Goodbye Tin Foil Hat

Apologies to Charles Mingus for the title. (Google it if you don't get the obscure musical reference.)

The purpose of today's post is to dispel this ridiculous conspiracy myth that's been floating around social media that says that the current coin shortage is just a planned first step in a totalitarian government's effort to force us into a "cashless society." There are posts floating around that detail a bunch of nonsensical outcomes of this. Some of the posts even attribute this bovine fecal matter to Dave Ramsey.

People. Dave Ramsey did not come up with this drivel. Dave Ramsey is smarter than that. Attributing a farcical conspiracy theory to a real person to lend it credibility among the unwitting is the oldest trick in the (Face)book.

First, let me address the coin shortage. It is real, and it has three causes:

1. For two months, none of us were out shopping, buying stuff with cash (for whoever still does that), and getting change in return. Then using some of that change to pay for other stuff so we don't get more change back. Most people, like me, don't like carrying change, so on the rare occasions that I pay with cash and get coin back, if I can't use it for another purchase for correct change, I take it home and dump it in my change bucket, rather than have it jangling around in my pants. And that leads us to ...

2. For more than two months, bank lobbies were closed, so people like me weren't taking their change to the bank to deposit, or exchange for bills. The combination of these two factors meant less coin in circulation (going from businesses to you, you to the bank, the bank back to businesses ...). Now, to replenish that supply, normally the U.S. Mint is making new coins. However ...

3. Due to the pandemic, the Mint is not operating at full capacity. Bills are more critical in the grand scheme of things than coin, so that's where the Mint is focusing its now-limited resources: printing paper money. Less coin is being minted, so re-supply isn't happening at the pace at which it normally does.

I've seen some ridiculous garbage being posted that "the government is rounding up all the coin to melt it down for the precious metals content, because it's worth more than the face value of the coins and they want to steal that excess value from us."

Who believes this equine excrement? One, that hasn't been true since the '60s, when people hoarded silver coins because of the value of silver. Back then, the people themselves took coins out of circulation as a store of value. In response, a bunch of smart metals engineers (including the father of a friend of mine) developed clad coins, which had less silver content and thus had a lower melt value than the face value of the coins, but had the same electromagnetic signature of silver, so that vending machines would continue to recognize them. (Chapeau to Bart Hall for that info.)

And second - if anyone really believed that the coins were worth more today than their face value, don't you'd think they'd be hoarding them, instead of issuing dire warnings on social media?

It would actually make sense for the government to take some coins out of production, due to commodity inflation. The U.S. Mint has lost money on every penny it has produced since 2006, due to the rising costs of zinc and copper, the metals that go into penny production. In 2016, it cost 1.5 cents to produce each penny, resulting in a loss of over $45 million in the production of more than nine billion pennies. The Mint also loses money on the production of nickels.

(In case this hasn't occurred to you yet, when the Mint loses money, you and I take the hit. Ready to give up those coins now?)

Canada, Australia and other countries have already eliminated their versions of the penny. As a result, retailers are allowed to round transactions either up or down to the nearest five cents. So what would happen if the U.S. did that? Retailers would price everything such that the price would be rounded up, never down. Economists estimate that this effective "rounding tax" could cost consumers $600 million each year. Since the poor tend to use cash more than those higher on the economic ladder, that tax would be regressive. So the lowly penny lives on. (By the way, "See a penny, pick it up ..." and you'll have just earned yourself less than the minimum wage for your six seconds' effort - longer, if you're Nancy Pelosi and have to kneel to grab the penny.)

Okay, enough about coins. Let's move on to this cashless society rubbish.

First, we've been moving toward a cashless society for a long time - the entire lifetime of just about everyone reading this, in fact. Checks are cashless. Moreover, they're an electronic transaction. See that funny-looking font at the bottom of your check? The one in which the routing and transit number and your account number are printed? (The very words "routing and transit number" should tell you something about check processing and clearing.)

