of bullcrap about how the virus is transmitted still pollutes the media channels.  Dr Michael Osterholm, director of University of Minnesota’s Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy, gives some extremely important and cogent advice about Covid19 transmission (here) the main takeaways from which are –

1. The virus survives for several days on surfaces, depending on the material and its environment.
2. The virus is readily transmitted via the aerosols (exhalations, sneezes, coughs, …) from infected people. And the scariest part is that in the air the virus can survive for a matter of hours.
3. Pre-symptomatic people can infect others. Just because you are asymptomatic does not guarantee that you are not pre-symptomatic.
4. Available masks do little to nothing to stop your breathing the viral aerosol.
5. No anti-Covid19 vaccine will be available in time to stop the coming national spike in infections.
6. The only way to stop the spread is maximum social distancing, i.e. self-quarantine yourself, stay at home.
7. Our medical infrastructure is woefully inadequate to cope with what is coming; the spike in infections will overwhelm it. We will wind up triaging like the Italians and others are doing now.

So getting back to testing, and how that affects each of us.  I’ve prepared a little flowchart that most people (most certainly the astute RR readers) can understand.  It shows clearly how your being tested for the virus is essentially immaterial as to what you should really do in any event.

In the meantime, our Democrats and lamestream media along with international news outlets like the leftwing Economist, continue to lambast President Trump.  They blame everything from starting the pandemic, through not having the country’s healthcare system prepared and waiting (no nation has achieved this even now), to securing America’s borders as evidence of his “mismanaging” this national emergency.  In the mean time all the EU countries are sealing their own borders and many have already shut down all walk-in businesses and imposed national quarantines.  Any idiot should know that one obvious way the infections will continue to increase is through infectious people uncontrollably crossing borders.  But apparently not.

And finally, I want to make the point that this pandemic may turn into a large-scale emergency for all of us (recall that’s an emergency when 911 calls are not answered).  But however it ends, we will have a national dialogue that will result in new policies calling for major changes in our preparedness for such future catastrophes which will surely pay us another visit.  A discussion of what these may be, I will reserve for a future commentary and comment stream.

[16mar20 update]  It’s worth continuing to pay attention to the Dems’ Big Lie programs.  Most noteworthy now is the continuing lie that we would have done a better job fighting the coronavirus had we already implemented a nationalized healthcare system like Bernie’s ‘Medicare for All’.  If anyone cares to look at how the countries with nationalized healthcare are doing in this pandemic, they would quickly be disabused of any such thing.

The other part of last night’s comedy debate was Bumblebrain’s ongoing claims that somehow he was in the crucial heart of policy making and implementation in the Obama administration.  Listening to him talk, ol’ Bumble was right in the middle of all that was happening.  If anyone cares to check the record, they quickly discover that the man was one watering short of a potted plant during the entire eight years.  VP Biden was trotted out to stand behind Obama during photo ops, dignitary dinners, and other ceremonial occasions, mostly to allay rumors of his early demise.  Oh yes, he was allowed to attend certain meetings as long as he kept his mouth shut.  So you know Bernie has to bite his tongue when, like last night, Bumblebrain claimed to be the “steady hand” that quashed the ebola epidemic and kept it from our shores.

Now, as with Trump’s bravado, I would not count as ‘lies’ these outlandish claims of accomplishment.  But it would be refreshing to hear a progressive see such a common thread that knits together all politicians.

And also, do you note that like socialists, they don’t want to call attention to China’s autocratic mismanagement of when the Wuhan virus epidemic started?  No mention is made of its genesis in China or Wuhan because such attributions would be “racist”.  The lamestream, of course, fell into line immediately.  For them and theirs, President Trump is a much more believable cause of all that’s bad about the Covid19 pandemic.

[17mar20 update]  Sierra Nevada Memorial Hospital sent out a notice to their foundation members (of which Jo Ann and I are) regarding their new drive-through testing program.  They also direct you to the county's coronavirus information website is here.

 Drive-through Covid-19 testing now at SNMH

Sierra Nevada Memorial Hospital will begin drive-through Covid-19 testing from 3:00-6:00 p.m. on Tuesday and Wednesday (3/17 & 3/18).

If you are symptomatic and meet criteria for testing, Nevada County residents should call their primary care doctor. If the doctor agrees that an individual needs to be tested, the doctor can fax an order to the hospital.

Sierra Nevada Memorial Hospital will call the patient to set up an appointment drive-through time. Please do not attempt to go to the testing drive-through without a previously set-up appointment. 

