Follow the Leader

Finally, a post title I don't have to explain to the young'uns. At least, I don't think I do.

Ah, what a difference a year makes. We're still stuck with good old Dr. Anthony Fauci, who keeps telling us to follow the science, but whose "science" runs around like a chicken with its head cut off (credit to you, Mitch). We still occasionally hear from former Surgeon General Jerome Adams, who now says we should have been wearing masks all along, and still should be. And once in a while, Admiral Giroir even makes an appearance - he of Operation Warp Speed fame.

But you know who we never see? Dr. Deborah Birx, who has a lovely scarf for every day of the year, it seems. Dr. Birx made good on her promise to fade away into the sunset. Of course, that's easy when you've been publicly embarrassed after telling everyone to stay home for Thanksgiving, then you and your extended family travel to Maryland for a big holiday get-together. Of course, rather than just own it, she said it was to get the house ready to sell (because, you know, the 'rona spreads over a turkey dinner, but not a home renovation, even with the same number of people in the same proximity), and then complained about how perfectly awful and unfair the media scrutiny was.

However, Dr. Birx did leave us with one construct that maybe we can get some use out of today. Remember how, during the Task Force press briefings, she would always tell us that they were watching what was happening in other countries where the virus had struck earlier, to see what "the curve" would look like in the U.S.? That those countries were like a leading indicator, and the U.S. would naturally follow? Even though our population density, demographics, health care quality, etc. was different than many of those countries?

Ah well, perhaps we can derive some useful information from looking at the data from some other countries, and projecting just where the U.S. might be in the whole progression of the dreaded Delta variant. (Is it even legal to say "Delta variant" without using the adjective "dreaded" in front of it?)

As you may recall, the Delta variant (apparently, it is legal) first revealed itself in India in February, some six months ago. Within a couple of months, it was the dominant strain in that country, which saw case numbers reach a level four times the previous high in May, three months after Delta first showed up there.

It's important to note that less than 7% of India's population is fully vaccinated. Remember that number.

So how is India faring now? With such a low vaccination rate, and such a large population (1.4 billion people, or more than four times the U.S. population), Delta has to be running rampant now, right? I mean, with a population density 12 times that of the U.S., all those people basically living on top of each other, a high poverty rate with many people living in squalor, and one of the lowest vaccination rates in the world, the May peak in daily new cases of around 400,000 has to have been dwarfed by now, right?

Take a look:

Gee, where did Delta go? After peaking in May, daily new cases began to decline as rapidly as they had increased, falling to about 30,000 as of late - still higher than just prior to Delta's emergence, but very low for a country with a billion-plus inhabitants. And it's not like it's because of vaccination progress. Nor because of lockdowns; India began reopening in June, when the numbers were rapidly declining. And they've kept right on declining.

Delta next reared its ugly head in the UK, rapidly becoming the leading variant there. Everyone thought Boris Johnson was mad as a hatter, to use a bit of Brit slang, for leaving the country open as Delta raged. Delta ramped up in late May and June, and daily new cases topped 54,000 in mid-July, nearly equal to the January, Alpha variant, pre-vaccine peak. (Note that the UK vaccination rate is among the highest in the world, at 55% fully vaccinated - so based on the UK and India data, a country's vaccination rate appears to have little effect on whether Delta persists.)

In any event, what happened to Delta in the UK after mid-July? Again, take a look:

Daily new cases have dropped steadily. They're not yet down to pre-Delta levels, but they're certainly headed that way. Based on the trajectory, they will be by the end of August.

So in largely unvaccinated India, Delta ran its course in about five months, after peaking in about three. In the UK, Delta took about two months to peak (maybe because Johnson kept the country open, whereas much of India shut down, so it may have taken a bit longer to spread), and will likely have run its course in about four months, tops.

Before we look at the U.S. data, let's note that deaths in India did spike in line with the spike in Delta cases, but that's the only place in the world where that's true, and it's probably because of a) the low vaccination rate, which may have resulted in more serious cases; b) limited access to health care for many of the country's poor, especially in remote areas; and c) co-morbidities due to diet and other factors, vitamin D deficiencies, etc. In the UK, however, deaths barely increased. In any event, they're back down now in India, and also lower in the UK. See below:

So now, let's look at the U.S. data. Where have daily new cases been trending since Delta arrived in the U.S. in May, and now that it accounts for more than 80% of new cases? Take a look:

In case your eye can't discern the small and recent, but clear, drop from the peak in daily new cases, here are the numbers. The peak was 69,382 on July 23, and the most recent number was 36,344, on July 26. Now, three days doth not a trend make, but it sure looks like we may have seen the peak in Delta cases, and that this thing looks a lot like what we see from the India and UK data. If we follow the advice of Dr. Birx, that seems to be the reasonable conclusion.

And yet -

The CDC, the least trusted three letters in the world today, has reversed its mask guidance to the following:

Even fully vaccinated people should wear masks indoors in places with high Covid transmission rates.

Folks, if we are at the peak - and it appears we are - that's like handing out condoms at the baby shower. No, actually, it's like handing out condoms that have a bunch of pinholes poked in them, given the fact that masks are intended to limit the spread of much larger bacteria, and are about as effective at containing virus as condoms with holes in them are at ... well, you know.

Also, let's unpack this notion of "high transmission rates." What is the Covid transmission rate?

Well, here's the way you'd measure that. You'd trace the contacts of someone known to be infected with Covid, and determine how many of those people became infected after coming into contact with that person. (Of course, you'd have to account for anyone else they might have come into contact with that was infected.) The number of people that the infected person transmitted the virus to, divided by the infected person's total contacts, would be the transmission rate.

Except it's impossible to measure that. And the CDC doesn't. So while they tell us to "follow the science," they use terms like "high transmission rate" that they can't define.

But wait - they do define it. How?

According to CNN (and I just threw up in my mouth a little at the thought of citing CNN), "The CDC considers a county to have high transmission if there have been 100 or more cases of Covid-19 per 100,000 residents or a test positivity rate of 10% or higher in the past seven days."

Okay, wait. Didn't the Curmudgeon already debunk positivity rates? Let's review. Who's getting tested these days?

1. People who are symptomatic and think they've got the virus, or show up at the doctor's office or hospital with symptoms.

2. People who have to get tested to board a cruise (if they're unvaccinated), a flight to certain countries, a return flight to the U.S., for some school or sports activity, for work, or to have some medical procedure performed.

Now, the positivity rate on cruises and flights has to be crazy low. If it weren't, it would be all over the news, and the CDC would ground the planes and dock the ships again. If the rate were high for any of those other things, we'd be reading about those hot spots the way we read about prisons and nursing homes and meat packing plants in 2020.