It's called the MICR line. Magnetic Ink Character Recognition. The standard was put in place in -

the 1950s -

to enable computers to read the MICR line, thus speeding up check processing and clearing. Without it, when you deposit a check, you'd have to wait days for the checks to be processed manually before you could get your cash.

So let's debunk these asinine, dire warnings about what a cashless society would mean, one by one.

"If you are struggling with your mortgage on (sic) a particular month, you can't do an odd job to get you through."

Who the hell does this, anyway? "Rats, I'm a little short on the mortgage - guess I'll see if I can clean the neighbor's toilets for a little cash." And why can't the person for whom you do the odd job just write you a check? Or send you the money via Venmo or Paypal or Zelle or any one of the other myriad person-to-person (P2P) cash transfer platforms that have popped up? If you have a banking relationship, your financial institution offers P2P transfers. If they don't, find a new financial institution, because chances are, the rest of their technology - including data security - is probably antiquated as well.

"Your child can't go and help the local farmer to earn a bit of summer cash."

Again - whose kid does this? Really? Today's kids? Most of them would get blisters just looking at a hay bale, and they might try to milk a bull. But let's say they did decide to go help the local farmer. When I was in high school (four and a half decades ago), lots of kids would get summer jobs de-tasseling corn, or hiring out on custom wheat harvest crews. (One kid in my high school class actually rolled a combine into the ditch. Needless to say, he got sent home.) And guess what?

They all got paid by check. Even back then, in the Stone Age. Checks aren't cash. They're negotiable instruments that you can exchange for cash. Which you get right away in most cases, because a computer read the MICR line on the check. And recorded the transaction.

"No more cash slipped into the hands of a child as a good luck charm or from their grandparent when going on holidays."

In the first place, kids today are (rightfully) taught to run the other direction when somebody tries to slip them cash as a "good luck charm." And second, even if society went completely cashless - give the kid a gift card. Send some money into their bank account, if they have one, using a P2P transfer. (Cash isn't going away altogether though, at least not in our lifetimes.)

"No more money in birthday cards."

Two words: gift card. Or, put a little thought into your gift, o lazy one, and actually get the recipient something they'll appreciate and remember you for. Plus, again, cash isn't going away. Just go to the ATM, get some, and put it in the card if that's your wont.

"No more piggy banks for your child to collect pocket money and to learn about the value of earning."

Now, this one is truly stupid. How is a kid supposed to learn the value of earning from some loose change sitting in a porcelain pig earning NOTHING??

"No more cash for a rainy day fund or for that something special you have been putting $20 a week away for."

Put it in the bank, then withdraw the funds (with interest) and pay cash. Or write a check. Or use your debit card. If you're that old-fashioned, some places still offer layaway. And some banks still have "Christmas Club" accounts that pay zero interest, but let you save that $20 a week over the year for holiday gifts. Come on, people - it's 2020.

"No more charity collections."

You mean Salvation Army? Again, cash isn't going away. Since you can't go to the bank lobby to cash in your coin right now, save it until the bell-ringers are out, and go dump your whole bucket into theirs. It'll make their day. (Or just go to their website and give electronically.)

"No more selling bits and pieces from your home that you no longer need for a bit of cash in return."

Have a garage sale, and you'll get all the sweaty bills you could want. Or just sell on e-Bay, and get paid via Paypal. I've been doing it for - oh, I don't know, a couple of decades or so?

The fearmongers go on to tell you (again, purportedly citing the gospel according to Dave Ramsey) "what a cashless society does guarantee."

"Banks have full control of every single penny you own."

Balderdash. Banks don't control your cash when you deposit it, you do. Banks are among the most highly-regulated businesses. Your money is yours. Keep reading.

"Every transaction you make is recorded."

