A Slippery Slope

Today, we're going to talk about slopes, as in the slope of a curve. Why? Because the media, in their never-ending quest to scare you and shut down the economy again so that we're in a deep recession come November (because the party they control can't field a candidate who can defeat Pres. Trump on the merits), is once again using language that distorts the truth. (Note: this may look like a long post, but it's mostly graphs.)

To wit: the uber-liberal outlet The Hill (whose motto is "Changing America. Shared Destiny. Shared Responsibility.", which is pretty ominous, when one considers their agenda) published an article on June 22 with the headline, "12 states show record spikes in coronavirus cases."

The text of the article includes this statement: "Twelve states recorded data suggesting a record number of new cases." First and foremost, this does not suggest a "spike." Today's record number could be two cases more than yesterday's, and yesterday's number could be in the ballpark of daily new cases for the past couple of months.

So to put the lie to their false headline (to merely call it misleading would be too generous, and the media do not deserve my generosity), I'm going to list those twelve states. Then I'm going to post graphs for each of those states that show data for all dates going back to mid-March. I'll post two graphs for each state: one showing daily new cases, the other showing daily new deaths. (I'll explain the importance of that distinction following the graphs.)

I'm going to use a logarithmic scale, for several reasons: first, that's what the "experts" (i.e., Drs. Fauci and Birx) use. Second, it responds to skewness toward large values. And third, it best illustrates "exponential growth." I'll leave it for you to plot your own imaginary trend line over the peaks of the new cases and new deaths, and to decide whether that trend line represents a "spike" or a gradual rise.

My source is infection2020.com, which uses data from the CDC, WHO, New York Times, Johns Hopkins University, Corona Data Scraper, and official state and county health agencies. In other words, it is skewed, as all of those sources overstate deaths directly attributable to COVID (the CDC admits this in explaining its methodology, and Colorado had to adjust its reported deaths downward due to non-COVID deaths reported as COVID deaths). All of these sources grossly understate total cases due to the fact that many of those infected have very mild or no symptoms, and have never been tested for either presence of the virus, or antibodies from having had it and recovered. So we don't know who has been infected. This understatement is in part offset by the fact that a great many people were diagnosed based on symptoms and without a test, and may actually have had the flu or some other ailment.

The states cited in the article are: Florida, Texas, Arizona, Utah, South Carolina, Nevada, Georgia, Missouri, Montana, California, Tennessee, and Oklahoma. Here we go.

What do you see when you look at these graphs? See any "spikes" in cases, other than maybe from a day when very few new cases are reported to a day when the number of new cases is about in line with the trend?

Look, I don't want to lead the witness, but I'm a data guy. I look at data trends for a living. So I'll tell you what I see.

In most of those states, I see a gradually increasing trend level of new daily cases. I don't see a single spike. I do see some new records in daily cases, but in several states, the recent levels, albeit elevated from a few days or weeks earlier, are not new records - in at least in one case, not nearly so. In other words, The Hill is outright lying. And if The Hill will lie, so will CNN, MSNBC, the New York Times, the Washington Post, ABC, et al. (Even Fox News is using the "spikes" falsehood in its reporting, and it's not in the "Bad Orange Man Bad" camp.)

And in all of those states, I see flat to declining new daily deaths. In some of those states, sharply declining. (To include Montana on the list is laughable: that state's total cases and deaths are less than many counties in the U.S., and it hasn't reported more than one new daily death since April - and its daily peak was three deaths.)

Why include data on deaths? Here's why. First, an increase in cases may be a function of opening states back up. But it's also definitely a function of increased testing. You know how the media is now reporting along the lines of, "OMG positive cases are increasing among YOUNG PEOPLE!!!"? Well, early on, the scant available tests were reserved for the at-risk population. As tests have become increasingly available, we're testing more young people, and so we're seeing more positive cases among those age cohorts. This tells us that young people have been getting infected all along, but their symptoms were either non-existent or so mild they didn't think it could be COVID. Now, with increased testing of young people, we're finding out that, yes, many of them do get infected.

Second, increased cases without an increase in hospitalizations so severe that it threatens to overwhelm the health care system, or an increase in tragic deaths, is a good thing. Not only does it lead to increased herd immunity (which is the ultimate weapon in the entirely plausible event that an effective vaccine is never developed), it also helps us understand that the mortality rate (deaths/cases) is lower than originally thought. Get it? Declining deaths divided by increasing cases equals lower mortality. The more cases we identify, the more we learn about this virus, and what we're increasingly learning is far different that the fear-mongers - and the experts - would have had us believe in March.

And while hospitalizations are increasing in some locations, they're nowhere near the level that would tax the healthcare system. In fact, only the New York City metro was ever at risk of that. And the rapid deployment of field hospitals, as well as the Navy hospital ship that was never used for COVID cases, mitigated that risk entirely. So if there were a "spike" in hospitalizations in a poorly-run hot spot like NYC, we could spin up mitigating responses much more rapidly than before, and contain it.

So, the media is in some cases outright lying (surprise!), and in all cases, distorting the truth by selectively using misleading language (bigger surprise!), all in an effort to send the stock market tumbling on fears of reverting to shut-downs (which is highly unlikely, even in liberal states), and to scare people into thinking that they're either going to lose their jobs again, or that they're going to get sick and die. To say "shame on the media" is a gross understatement. The media have no shame.

Now, maybe you're not a data person. Maybe you don't pore over these graphs like I do. So let me present you with a few graphs that do represent spikes, so you'll have a frame of reference.

Before I do - for those liberal readers who will accuse me of caring more about the economy than about human lives, know this: yes, every COVID death was a human being, somebody's mother, grandfather, uncle, sister, spouse, sibling, child. Just as every lost job is a human being providing for themselves or their family. Every business that fails was essential to its owners and employees. Every bankruptcy filing damages the credit of the filer for years to come.

The efforts to control this virus were never about ensuring there are no new cases. Even Drs. Fauci and Birx have said that. It was about spreading out the new infections so they didn't come all at once, and thus overwhelm the healthcare system. Mission accomplished. Remember those "flatten the curve" graphics? They didn't show no new cases. They showed new cases over a longer period of time, which is precisely what we're seeing now. It's hard to say new cases are good. We all wish this virus never existed. But, given that it now does, herd immunity is going to be necessary at some point, and we don't get there with no new cases. The only way to eliminate the virus is to virtually eliminate life as we know it - and then what have we gained? 

This virus can be deadly - we all get that. So can economic ruin. Do you get that? Over 120,000 Americans have lost their lives to COVID. Many of them wouldn't have seen 2021 in any event. Over 20 million Americans have lost their jobs due to the government response thereto. Virtually none of them would have lost their jobs in any event. You tell me where the balance of equities lies, but remember this: as I've said all along, sanctimoniousness is a luxury good that those Americans whose livelihoods have been affected can no longer afford.