No, the people who are testing positive are the people who have symptoms and think they've got the 'rona. So the positivity rate is going to be artificially high, compared to what it would be if everyone in a given county got tested. (Go out and get tested - let's get that positivity rate down to where it should be, so they can't keep using a distorted number).

Now, what about the 100 cases per 100,000 residents statistic?

First, that's 0.1% of the population! Come on, people! Are you kidding me? We're going to diaper back up if 0.1% of the population get sick?

And second, that ignores population density, severity of the disease, or any other measure that could be of value.

Let's take my home county of Johnson County, Kansas. Here's some data straight from the CDC.

Johnson County is considered by the CDC to be a "high transmission" county. Why? Its positivity rate is only 7% - half what it was in January, and down from its mid-July peak:

Ah, but cases per 100,000 residents are a whopping 141 (about a third of what they were in January, but we're supposed to ignore that):

Is this serious? Are hospitals being overrun? Are we running out of ICU beds? Take a look:

Hospitalizations are falling, people. Bed use and ICU bed use for Covid is turning the corner, and in any event is below 6% for beds and below 17% for ICU beds. (I realize that hospitalizations and bed/ICU bed/ventilator use are high in Joplin and Springfield, Missouri, and perhaps in a handful of other locations in this very large country. My point is that the CDC is using the term "high transmission" very loosely. Johnson County, KS is not a hot spot, nor is practically every other county in the country. Even if we assume masks work, there aren't more than a dozen places in the U.S. where people should be donning them, and then only the unvaccinated, as there have been only about 5,000 serious breakthrough infections out of 160 million Americans fully vaccinated.)

What about deaths?

Gee, where'd they go? There have been 11 deaths attributed to the virus in Johnson County, KS since May 26. That's two months. There were nearly twice that many in the month of May alone.

Delta may be a super-spreader, but it ain't no killer. So why the masks?

I leave you with some data from bad ol' Florida, the left's favorite whipping-state. The aforementioned CNN (urp!) article states that "Florida and Arkansas currently share a grim distinction when it comes to the spread of the coronavirus." That distinction is that every county in those two states is defined as having a high rate of transmission by - you guessed it - the CDC.

Okay, let's look at cases in Florida, from a different source (note that Florida began tracking case data weekly, instead of daily, a while back):

Grim, indeed, yes? Weekly cases were negligible in early June, then about 2,200, then 12,600, then 43,400, then 71,700.

Yes, well ... no:

One death, back on June 11. Grim.

I'm guessing that within a couple of weeks, we're going to start seeing the case numbers come down in a way that's more visually evident. And that by September, Delta will just be an airline again.

In the meantime, hey, thanks Rach, for the recommendation. But I think I'll leave the mask at home.

Now, I've got a recommendation for you: instead of doing what the teachers' unions and whoever is making Joe Biden's decisions for him these days tell you what to do, do your job, pay attention to how this variant has actually progressed in other countries where it appeared earlier than it did in the U.S., what its mortality rate is, and base your recommendations on that. In other words -

Follow the science.

Post-script.

After sleeping on this post, I believe that the CDC et al know exactly what they're doing in this instance. I believe they did watch what happened with Delta in India and the UK. I believe they are watching the U.S. data closely. Of course they know this variant is far less deadly than previous variants, but they're not going to say that; they're perfectly happy to let the media and local health officials irresponsibly warn of impending mass deaths.

And, I believe they recognize that we're at the apex of the Delta curve, and that they expect the new case numbers to begin dropping. So why the new mask guidance now?

You figure it out.

That's right. When the cases do fall precipitously, they're going to credit the masks. They're going to say they worked. That way, they can keep masks in their arsenal, so during flu season, or when the next variant causes a slight increase in cases (but nowhere near January 2021 levels), even absent the risk of serious illness or death, they can once again justify exercising control over people's lives. "Hey, we know you got the flu vaccine, but you could still get a breakthrough infection and pass it on to someone else, so for the greater good, you need to mask up - look how masking stopped the Delta variant in its tracks!"

Oh, not all officials who put these mandates in place fall in this category. Take Kansas City, Missouri mayor Quinton Lucas, who will reinstate an indoor mask mandate the day of this writing. He's not smart enough to look at the data and formulate such a scheme. Doesn't have the forethought to think it through; he's just an empty suit. But he's a power-hungry despot with his eyes on a bigger political prize, and he'll use the CDC to wield his authority. The CDC is the enabler; he's the sheep. They hand him the bludgeon and he swings it. There are many more like him.

If we can get them to acquiesce when it comes to masks, it'll be that much easier to get them to acquiesce to the next, more intrusive thing. Socialism 101.

So remember, when the cases fall, and they crow about how effective the masks were, where you read it first.

Hype Begets Hysteria

Calm down, people. All the hype in the mainstream media (MSM, for anyone who by now doesn't know that abbreviation) warning us of the widespread return of masks, lockdowns, and other stringent measures has led to hysteria over the fear of such things. Hysteria is defined as "exaggerated emotion." A synonym for exaggerated is overstated. And emotion is not fact- or data-based.

On Friday, July 16, the Dow sold off by nearly 300 points. The MSM screeched that the market was fearful about the "huge spike" in cases due to the spread of the Delta variant. In fact, that was not the case. That sell-off was sparked by inflation fears (also over-hyped and overblown, but that's a topic for another post). But then, on the next trading day, the Dow sold off by more than 700 points, and this time it was over fears of a return to lockdowns that could once again stall economic activity.

Hysteria.

Let's first look at the data, then look at what jurisdictions are actually doing. Then we'll play "what-if," and examine the scenario of another lockdown (which isn't going to happen).

Before we get into all that, let me say this: the Delta variant is real. It is resulting in an increase in cases. It is indeed dominating new cases, which is a function of simple math, as I explained in a recent post; it is merely crowding out other variants that have run their course. It is, in fact, more infectious than other variants. It is resulting in hot spots, like Southwest Missouri, where I have some relatives who work in hospitals. Those hospitals have people in the ED waiting for beds because they're at capacity, and their ventilators are full. People can't get oxygen for home care. So I'm not trying to downplay it. I'm merely trying to put it in its proper perspective, looking at it broadly, and not just through the lens of isolated hot spots.

The MSM loves to hype numbers that they either don't understand, or that they manipulate in hopes that you won't understand. One such example, recently reported, is that cases have more than doubled in the last two weeks!!!

Okay ... what does that look like in actual numbers? Well, it looks like the graph below. And if you want those numbers, the most recent seven-day average of new cases is about 33,700, vs. a little over 15,000 two weeks ago.