So what? It is now, for the most part. You think your checks aren't recorded? Again, there's that MICR that gets scanned. And, recording those transactions is generally a good thing. If I steal that $500 in cash you're carrying around, I'll likely never get caught, and you'll never get it back. If I steal your credit card info and make a fraudulent $500 charge, you can dispute it and get the amount credited back - and there's a good chance that I get caught in the process.

"All your movements and actions are traceable."

This is truly tin foil hat stuff. Do you make transactions everywhere you go? I walked my dogs today and didn't buy a thing, so there are no transactions to trace. However -

My movements and actions were probably traceable, if someone wanted to check and see whether I picked up their poop, or how long we walked. Why? I have a cell phone. You do, too. They have GPS, and the cell signals can be triangulated to pinpoint your location. (This will really freak out the conspiracy theorists - remember, Big Brother is watching you. Only Big Brother is Apple, not some totalitarian shadow government. Of course, some of the nutcases would equate - ah, but I digress.)

"Access to your money can be blocked at the click of a button when/if banks need 'clarification' from you which will take about three weeks, a thousand questions and five thousand passwords."

Bull-hockey. Exaggerate much? A thousand questions? Five thousand passwords? Look, if there's a suspicious transaction on your account (which is typically based on parameters you set up, to protect your identity and financial information), you get notified. Occasionally, like if you're traveling outside the country and haven't set up travel notifications letting the bank/credit card company know where you're traveling (ooh, they're watching your every move!), a transaction might get blocked. (And increasingly, their technology includes algorithms that tell them you're traveling and where, so that you don't even have to notify them.)

When that happens, you call the bank/credit card company and tell them where you are and how long you'll be there. Or do it through their app, or their website. You might have to answer as many as three identity verification questions, or supply a one-time passcode that they text to you. This is called multi-factor authentication, and it's there to protect you. Without it, the bad guy could just say, "Why sure, I'm Bob Johnson!" But he's not likely to know that your high school mascot was the Beet Diggers, or that your bestie in grade school was Billy McGillicuddy, or that your first car was an AMC Pacer. Three questions. That's it. It takes minutes. Folks, I've done it.

Let me tell you a story about something that happened to me recently. In January, my lovely wife and I took a cruise (remember those?) with a port stop in Belize. We ate lunch and bought souvenirs at one shop. In both instances, I used a VISA card that I wouldn't have otherwise used, because neither establishment accepted AmEx.

As we were preparing for our flight home, I checked the VISA app on my phone, and saw that I had a charge a couple of days earlier from Expedia, the travel consolidator. I have not purchased travel through Expedia for years. The charge was nearly $500. I called the number on the back of the card and initiated a dispute (this process is strictly governed by Regulation E, and the penalties for banks that don't comply timely are severe - like six figures, civil liability, jail time severe, meaning the regulators are serious about YOU having control over your money, not the banks).

Here's what happened. First, they closed the card and reissued a new one. So I couldn't use that card until the new one arrived by mail. But neither could the jack-wagon who made the fraudulent charge. Second, they issued a "provisional credit" to my account. In other words, they err on the side of your dispute being legit. Third, they initiated an investigation of the matter. (So did I, and I found that some hecker in Belize used my stolen card info to book a hotel room in my name at some swanky lodge in Belize. I called the lodge and canceled the reservation. Sorry, Jose, no hot weekend with your lady friend on my dime.) Fourth, they sent my new card by FedEx, so I had it in hand and authenticated the first business day after we got back. (I did have to suffer the inconvenience of changing a few automated payments I had set up on that card. First-world problem.) Finally, within the time frame prescribed by Reg E, they closed their investigation and made the provisional credit permanent.

This stuff protects you from bad guys who would steal your credit card information and bleed you out. It does nothing for the banks but add operating expense from having to comply with the regs, and make the Compliance Officer nervous as hell that she's going to jail if Patsy in Card Services screws up.

"You will have no choice but to declare and be taxed on every dollar in your possession."