[18mar20 update]  New epidemic model revealed.  It turns out that the epidemic spread model that’s currently most trusted and used by policy makers in various countries is from the epidemic modeling group at Imperial College. (here, here, and here)  Note the (lack of) emphasis put on testing as a policy tool to affect infection and mortality rates.

Common malaria drug prevents and fights Covid19.  That is claimed in a report announced on Anthony Watts website (here) that was authored in league with Stanford University School of Medicine, National Academy of Sciences, among others, and published in several respected journals.  This, of course, would be the best news yet to salve the pandemic until a vaccine arrives.  In the meantime, Dr Rebane advises that you reconsider a gin and tonic as your afternoon preventative; after all, it is made with tonic water.  (H/T to reader)  The summary of the report follows –

Recent guidelines from South Korea and China report that chloroquine is an effective antiviral therapeutic treatment against Coronavirus Disease 2019.  Use of chloroquine (tablets) is showing favorable outcomes in humans infected with Coronavirus including faster time to recovery and shorter hospital stay.  US CDC research shows that chloroquine also has strong potential as a prophylactic (preventative) measure against coronavirus in the lab, while we wait for a vaccine to be developed.  Chloroquine is an inexpensive, globally available drug that has been in widespread human use since 1945 against malaria, autoimmune and various other conditions. 

[23mar20 update]  The reliability of Covid19 tests now reported should give most of us pause.  We are told that existing tests catch about 60% of people infected with the virus, and they test positive from 3% to 50% of those who are not infected.  So what’s the utility of giving a test to an asymptomatic walk-in American?  Well, the good Rev Bayes can help us out (more here).

[Trigger warning: some mild-mannered math ahead.]

The Long Road Back - Loss/Recovery

George Rebane

Given all the problems caused by the global Covid-19 pandemic, we now contemplate your investment portfolio in light of the markets' plunge over the last two weeks - in short, we'll now expand our horizons from the morbid to the macabre.

An Electoral College dialogue continued

George Rebane

Mr Dick Sciaroni wrote 'Electoral College reform - it's up to us' in the 13mar20 Union, a measured and civil response to my 7mar20 Union column, ‘Democracy Destroys the Electoral College’ (and here), wherein he concludes with, “Is it time to reform the Electoral College system? Perhaps. It’s up to all of us, the citizens, to decide. That means dialogue, not diatribe.”  However, a more careful read of what I wrote would reveal that nowhere did I oppose a national dialogue on the continued utility of the Electoral College in the governance of our republic.  What I do oppose is the current approach to its subrosa and de facto elimination through the little known National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.

Mr Sciaroni writes, “The Founders’ decision how they should choose a president should have no overriding claim on 21st century America such that we cannot change it. After all, we are talking about our government. It’s ours. Why can’t we change it?”  In this he implies that I oppose any such change.  I don’t, but I do oppose what’s going on now.  The NPVIC is intended to surreptitiously sidestep a national dialogue, and most certainly subvert a constitutional process, through the leftwing mainstream media’s daily diatribes that call for a precipitous elimination of the Electoral College.  I highly doubt that more than one in a hundred Americans are aware of the NPVIC’s existence, its role in eliminating our EC, and current progress toward that goal – all happening without the national dialogue which Mr Sciaroni and I would welcome. 

In his piece, nowhere did Mr Sciaroni acknowledge that my arguments were directed against imposing governance by direct democracy on large diverse populations, in accord with our Framers.  Instead he did repeat the Left’s talking points that the configuration of the EC by our Framers was a devious stratagem to keep wealthy white men in power, and therefore is now a dated construct of our government that needs major overhaul, and perhaps removal altogether.

And his main point about the pervasive role of money in our elections ignores recent evidence that undermines his arguments.  In 2016 Hillary outspent Trump by far, in the current election Steyer, Bloomberg, and Bernie have all outspent our former VP Biden, and most certainly President Trump.  Yes, modern campaigns demand more funding to get out the message, but the evidence at hand is that it still continues to be the message, not the money that shapes the voters’ preferences.  In sum, such evidence should weigh heavily to counter Mr Sciaroni’s “final analysis” wherein he maintains that “the downside of the Electoral College is that it works hand-in-glove with moneyed interests to give a small number of people – not surprisingly, white males – access to the presidency of a country in which they are the decided minority.”  By all means, let us all talk about this.