Folks, that's an increase of 15,000 cases, or less than .05% of the U.S. population. The current seven-day average of new cases, discounting the period from mid-May to now, is the lowest since June 2020. We weren't shut down then. The average on January 12 of this year was nearly 255,000. We weren't shut down then (except for California and New York).

Also, look at the trajectory of the line. The fall/winter 2020 spike was far steeper than the recent, Delta-driven one. In part, that's because over 55% of the U.S. population has received at least one vaccine dose, and another 10% of the population have antibodies.

Now, let's look at the mortality trend.

See? Average daily deaths are declining. (And yes, each death is a tragedy.) In part, this is because medical professionals are better able to treat cases. They're not just waiting until someone needs a ventilator, then putting them on one. (Of course, they're still not using drugs like HCQ or Ivermectin in most cases.) Another reason is that most of the elderly population has been vaccinated (or infected and, tragically, has succumbed), so those infected are less likely to die. I personally know of an entire family that was recently infected by the Delta variant. Eight people, ages 18 to 65. While all were quite ill, none were hospitalized.

For these reasons, and perhaps because of the innate nature of the Delta variant itself, its mortality rate is 0.3%, less than one-sixth that of the Alpha (UK) variant. It would almost seem that we'd want a rapidly spreading but less lethal version of the virus, to quickly increase herd immunity. Of course, the Faucis and Walenskys of the world would have us believe that herd immunity is only achieved through vaccination.

Let's look at the numbers out of Spain, which was one of the hardest-hit countries early in the pandemic. Spain's recent numbers have been as high or higher than at the peak of the pandemic, in January. Their seven-day average is up eight-fold in recent weeks, and is near the January high.

But again, look at deaths:

The most recent seven-day average is 14. The most recent daily total is seven. In a country with nearly 50 million people. Heck, that's fewer people than were shot to death in Chicago last weekend, and its population is only 2.7 million.

So what is Spain doing about this surge in cases? What draconian measures have Spanish officials put in place?

Spain is wide open for U.S. travelers. No vaccine requirement. No negative test result. Just fill out a form, probably similar to the one you have to fill out when you go to the doctor: "No, I don't have symptoms. No, I haven't been in contact with anyone who's tested positive." Etc. And -

No masks.

Now, in the Catalan region, where Barcelona is located, they have implemented a rather austere curfew:

12:30 a.m.

I don't know about you, but I don't recall the last time I was outside my home at that hour.

Let's look at what measures have been taken closer to home. It's true that Los Angeles County recently reinstated its indoor mask mandate. However, the Sheriff responded immediately and publicly by saying that the mandate would not be enforced. And California Gov. Gavin Newsom is reportedly very upset at L.A. County for reinstating the mandate. Why, given his previous uber-strict lockdown measures? Simple: the unpopular governor is facing a recall election, and he'd rather people forget those measures, which is harder to do if they have a mask on their face. Oh, and L.A. County is the most populous county in the state.

Another 11 governors - a bipartisan group, including the very liberal governor of Washington, have gone on record as saying that they're not going to reinstate masking. The Washington governor cited vaccine availability as the reason masks aren't needed. See? These governors know that if they tell people they have to mask up again, the vaccination rates in their states will grind to a halt. Why get vaccinated if I'm going to have to wear a mask anyway? They're banking on the fence-sitters slowly but surely getting the vaccine. That, and they don't want to face the inevitable backlash.

The very liberal governor of New Mexico fully reopened that state on June 30, in spite of the trend in cases. New cases in the state have since nearly tripled (I'm mimicking the MSM here), but again, the numbers matter: they're up from a seven-day average of 58 at the end of June, to 145 yesterday. In a state with more than 2 million people. Still, the state gets a lot of tourism. She could shut that down to avoid importing the Delta strain from hot spots in other states. But nope. She said that when they reached her vaccination goal of 60%, she'd fully reopen the state, and leave it that way. And, unlike most politicians, she's kept her promise.

It's also true that the American Pediatric Association issued a ridiculous recommendation that all children over the age of 2 be masked in schools. This followed a similar recommendation made by the Health Dept. in the county where I live. Yet, last night, the school board in the district in which I live voted unanimously to not require masks or vaccinations for the upcoming school year.

Unanimously.

Why? Because the parent turnout at the school board meeting during which the vote took place was very vocal, and was also unanimous in its opposition to requiring kids to wear masks or be vaccinated.

Politicians know they'll face a massive backlash if they reinstate these measures. They know that, this time, compliance will be minimal, and that law enforcement has no appetite for enforcement. They know that these people vote. And another shutdown? Fuhgeddaboutit. We didn't shut down again in January. It's not happening now.

Okay, I'll play along. What if it does? Most of the shutdowns in 2020 ensued in late March, and lasted through the end of May. Remember what happened?

Many of my friends opined that it would take at least two to three years for the economy to recover. That we were headed into the worst recession we'd experience in our lifetimes. That millions of businesses would close permanently, and never be replaced. But I predicted a different outcome here.

What actually ensued was exactly what I forecast: a bottom-up, vs. a top-down, recession. Only a limited number of sectors were affected: restaurants, retail, hotels, cruise lines, airlines, movie theaters. (Even restaurants and retailers were able to offer curbside service to keep some business.) Those businesses employ a lot of people. But those people don't make a lot of money.

The top of the economy - sectors employing people earning higher incomes - was relatively unscathed. Moreover, our elected officials stupidly supplemented those incomes with stimulus payments they didn't need. So demand for dining out, shopping, traveling, cruising, flying, and entertainment was still there. And people could still afford those things. They just couldn't do them, because the venues were closed. The ships were in port. The planes were grounded.

I predicted that things would come back very quickly, once we reopened. That, for the businesses that did fail, new businesses would step in and take their place. And that's exactly what's happened. Look where we are now: an economy expected to grow at the fastest pace in 40 years this year, with demand for houses and cars so high that it's causing price anomalies never before seen, and record numbers of job openings. (We'd have record-low unemployment, too, if we'd drop the unnecessary unemployment benefit supplement.) New restaurants opening right and left, with long wait times. Help wanted signs everywhere.

So, if there's another shutdown - and the odds of that are about as high as the odds of you catching, and dying from, the Delta variant - we're going to see a short disruption in the economy, painful for many, followed by a soaring recovery.

But there are some other reasons it won't happen. Again, there will be no appetite for enforcement. More businesses will refuse to comply. There will be massive lawsuits brought by the businesses like airlines and cruise lines that could be forced to comply by the Gestap - er, CDC. And, I'd like to think that there are enough cooler heads in power to understand that the knock-on, unintended supply chain consequences we're seeing today are nothing compared to what would ensue from another lockdown.

Calm down. Turn off the TV. Go for a walk. It's not going to happen.