Oh, so we're advocating for tax fraud now? Seriously, this is also beyond stupid. You're taxed on what you earn, not on the dollars you possess. And you can still sell stuff on e-Bay and get paid electronically via Paypal, and never declare a dime of the proceeds as income on your tax return. Happens all the time. If it were that easy to track, the IRS would be tracking it. It would cost them more to track it down than it would produce in tax revenue, so they let it go.

Now, if you're still not convinced, let's look at what life would be like with an all-cash society:

• No bill-pay service through your bank's app or website. And no writing and mailing checks. You go to the bank, withdraw cash, then either take the risk of mailing it or drive to all the utilities, the AT&T store, the bank that holds your mortgage and car loan, and every other entity to which you owe money, and you pay them in cold, hard cash.
• Let's back off and allow checks, but without the MICR line. You get one from someone? Okay, no remote deposit capture using your phone. (Phones are computers, and they can read the MICR line.) No deposit-taking ATMs. (ATMs are computers, too.) No, you go to the branch, walk in the lobby, deposit your check, and wait a week for it to clear.
• No using a credit card. You pay in cash. So if you get robbed, you're SOL. No disputes, no recoveries. And no credit card rewards. My lovely wife and I have flown to Cabo twice, and stayed in an oceanfront suite, all on travel points, most of which came through credit card spend. Didn't cost us a dime in airfare or lodging expense. No cash back from Discover, or 5% off for using your Target card.
• No transaction history. You don't want "them" to be able to track your every transaction, right? So neither can you. No finding a statement online from two years ago to remind you of that plumber who fixed your leaky faucet, since you need a new sump pump now. No copies of checks you wrote in the past. No way to know whether your money has been used by someone else. No way to find out what your spouse has been up to.
• Finally the neighbor kid mows your lawn, and you're out of cash, and it's Sunday? Sorry, you can't write a check. I guess you'll have to go to his house and clean the toilets.

They're Going to Try to Scare You Yet Again. Don't Let Them.

The first installment of this blog topic was related to the reporting of initial jobless claims. I explained that the measure represents the number of people who filed for unemployment insurance for the first time. I also noted that the media would try to aggregate the number across multiple weeks, and misrepresent it as “total unemployed.” They did indeed do that, and they continue to.

Note again that total unemployed is the number of people in aggregate that are out of work as of any reporting period. Initial claims are reported weekly, every Thursday, for the week ended the previous Saturday. Total unemployed are reported monthly, as part of the overall jobs report that includes the unemployment rate, total non-farm payrolls, and other key labor market metrics. That release generally prints on the first Friday of each month, for the prior month.

As a reminder, the reason aggregate initial claims over a period of time don’t represent total unemployed, is that some of those people may have found jobs and are no longer unemployed. That’s especially true in the current environment, in which many service sector employees were laid off or furloughed with the promise of being re-hired when restrictions were lifted. That happened relatively quickly, thus initial filings have been dropping steadily since peaking the second week after the shutdown. (For that matter, so have total unemployed, as people have gone back to work.)

Tomorrow morning, Thursday, July 16, initial claims for the week ended July 11 will be released. Last week’s number was 1.314 million. That’s down substantially from the peak level of 6.867 million which was reached the week ended March 28. (You may recall that I initially predicted that the curve for initial claims for this downturn would resemble El Capitan, with a sharp, cliff-like spike to the peak over a short period of time, followed by a relatively sharp decline that might become more gradual over time. In most economic downturns, that curve looks like the Matterhorn, with a much more gradual rise to the peak, followed by a more gradual decline.)

The consensus (of a bunch of economists) forecast for the number to be released July 16 is 1.250 million, which would mark the 15th consecutive weekly decline in initial claims. This makes sense, as more and more reopening businesses are hiring people back. The employed suddenly became unemployed; the unemployed are now becoming employed again.

Here’s where the media will try to scare you (besides aggregating total initial claims and falsely claiming that it represents total unemployed, as I promise they will).