"Just the Vax, Ma'am"

Yet another obscure cultural reference from the past. For those under the age of 60 or so, here's your explanation. The TV show "Dragnet," a police drama, aired from 1951-59, and was revived from 1967-70. It starred its creator, Jack Webb, as LAPD Sergeant Joe Friday, and the revival stared Harry Morgan, who later starred in M*A*S*H, as his partner, Officer Bill Gannon. (This was back when the police were respected, as they should be.) Anytime Webb was questioning a female witness who might start down a rabbit-hole, he'd say, "Just the facts, ma'am."

Well, the Curmudgeon always seeks the facts, wherever they lead. And most recently he's been seeking facts about the SARS-Cov2 vaccines, hence the double-entendre title of this post, in which I'm going to present some facts about the vax.

Readers may recall that the last post addressed some myths surrounding the Delta variant of the virus. I noted that, when it first hit our shores back in April, it was billed as being more infectious, but less lethal, than earlier variants. Then, the narrative changed to it being not only more infectious, but more deadly. I noted that this is highly unlikely, as cases are rising in many parts of the U.S., but deaths are declining in all of those areas. That remains the case, both here and abroad.

More recently, I've seen several sources - all of which are slanted against the currently available vaccines - that suggest three things: first, that there is no difference in the increase in cases in areas with high vaccination rates vs. areas with low vaccination rates. Second, that the number of infections among vaccinated people indicates that the vaccines are ineffective. And third, that the number of deaths among those who've been vaccinated and are subsequently infected is either a further indication that the vaccines are ineffective, or it's an indication that they're downright dangerous and lead to death if one is infected, or both.

I'm going to debunk all three of these conspiracy theories. I'll use data to debunk the first, a combination of data and math to debunk the second, and some fairly simple math to debunk the third.

But first, some caveats. All along, I've been a skeptic when it comes to this virus, and I've been rather cautious about the vaccines. So, lest anyone think I've reversed position and am now on the Fauci bandwagon (I'm not; for the record, I still believe he's at best a quack and at worst America's Josef Mengele), I'm going to put myself out there and state where I stand on the vaccines.

Essentially, I feel strongly both ways, as one of my board members used to say when I was a CEO. Or, more accurately, I don't feel that strongly either way. So below are my positives and negatives regarding the vaccines.

On the positive side:

• I don't have a huge problem with the mRNA technology. I've read enough about it to understand it well enough to be dangerous, and the technology isn't new, though it's relatively new to vaccines. It actually has some advantages over traditional protein-based vaccines, and we'll probably see future flu vaccines using this technology that will be far more effective than traditionally available flu vaccines. (Sign me up: I got a flu shot in October 2019, and got the flu in February 2020.) Moderna has one such flu vaccine in the works.
• I'm smart enough to not fall for the conspiracy theorists' claims that these are "experimental" vaccines that "haven't been approved for use." They are not experimental; they've been through clinical trials and hundreds of millions of doses have been administered. And while they don't yet have full FDA approval, they do have emergency use authorization, which means they're approved for use - or they wouldn't be used. Remember when the J&J shot was pulled temporarily because some recipients developed blood clots? Then it was discovered that all of those people were women of childbearing age, who were more prone to that reaction. The J&J vaccine was re-authorized, but not recommended for that demographic.
• I'm also smart enough to know that the one-off extreme adverse reactions that I hear about are just that: one-offs. Anomalies. I probably know or know of at least a couple hundred people, from teenagers to people in their 90s, who've gotten the vaccines. Some Moderna, some Pfizer, some J&J. The worst reaction anyone I know had was a day of flu-like symptoms. Most had nothing worse than site soreness, which I get with my annual flu shot. (The shingles vaccine left me feeling like I'd been mule-kicked in the shoulder.) Occasionally someone will tell me of someone they personally know who was very sick from the vaccine, had to be hospitalized, etc. That's one person, or two. Again, I know hundreds who've had no major issues, and most have had no issues at all. These are rare anomalies.
• And I'm smart enough to understand that, while the adverse reactions in the VAERS database are likely underreported, there's also some false reporting in there (documented; one health professional once reported to VAERS that the flu shot turned him into The Incredible Hulk), and that the total numbers are still minuscule compared to the more than 300 million doses administered in the U.S., and more than 3 billion doses worldwide. (I do acknowledge the myocarditis risk in young males, and IMO there is no reason to vaccinate that demographic based on their risk factors. I also acknowledge that, while the adverse incidents are low, they're high enough that any other vaccine with a similar incidence rate would likely be pulled.)
• I don't buy the conspiracy theory that because these were "rushed," scientific corners were cut. What was cut was the usual bureaucratic red tape that ties these things up forever, and for that you can thank Donald J. Trump. Put a businessman in charge, and things get done. I still marvel at how many of my conservative friends praised President Trump for Operation Warp Speed, and now claim that the vaccines developed on his watch are ineffective or deadly or both, while those (including Kamala Harris) who said they wouldn't trust the vaccines because they were developed under Trump, now want them to be mandatory. The Curmudgeon has his political views, but he deals in facts.
• I love to travel, and that Italy trip is still on my bucket list. I also have a Transatlantic cruise booked for next year that departs from Spain. So I figure at some point, I'm going to have to get vaccinated to be able to do the things I want to do. As I've posted before, you trade one freedom for another, and you have to choose what freedoms are most important to you.
• Finally, based on the data I'll present below, I know they work. They reduce both the incidence and the severity of the virus.
  

Now, on the negative side:

• I'm still a bit leery about any long-term auto-immune effects. At this point, we just don't know.
• I still maintain that my odds are about the same, given my age, condition, and where I live, whether I get the vaccine or not. So if there's any question at all, why get it?
• I'm hopeful that the more traditional protein-based Novavax vaccine, which has completed Phase 3 trials in the U.S. with very good results (over 90% efficacy overall, and 100% efficacy against moderate and severe disease), will be approved by the end of the year. Yes, I'm somewhat okay with the mRNA technology, and even recognize some benefits of it. But I'm used to the more traditional vaccines. I get the flu shot annually, because young kids are at particular risk from the flu, and I'm around my grandkids. (I'm never around anyone in the high-risk category for this virus, so the "get it for them" argument doesn't apply.) And I got the shingles shots. Before my first trip to Africa, I got stuck like a human pin-cushion. So I'm no anti-vaxxer (actually, I have no use for those people). But those were all traditional, proven vaccines that have been around for a long time, with full FDA approval.
• Finally, the government, health officials, and many doctors keep changing the narrative and outright lying regarding the vaccines, adverse events, the risks of the Delta variant, etc., all in a full-court press to get people vaccinated. They'll lie, coerce, threaten, scare, discriminate, you name it - any tactic to get those needles in people's arms. And when anyone - especially the government, and especially THIS government - is that desperate to get me to do something ... well, I'm that much more reluctant to do it.