The number may come in higher than the previous week, instead of declining further. The media will then claim that that means the economy is worsening again, and that the nascent recovery has “fizzled” (I’ve already seen that claim made by one media outlet). But if the number does come in higher, that’s not what it means.

Several states have recently rolled back the reopening of some businesses in their state. California closed indoor dining, bars and movie theaters. New Mexico closed indoor dining. Other states have followed suit, but on a far more limited basis than the initial complete and total shut-downs of virtually all service sector businesses. (These moves have been made in response to increasing confirmed cases in many states, which are for the most part a function of increased testing, and without regard to declines in hospitalizations and deaths, reduced hospital stays, increased capacity of the health care system, and other positives. However, let’s not scamper down that rabbit hole in this post.)

So a higher number for the next release does not mean that the economy is getting worse than it was back in March. It simply means that people are re-filing first-time claims. Let me explain.

Sarah is a hostess at the fictitious Osteria Mezzaluna in Santa Monica. While she’s a great employee, she was hired in January, so she has less tenure than any other employee. When California closed all restaurants for inside dining in March, Sarah was laid off, but with the promise of hiring her back when the restaurant reopened. So the week of March 28, she made her first filing for unemployment benefits, and thus was counted among the 6+ million initial filers that week.

Subsequently, she filed claims each week until the restaurant reopened and she was hired back. Thus for those weeks she was no longer counted in the initial claims number, but was instead counted as part of continued claims, which tracks ongoing filings after the initial week. She was also counted among total unemployed for each month she was out of work.

Once the restaurant reopened for indoor dining, Sarah was hired back. At that point, she was no longer unemployed, so she was no longer eligible to file claims for unemployment benefits. Thus, she would no longer be counted as part of continued claims (nor, for that matter, among total unemployed). At this point Sarah is part of the improving trend we’ve seen in these measures: she is back among the ranks of the gainfully employed.

Then, in July, Gov. Newsom closes restaurants for indoor dining again. Still among the least-tenured employees of the restaurant, and given her position as a hostess, Sarah is once again laid off temporarily, with a promise of being re-hired when the restaurant again is allowed to resume indoor dining.

At this point, Sarah will again file a first-time claim for benefits. How is that possible?

The definition of a first-time claim is that it is the first time the claimant files for that period of unemployment.

During my youth, I once found myself let go from a job. So I filed for unemployment benefits, and the first week I filed, I was counted among initial claims. I have not found myself eligible for unemployment benefits since. However, were I to lose my job tomorrow, I could file for benefits, and that first week’s filing would counted among initial claims for the week. It’s not the first time in my life that I filed a claim, it’s the first time for that period of unemployment.

This is how it usually goes, as most people don’t go from being employed, to being unemployed, to being re-employed, to being unemployed again, in a matter of fifteen weeks. However, this situation is very different, and much more fluid.

Thus, if we do see initial claims rise with the next release (or the next, or the next), it’s related to the retrenchment of those states’ reopening plans. What it means is that, for the most part, the same people who made first-time filings in late March or early April went back to work, but now find themselves temporarily unemployed again, and are filing a first-time claim for a new period of unemployment.

Is this good for the economy? No, it most surely is not. However, does it mean that an entirely new cohort of people are now unemployed, and the recovery is over (as the media will most surely try to convince you)?

No. It means that some states have re-closed some businesses (on a far more limited scale than what we saw with the initial shutdown in March), which has resulted in some of the same people who were laid off at that time, being laid off again. Temporarily. The extent to which this is bad for the economy is dependent on how long “temporarily” is, as well as how many other states may follow suit. But the initial number will not mean what the media (and politicians of a certain persuasion) will have you believe. And note that, as this is happening, many businesses in other sectors of the economy that remain open and continue to recover are hiring back staff, so we may continue to see net improvement in the weekly claims numbers, in spite of these states’ retrenchment.