So much for my position, which isn't much of a position at all. On to the data.

I looked at the recent trend in cases compared with the trend over the same number of days one month ago, for every state in the U.S., plus D.C. (aka "the swamp"). I calculated the percent change, noting that some states showed increases of up to 300%, while some showed decreases of as much as 74%. Generally speaking, the states with the biggest increases have low vaccination rates, and the states that showed improvement have high vaccination rates. Of course, a robust study would normalize for other influencing factors: population density, tourism rates (daily visitors), the law of large numbers, etc. But I could see those factors through observation, and it's clear that the vaccines have been effective in preventing recent spikes in states with higher vaccination rates.

Here's a stark example: Joplin, MO has the highest SARS-Cov2 hospitalization rate in the U.S. as of this writing. Daily cases are up 71% over the last 14 days, at 76 per 100,000 population, which is about 11x the U.S. rate. The counties surrounding Joplin, in what's known as the "Four-State Region" of Southeast Kansas, Northeast Oklahoma, Northwest Arkansas, and Southwest Missouri, are experiencing similar spikes. The hospitalization rates for those counties and Joplin are up 40-64% over the last 14 days. The vaccination rates in those counties are all under 30%, and are among the lowest in their respective states. Some counties are under 20%. Anecdotally, the hospitalizations in Joplin are among those not vaccinated.

There is a correlation between the vaccination rate and the recent case trend. The vaccines are effective in preventing the recent upticks in cases that we've seen in a number of states. They work. Period.

On to the infections among vaccinated people, and here I'm going to turn to UK data. As of July 6, cases in the U.K. were up 72% vs. the prior week. By mid-June, 97% of cases were Delta infections. (In my last post, I explained this phenomenon, and how Delta would eventually "crowd out" other strains of the virus.) The U.K. also has one of the highest vaccination rates in the world: 63% of the population is fully vaccinated, and 85% of adults have gotten at least one shot.

So why are people still getting the virus? It's a simple matter of data and math. The vaccines have an efficacy rate of about 90%. If you've gotten one dose, it's about 70% or so. So, with a population of about 67 million, if 42 million people are fully vaccinated, and 10% of those might get infected, that's more than 4 million that could get infected. Frankly, it's surprising there aren't far, far more of these "breakthrough" infections. There've been about 800,000 new cases in the U.K. since the end of May; that's less than 20% of what we'd expect with a 90% efficacy rate. So the vaccines are actually performing better than advertised, at least so far.

And average daily deaths have increased, but from about 7 in late May to about 30-40 of late. That's a very small percentage, still, of the significant spike in cases they've seen recently, which is worst than the spike last fall, and second only to the January spike. This may be another indication that the Delta strain is less lethal. It may be related to the fact that most unvaccinated people tend to be younger, and thus have a better chance of surviving the virus in general, barring any co-morbidities. It may be due to improved treatment or earlier hospitalization.

However, it has been reported - and the conspiracy theorists have jumped on this - that among 92,000 Delta cases logged through June 21 in the UK, there were 117 deaths, and that 50 of those deaths, or 46%, were among people who were fully vaccinated.

This led to the hypothesis that the virus doesn't prevent death, and actually may cause it if you're vaccinated and get infected. This is utter nonsense, and simple math bears it out.

I've already noted that the vaccine has a less than 100% efficacy rate, so there will be breakthrough infections. Among those fully vaccinated in the UK, 35% are over the age of 65. The elderly (as well as those whose immune systems are weak or compromised) are more likely to contract the virus if exposed.

But, more importantly, they're more likely to die if infected. Let's say the vaccine reduces an 80-year-old's risk of dying by 95%. That 80-year-old's risk of dying is still likely going to be higher than the risk faced by an unvaccinated 20-year-old. Add in any co-morbidities for those older individuals (and most older folks have more co-morbidities than younger people), and the risk factors increase even more.

Another reason for this phenomenon is that, as more of the population is vaccinated, there are fewer unvaccinated people for the virus to infect. So if the pool of vaccinated people is larger than the pool of unvaccinated people, as it is in the UK, at some point breakthrough infections resulting in death among the elderly vaccinated population will equal or even exceed deaths from infections of younger, unvaccinated individuals. Assume a country reaches 100% vaccination. At 90% efficacy, all infections would be breakthrough infections resulting from less-than-perfect efficacy, and all deaths would be among the most vulnerable of those infected, as was the case before the vaccines were even created.

So what about those 50 deaths among fully vaccinated people in the UK? All of them were in people aged 50 and older. And that age group represents 70% of the vaccinated UK population.

It's simple math, people. No conspiracy here. The vaccines do not cause death if you get infected.

None of this takes away from the fact that the vaccines reduce the likelihood of infection, and the likelihood of death if infected. It's just that if you're already in the high-risk groups - and we all know by now what they are - you still have some likelihood of death. As I've posted before, the average age of U.S. deaths from this virus is the same as the average age of U.S. deaths annually from all causes. And the average age of death is higher than U.S. life expectancy! Once I pass my expiration date, I'm going to savor and be thankful for every precious minute - but I'll also know that I'm on borrowed time, and that something's bound to get me.

Public Health England estimated the fatality rate for the Alpha variant, which first hit the UK late last year, at 1.9%. It estimates the fatality rate for the Delta variant at around 0.3%. This is attributable to improved treatment - and yes, the high vaccination rate in the UK.

Don't get me wrong, I'm still on the fence. But I'm no conspiracy theorist. The vaccines work, at least up to their proven efficacy rate. The case vs. vaccination rate data prove this. And they don't cause death if you get a breakthrough infection, but if you're in a high-risk group, you may die if you get infected, even if you're vaccinated. But your chances are still better than if you're not, so if I were in a high-risk group, I'd be getting off the fence.

I'll leave you with some food for thought regarding conspiracy theories in general. A true skeptic is skeptical of everything, not just stories or sources with which he or she disagrees, or which don't fit his or her preferred narrative. A true skeptic questions everything, fact-checks everything, and looks at the data for himself. Only then does he accept something as true or false.

In scripture, 2 Timothy 4 says, "For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions." That time is here, and there are itching ears - and false teachers - on both sides of every issue. Don't scratch that itch.

Delta Force!

The topic, in case you can't figure it out is the "dreaded" Delta variant of the SARS-CoV2 virus. We're being told that it's the most transmissible, most deadly variant of all, and that those who aren't vaccinated are all going to die from it. So today we'll be unpacking some numbers, at least loosely, and once again providing a little lesson in numeracy, lest you all be scared by the fearmongers, who prey on the innumerate.

This "new" variant first cropped up in India in February, and, the world being the global melting pot it is, the first U.S. case appeared sometime in early April. So it ain't that new. At first, there weren't many cases of it in the U.S., but then we were warned that, because it's so transmissible, it would spread like wildfire throughout our nation, killing the vulnerable and overwhelming our hospitals.

Indeed, we've since learned that, by early June, the variant accounted for 6% of all U.S. cases. By mid-June, it was 10%. By late June, it was approaching 20%. The horror!

Okay, wait a minute. When it comes to percentages, the denominator matters. What else was happening as that percentage was increasing?

Cases were falling.

That's important for two reasons. First, all else being equal, if the denominator (total cases) is falling, the percentage (Delta cases divided by total cases) will increase.

In early June, the seven-day average of daily new cases was about 16,000. By mid-June, it was less than 14,000. By late June, it was around 12,000. Oh, and back in April, when the percentage was minuscule? It was around 65-75,000.

Mind you, these are daily new cases. So consider the cumulative effect of total cases. More existing cases will be Delta cases, and as the daily case rate falls, plus most of those prior cases recover and are no longer active cases (more on that later) - well, that denominator is really going to come down. So the percentage is going to continue to rise, until yes, Virginia, all U.S. cases will eventually be the Delta variant.

The second reason that it's important that cases are falling is that, if this thing is so highly contagious ... well, how can that be? I mean, more than 180 million Americans are unvaccinated. Take out kids, and you still have at least 100 million unvaccinated Americans. (Of course, about 30 million people have recovered from the virus, and thus have antibodies, but the "experts" would have us believe that the immunity game has miraculously changed, and only vaccines can protect us now.) So if this thing were that transmissible, and everyplace - including New York and California - is open, people are traveling and dining out, etc., shouldn't cases be rising? And I don't mean the little blips we might see here and there for a week or so, I mean really taking off?

Now, remember when I said that we'd circle back (oops - sorry) to the fact that most of those prior cases recover and are no longer active? How does the Curmudgeon know that, and what does it mean?

Well, I know it because the seven-day average of daily new deaths is falling, too. In March, before the first U.S. Delta case, it was 1-2,000. By the end of April, after Delta had arrived here, it was 722. Early June, under 400. Late June, under 275.

This is proof positive that most of the people who get the Delta variant recover. But do you know what else it's proof of?

It's not more deadly than previous variants.

So, the "experts" and their partners, the media, are lying to you once again. Why would they do that?

Remember, the message is that, if you're not vaccinated, Delta's gonna get ya.

That's right, this lie is just another part of the massive campaign to get e'rbody vaccinated. Just like the Ohio lottery and the free tickets to Sporting KC matches and the NASCAR ads and the celebrities lining up to get their shots on TV.

See, it went like this: "We got 'em to stay home, we got 'em to wear masks, but dammit, we can't even get half of them to get the vaccine! We've tried bribing them, begging them, appealing to their patriotism, guilting them, threatening them, discriminating against them ... so by God, we've gotta do it the way we got 'em to stay home and wear masks: we'll scare the bejeebers out of 'em!"

So now you know. They're banking on you not understanding that the denominator matters, not looking at the case and death numbers and seeing that they're falling, and actually buying all this hooey that they're selling.

Don't do it. Your chances of choking to death on a Biscoff cookie on a Delta flight are probably higher than dying of the Delta variant. So remember: small bites, and chew your food.

What Have You Learned, Grasshopper?

If you weren't around in the early 1970s, you may not get the title reference. It comes from the iconic TV series "Kung Fu," starring David Carradine. Carradine's character is an orphan growing up in a monastery in (appropriately) China, where he learns the ancient martial art of Kung Fu from his mentor, Master Po, who nicknames the lad "Grasshopper." As Po teaches the boy various life lessons, he asks the question in this post's title.

What the Curmudgeon is applying this question to is the pandemic, and the Grasshopper in question is his audience in the collective. Sixteen months after this fiasco first hit our radar, and now that it is in the rear-view mirror (and if you think it's not, you clearly don't look at the data, you only watch liberal news sources; the seven-day average of daily new cases in the U.S. as of this writing is the lowest since March 28, 2020, when most of us still didn't know what this virus was called, we just knew we couldn't find toilet paper) - now that the mask theatre is over in all sane places, now that businesses are fully open in all sane places (and even California and New York, for crying out loud), now that the vast majority of Americans are no longer staying at home, now that leisure travel has normalized - what have we learned?

Before I set forth my take on the key lessons learned from the pandemic, let me lay out a few caveats, less I offend (though I surely will, assuming there's anyone left who reads this blog who hasn't unfriended my alter ego on Facebook). Every death from this virus has been a tragedy, and if you've lost a loved one or a friend, I'm sorry for your loss. If you were ill from it, I'm sorry for that too, and I hope you're healthy now. I'm going to put forth some numbers as pure data points, but I recognize that every number represents a human life. So does the number of people who die from suicide (I lost a loved one to that cause of death in 2020). So does the number of black kids killed by gang violence, which you don't hear about in the media, because cops didn't kill them. So does the number of people killed by drunk drivers. So does the number of people who overdose on fentanyl smuggled across our southern border, which has increased dramatically this year. So does the number of kids who die of the flu every year. You get the idea. Death is tragic, regardless the cause.

Also - if wearing a mask makes, or has made, you feel safer, that's okay with me. If you're vaccinated, or plan to be in the near future, that's your choice. I'm not making any judgements about any choices anyone makes, or has made, about this pandemic. Hey, early on, I was looking for masks when there were none to be found, and we had a grocery-sanitizing routine that would rival surgery prep. Then we started looking at data. But not everyone does, and not everyone follows the same sources of information, and that's okay. So whatever your view, whatever your choice, you do you. But let me do me. And please, instead of just swallowing whatever CNN or Joe Biden or Tony Fauci says - look at some actual numbers, in their proper context. That's what this post is intended to provide. Don't agree? That's okay.

Having gotten that out of the way, herewith are the Curmudgeon's lessons from the SARS-Cov2 pandemic. Warning: it's a long read, 20 minutes or so, with a lot of data. That's good; data supports facts. You won't find data behind propaganda. But don't worry, the takeaways are numbered, so feel free to read a few at a time, then come back for more.

1. 1984 arrived about 36 years late. This lesson hit close to home: Every EC post related to the virus from the Spring of 2020 that my alter ego shared to Facebook showed up in his Memories this year as "Content Not Available" - meaning that the Zuckerbergians censored it. The Curmudgeon takes pride in the fact that he is viewed as a threat by the Orwellian Zuckmeister, because that is proof that the Curmudgeon speaks the truth. Big Brother Zuck leaves his fellow propagandists alone.