The Data Don't Lie (But the Media Do)

Incoming: truth bomb.

If you pay attention to the news, all you hear is that COVID cases and deaths are "surging," especially in those bad red states like Florida, Texas, Georgia and South Carolina, where the evil Republican governors re-opened their states too soon, cavalierly imposing death sentences on thousands of their constituents. (Even if you ignore the news like I do, if it's on in the background for more than five minutes, you can't miss this relentless barrage.)

As always, the Curmudgeon seeks to test such hypotheses using the real data, to see whether it's true, or whether the media are lying to you again. And - guess what?

The media are lying to you again.

Yes, cases are increasing in many states now that they've opened up. Remember the objective back in March? "Flatten the curve." And flatten the curve, we did. So states began to re-open, some (including those listed above) as early as the beginning of May.

Now, cases in those states (actually nearly all states) are increasing. That makes sense. With every passing day, cases will rise. However, in some locations, they'll rise more than in others. So is what the media are screaming about true?

No, it is not. Regular readers may recall that the Curmudgeon spent the first half of April debunking the IHME COVID model, which infamously predicted 2.2 million deaths in the U.S. back in February. Because it was so clear that the model was so starved for data that it was dead in terms of any predictive value, I stopped running those analyses. In fact, I haven't updated my data since April 17.

So with the media crowing about the impending doom we all face, and the utter failure of you-know-who in battling COVID, I decided to freshen up the data as of yesterday, July 11.

And what I found was eye-opening.

Lest you mistrust the Curmudgeon, the data are presented below. I'll let you pause to peruse it before I sum up. Note that where the deaths/cases ratio is better as of July 11, that ratio is in green font. In states where the July ratio is higher than April's, it's in red. If they're equal, it's in black.

State	7/11 Cases	4/17 Cases	7/11 Deaths	4/11 Deaths	7/11 Deaths/ Cases	4/17 Deaths/ Cases
AL	51,910	4,723	1,113	147	2.1%	3.1%
AK	1,385	314	17	9	1.2%	2.9%
AZ	119,930	4,719	2,151	177	1.8%	3.8%
AR	27,864	1,777	313	38	1.1%	2.1%
CA	318,941	30,811	7,021	1,148	2.2%	2.7%
CO	36,591	9,433	1,725	411	4.7%	4.4%
CT	47,287	17,550	4,348	1,086	9.2%	6.2%
DE	12,743	2,538	517	67	4.1%	2.6%
DC	10,801	2,666	568	91	5.3%	3.4%
FL	254,511	25,492	4,197	748	1.6%	2.9%
GA	114,401	17,841	2,996	677	2.6%	3.8%
HI	1,200	574	19	9	1.6%	1.6%
ID	9,928	1,668	101	44	1.0%	2.6%
IL	154,094	29,160	7,369	1,259	4.8%	4.3%
IN	51,079	10,641	2,756	545	5.4%	5.1%
IA	34,649	2,513	748	74	2.2%	2.9%
KS	18,890	4,419	294	134	1.6%	3.0%
KY	19,121	2,707	622	144	3.3%	5.3%
LA	76,803	23,580	3,408	1,267	4.4%	5.4%
ME	3,520	847	112	32	3.2%	3.8%
MD	72,647	12,308	3,310	463	4.6%	3.8%
MA	111,398	36,372	8,310	1,560	7.5%	4.3%
MI	76,370	30,971	6,313	2,308	8.3%	7.5%
MN	41,571	2,213	1,537	121	3.7%	5.5%
MS	35,419	3,974	1,230	152	3.5%	3.8%
MO	28,475	5,517	1,117	184	3.9%	3.3%
MT	1,677	426	29	10	1.7%	2.3%
NE	20,777	1,287	286	28	1.4%	2.2%
NV	26,838	3,626	582	151	2.2%	4.2%
NH	6,024	1,342	391	38	6.5%	2.8%
NJ	180,608	81,240	15,595	4,070	8.6%	5.0%
NM	14,549	1,798	539	53	3.7%	2.9%
NY	426,798	241,041	32,388	17,671	7.6%	7.3%
NC	83,820	6,366	1,523	185	1.8%	2.9%
ND	4,243	528	87	9	2.1%	1.7%
OH	64,230	10,222	3,041	451	4.7%	4.4%
OK	19,779	2,570	421	139	2.1%	5.4%
OR	11,851	1,844	232	72	2.0%	3.9%
PA	99,229	31,731	6,953	1,102	7.0%	3.5%
RI	17,312	4,491	976	137	5.6%	3.1%
SC	54,699	4,426	951	119	1.7%	2.8%
SD	7,454	1,542	109	7	1.5%	0.5%
TN	61,006	6,762	738	145	1.2%	2.1%
TX	257,359	18,679	3,203	469	1.2%	2.5%
UT	28,855	2,931	212	25	0.7%	0.9%
VT	1,283	803	56	38	4.4%	4.7%
VA	69,782	8,053	1,962	258	2.8%	3.2%
WA	40,782	11,802	1,424	624	3.5%	5.3%
WV	4,146	825	96	18	2.3%	2.2%
WI	35,679	4,199	821	211	2.3%	5.0%
WY	1,829	422	21	2	1.1%	0.5%
U.S.	3,351,303	738,923	137,349	39,015	4.1%	5.3%