2. Everyone's an expert, and most Americans are gullible. Chiropractors posted Youtube videos proclaiming expertise about virology. An enterprising young woman without a medical degree created a Facebook profile titled "Your Local Epidemiologist" and used it as a platform to parrot every precious word that Tony Fauci uttered. And otherwise smart people lapped that stuff up like it was etched by the Almighty on stone tablets brought down from Mount Sinai by Moses himself, and they helped it spread across social media like a California wildfire. Oh, and all my Facebook friends jumped from being constitutional scholars to being epidemiologists faster than SARS-Cov2 can jump from a maskless sneezer to the poor mouth-breather crossing his path.

3. The pangolin is innocent. We can pretty much put the myth that this thing leapt from an animal to a human to bed. The earliest infected humans, we now know, worked in the Wuhan lab where this thing was likely engineered. Well, not engineered exactly, but modified from bat viruses to adapt readily to humans - supercharged, we now know from Wuhan Tony's emails, to be highly infectious to humans. And those early cases showed a virus that had already adapted to human transmission.

Not so with SARS and MERS, which were naturally transmitted from animals to humans. Those viruses took time to adapt to humans as they spread. SARS-Cov2 was already adapted. In a lab. As a result of gain-of-function research. Funded by a U.S. agency. Led by Dr. Anthony Fauci.

4. And, having followed that chain of events, we know that the Father of COVID-19, as it is also known - the Engineer of SARS-Cov2 - was then put in charge of managing the response to the pandemic unleashed by a mistake in the lab that he enabled to develop it. Is that wise? Or is it allowing the leader of the inmates to run the asylum? Fauci engaged in experimentation using human subjects of the kind not seen since Tuskegee or the Third Reich, except Fauci didn't discriminate against blacks or Jews. He enabled the engineering of a virus that he knew could be unleashed upon the entire world.

5. To further our criticism of Dr. Fauci, he has offered up more flip-flops than a Ron-Jon's surf shop in a Florida beach town. But more importantly, he has lied - repeatedly. His biggest lies were about the virus's origins, and about the effectiveness of masks. Let's address the latter as a separate lesson learned.

6. Masks. Don't. Work. Early on in the pandemic, having noted on a trip to Hawaii just prior to this thing breaking wide open that a number of Asian travelers were wearing masks, the Curmudgeon asked a friend whether masks are effective. At the time, Fauci et. al. were saying they weren't needed, because they don't work. But the Curmudgeon had to wonder if these Asian travelers were on to something, because after all, the virus - and so many other viruses - was born in their backyard.

The Curmudgeon's friend is a wicked smart retired veterinarian who, prior to working for a multinational pharma company as a research vet (studying, among other things, coronaviruses and vaccines), was in private practice for nearly two decades, during which time he performed numerous surgeries. This was his response regarding the purpose of masks:

"We wore masks in surgery to keep a sterile field sterile. And what we were worried about was bacteria, not viruses. Bacteria are boulders; viruses are pebbles. A virus would pass right through a mask."

This is precisely what Tony Fauci told a colleague in an email who had asked him, in February 2020, whether she should wear a mask on a trip. On an airplane. Where you're still required to wear a mask. Even though the air filtration is better than in a restaurant. Where you're no longer required to wear a mask. But I digress. Fauci told his colleague that masks would be ineffective against a virus due to the small size of the droplets, which would pass right through the mask.

Fauci was "confronted" with the flip-flop between that early position and his later position that masks are the most effective defense against transmission of the virus - and, indeed, that "it's just common sense" (so much for "the science") that two masks are even more effective. ("Confronted" is in quotes because the questions actually came from a Fauci-friendly reporter from a left-leaning news outlet, the only sources to which Fauci will grant interviews.) His response?

He said that the science changed, and that "we now know things we didn't know then." Well, no sir. The science, as it pertains to the size of a virus, has not changed at all. Are SARS-Cov2 droplets suddenly the size of bacteria? Nope. The change that he and other "experts" have referred to is the "discovery" that asymptomatic people cant transmit the virus. That has diddly-boo to do with the size of virus droplets. But just as importantly, this is a coronavirus. So is the common cold. We've always known that an asymptomatic person can transmit the common cold, or the flu, or any other virus. As many as 50% of flu infections come from asymptomatic people. We know this. If this is news to you, turn in your doctor card. Be sure and dust off the Cracker Jack crumbs first.

Back to the size of virus droplets. Given the fact that they didn't change, there are only two possibilities (this is a logic problem, kids). Either Fauci was wrong from the get when he said masks are ineffective against transmission of viruses due to the small size of the droplets, in which case he shouldn't be a doctor in the first place; or, when he subsequently began saying that masks are effective, he began lying. Either/or. There is no option C. And I do think he's qualified to be a doctor, frighteningly. (So was Josef Mengele, but we didn't put him in charge of cleaning up the experiments he created.) So the conclusion is that he lied. And he's been lying ever since. A lot.

7. The shutdowns were unnecessary and ineffective. Look at the data. U.S. cases fell from mid-July 2020 to mid-September, when most of America was open for business. Cases peaked in early January, and fell precipitously after that, in spite of the fact that the vaccine rollout hadn't hit 50% until just recently. What else changed in early January? After the election results were in, testing cycle thresholds were dropped nationwide, resulting in a very sharp drop in the reporting of false positive results. Hmmm. More on that later.

8. The follow-on effects of the shutdowns will be with us for a while, and are evidence that the "experts" who thought the shutdowns were necessary and a good idea are a bunch of dumbasses. Lumber prices. Gas prices. Labor shortages. Travel logjams. Inflation. A housing bubble. Chicken shortages, for crying out loud.

9. For the vast majority of us, there is little, if any, reason to get vaccinated. This is a simple matter of statistics. For the average American, you have about a 10% chance of getting the virus. However, statistically speaking, the overwhelmingly greatest factor influencing transmission (not mortality; more on that later) is population density. So, for a guy like me living in the Kansas City metro vs. NYC, my odds are a bit lower. And, as a white male, my odds are lower still, closer to about 6%. That means I have a 94% chance of not contracting the virus. Given that we now know the vaccines' efficacy rate is only about 90%, not the 94% originally hyped, I'm better off taking my chances. Even if we just take the average one-in-ten odds of getting the virus, it's a statistical push. So if there is any chance whatsoever of complications from the vaccine, there's no point in running the risk. Especially since, given my age and lack of significant co-morbidities, I have at least a 98% chance of surviving the virus if I contract it. If I were 85 and had multiple co-morbidities, the math would be different.