In the words of Master Po, "What have we learned today, Grasshopper?" (Google it if you're under 45).

Well, the states that have come under fire for re-opening too soon - the aforementioned red states, plus a few states with Dem governors, including California and North Carolina - have seen their deaths/cases decline since mid-April. In some cases, by half.

Where have we seen deaths/cases increase? In the states the media praise: New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Delaware, D.C., Massachusetts, Connecticut, to name several. (I know, D.C. isn't a state. If it were, it would be the State of Dysfunction.)

Now, if the Curmudgeon were as partisan as most of those who disagree with him, he'd just leave it there. But actually, there are some sound statistical reasons why those states have seen such increases - in some cases, double the April rate. States like New York and New Jersey have, tragically, seen huge numbers of deaths - far more than anywhere else in the U.S., or the world Those states' deaths were peaking around mid-April. The peaks were so high, that as the death count per day gradually began to decline, the numbers were still very large, relative to the rest of the U.S. A number of the other states didn't peak until early to mid-May. Had I been tracking the data weekly since mid-April, we'd probably see improvement in places like New York and New Jersey since maybe late May.

Of course, I'd be remiss if I didn't also mention that the governors of some of those states made major policy blunders that led to increased deaths, like releasing elderly patients from the hospital directly back to their nursing homes, where they infected many of their fellow residents. That resulted in far more deaths, as that population is the most vulnerable.

Another fallacy in the data is that entire states are treated as though the increase in cases is the same state-wide, when the sharpest increases are actually isolated. In Florida, it's largely the Miami area. In Texas, Houston is faring worse than most of the state.

I'm writing this from New Mexico, where the governor recently re-closed indoor dining, limited patio dining to 50% capacity, and required masks be worn constantly, even while exercising. She also has required that visitors from out of state - any state, even one with numbers well below New Mexico's - self-quarantine for 14 days. They can't even go out for food. She has also banned out of state visitors from New Mexico's state parks.

Are tourists really the problem in New Mexico? The state did recently see an increase in cases. However, the vast majority of those cases were in three counties: the one that includes Albuquerque, the state's largest city; the one that includes the largest portion of the Navajo Nation in the state; and the one that includes one of the state's largest prisons - and sits on the Mexico border. We know that, sadly, Native Americans and Latinos are more vulnerable to the virus. And it tends to spread rapidly among prison populations. Taos County, where I'm currently sitting, has seen 52 cases and one death since March. And Taos County is probably the most popular visitor destination in the state.

Sorry, guv. I don't think this Kansas boy is your biggest threat. If anything, visiting your state is more of a threat to me.

Now, note that several states' July deaths/cases ratios are worse (higher) than the April ratio, and thus the July number is in red font - but it's italicized. They are the Dakotas, West Virginia and Wyoming. Why the italics? If you've studied statistics, you understand the "law of large numbers." In this case, those states' data suffer from the opposite: their numbers are too small (including the state population) for the differences to be relevant. The same can be said for Hawaii, where the deaths/cases rate was unchanged from April to July.

"Aha!" the naysayers cry, "that can work both ways! A small improvement in the ratio from April to July might be just as meaningless!" Well, they can say that - but it's not true. In any state that saw an improvement, if you look at the magnitude of that improvement, however small, and compare it to the state's population, it's significant.

So what about California, Florida, Texas? How have they seen improvement in the deaths/cases ratio, in spite of increasing cases and deaths? There are a few simple reasons:

1. Generally speaking, deaths in those states are rising more slowly than cases. That's a function of the next two points.
2. More people in younger, less at-risk age cohorts are increasingly getting infected, because they tend to gather in large groups more, especially indoors. ("But they still might die!" say the naysayers. Yes - and many of them have co-morbidities that increase their risk, regardless of age. They could also die from the flu. And - the objective was never to make sure that not another human being gets infected by COVID. Is one life too many? Sure. So is one suicide, one death at the hands of a drunk driver - including the drunk driver's own life. So is one inner-city shooting. One drug overdose. Etc.)
3. Cases are increasing sharply because, in part, of increased testing. How does that work? Well, we weren't testing back in February and March (nor much in April). But there were probably a lot of asymptomatic cases that we didn't know about, because we weren't testing. Don't believe me? Believe the CDC. They recently estimated that actual infections are at least ten times confirmed cases, meaning that as much as 10% of the population may have been infected. Oh, I know, testing can't be the reason, because Pres. Trump said it was, so that has to be false. Don Lemon said so. Well, consider this: California is #1 in the nation in testing. Texas is #3. Florida is #4. Georgia is #8. North Carolina, #9. Starting to get the picture?
4. Hospitals are better prepared to deal with the virus than they were in April, so recoveries are probably higher (but we'll never know, because no one reports accurate recoveries, still). The fact that the length of hospital stays is down by half might be evidence of this.

One final consideration: the Curmudgeon has said all along, regarding data on the virus, that denominators matter. Meaning we have to look at the numbers relative to population. Now, I considered looking at changes in cases per capita and deaths per capita since April. But that would be relatively meaningless: as cases increase, cases per capita increase. As deaths increase, deaths per capita increase. And that's happening in Florida, Texas, New York and New Jersey.

However, we can look at where we are today with respect to deaths per capita (or, for a more useful measure, deaths per 1 million persons). Here's a partial breakdown (including some "hot spot" countries, for reference):

New Jersey: 1,756
New York: 1,665
Connecticut: 1,220
Massachusetts: 1,196
D.C.: 805
Louisiana: 733
U.K.: 660
Michigan: 632
Spain: 607
Italy: 578
Maryland: 548
Pennsylvania: 543
U.S. average: 420
Georgia: 282
Florida: 195
South Carolina: 185
North Carolina: 145
Texas: 111

See the differences? The "top" 5 U.S. states, including D.C., have numbers that are worse than any of the European hot spots. New Jersey and New York have numbers nearly three times those hot spots - and six to eight times those of the "bad" red states that supposedly re-opened too early.

Bottom line? You know what the media are trying to do. (Hint: it has something to do with November 3. To hedge their bets, there's always RussianbountiesRogerStonetaxreturnsracismreopeningschools.) Be smarter than that. Look at the data. Make up your own mind.

Remember that, in the end, sheep get slaughtered - by the very hand that feeds them.