Now, I'm not a conspiracy theorist when it comes to the current vaccines against this virus. I don't see them as "experimental." I do know that they do not have full FDA approval though; they only have emergency use authorization. I also know that the mRNA technology is unproven, and the long-term effects in terms of auto-immune impact are unknown - and that means just that, they're unknown. Those effects could be nothing. Or they could be significant. It's too soon to know. I also know that the adverse reactions to this vaccine are a statistical anomaly, but at the same time they are undoubtedly being under-reported, and if any other vaccine had this many adverse reactions reported, it would have been pulled off the market by now. There is ample evidentiary precedent for this.

Bottom line: I am not in the conspiracy theory camp regarding these vaccines, nor am I an anti-vaxxer in general (I get the flu vaccine every year, because I'm around my grandkids, who are at-risk when it comes to the flu, whereas I'm not around anyone who's in the SARS-Cov2 at-risk population). But I do know statistics, and I know my odds are the same with the vaccine or without it. So as long as there are any question marks about it, I'm waiting. When there are traditional vaccines available that have full FDA approval, I'll be more likely to sign up.

It makes even less sense to me to vaccinate kids. The mortality rate among those aged 0-17 is infinitesimally small: less than .0005%. Yet the CDC is now studying an alarmingly high incidence of myocarditis among young people who've been vaccinated. Now, only 275 cases have been reported in the U.S. But that's between about three and 30 times the number expected. And in Israel, where this side effect first showed up, a number of kids have died. Again, any other vaccine - especially without full FDA approval - would be pulled off the market with an incidence rate of a potentially fatal side effect that high.

Now, some news reports are screeching about how new "variants" (a word that should be scrubbed from the English language, as its only purpose is to scare people who don't know any better) are more dangerous to kids. Really? Then show me the data. Show me how cases among kids are increasing. Show me how deaths among kids are increasing. You can't. Because they're not. There have been zero COVID deaths among those aged 0-17 years in the month of June, 2021. But there's been at least one death from myocarditis following the vaccine.

Some reporting has indicated that, for most of these cases, the condition clears up within a few months. But I wouldn't want my kid to have heart inflammation for several months as a result of a vaccine intended to prevent an illness that, for the overwhelming majority of kids (like more than 99.99%), will not only not affect them for four months, they probably won't even know they have it, and it won't affect them for a minute. Having said all that, it's every individual's - and parent's - choice. So if you've vaccinated your kid, or plan to, you do you. I assume you can weigh the risk-reward for yourself.

10. This thing has been massively overblown. It's no more than a bad flu season. Sorry, fearmongers; the truth is in the data. If you plot a graph of excess mortality per capita in the U.S. by year, 2020 looks a lot like the 1968 and 1957 influenza pandemics. (There were no shutdowns for either of those. No one wore masks. They were both viruses. Asymptomatic people could transmit them.) The 2020 pandemic gets compared to the 1918 Spanish flu pandemic. Not. Even. Close. Excess mortality per capita that year was a huge spike compared to 2020, 1968 and 1957.

Remember, we're talking per capita here, which you have to do for comparative purposes. Populations grow. Let's break down the numbers for comparison.

2020 SARS-Cov2 pandemic: 34,259,904 U.S. cases, 613,388 U.S. deaths, total U.S. population 372,817,890 (as of this writing). That's 10.3% cases per capita, .19% of the population died *with* the virus (more on that later), and a CFR (case fatality rate) of 1.8%, about half the number we were originally presented with in early 2020. We'll talk about age (and co-morbidities) in more detail later, but most of the deaths were among those aged 65 and older.

1968 flu pandemic: 100,000 U.S. deaths, total U.S. population 200,700,000. That's .05% of the population. However, most of the deaths were among those over 65 years of age, as was the case with SARS-Cov2. And in 1968, Americans in that age cohort represented less than 10% of the population, vs. 16.5% of the population in 2020, thanks to the aging Boomers. So, adjusting for population distribution, 2.75% of the 65+ population died of the flu in 1968, vs. 3.6% of this virus in 2020. Pretty close.

1957 flu pandemic: 116,000 U.S. deaths, total U.S. population 172,000,000. That's .07% of the population. However, in 1957, less than 9% of the population was over the age of 65. So again adjusting for population distribution, 3.7% of the 65+ population died of the flu in 1957, vs. 3.6% of SARS-Cov2 in 2020.

That's right: the 1957 flu pandemic was deadlier on a per capita basis, adjusted for population distribution, than the COVID pandemic. Yet no masks, no shutdowns. Now, you may say "what about people younger than 65?" Two answers: first, the flu is far deadlier for kids than SARS-Cov2, so a flu pandemic is going to be more deadly, in general, for those younger than 65. (We'll talk later about why, then, most of the people who died in the flu pandemics were over 65.)

Second - keep reading.

11. If you're under the age of 60 and have no serious co-morbidities, this thing wasn't even a bad flu season. Consider that 83% of U.S. deaths presented with at least one co-morbidity. That's more than 500,000 of the 600,000 reported U.S. deaths. No co-morbidities? COVID only took about 100,000 people.

Patients over the age of 60 accounted for less than 18% of COVID diagnoses, but more than 69% of COVID deaths. Patients over the age of 69 accounted for less than 5% of diagnoses, but more than 42% of deaths. About 80% of total U.S. deaths were among those aged 65 and older. That's nearly 500,000 of the 600,000 U.S. deaths. Combine those two factors, and the virus probably took about the same number of lives as the flu in an average year - 35,000 or so.

This thing is a killer, alright - if you're old. Especially if you have co-morbidities, which elderly folks are more likely to have.

12. There actually have not been 600,000 U.S. deaths from the virus. Let's say you had a co-morbidity like heart disease. You get the virus, and die of a heart attack. They list the virus as the cause of death, and note that you died "with" COVID. But you died from a heart attack, something to which you were pre-disposed. The flu could have brought on a heart attack. Running up the stairs could have. Deaths were overstated due to this - which by the way, was an intentional change in cause of death reporting methodology at the outset of the pandemic. Previously, primary cause of death was listed as the thing the deceased died from. At the beginning of the pandemic, the CDC changed the reporting methodology to call cause of death COVID if the deceased had the virus at the time of death, even if death was caused by something else.

Also, the CARES Act included a subsidy for hospitals for each COVID death in their facility. Makes sense, right? Takes care of the front line. Well, I personally know of one hospital whose practice it was to move all actively dying patients to the COVID wing - even those who had tested negative immediately before. Think this abuse was isolated? Don't be naive. There was an incentive, and there was no monitoring, no accountability. So we have no idea to what extent SARS-Cov2 deaths have been overstated. But we can be sure they have been.

13. The most important statistic to scientists and medical professionals is not the CFR, or case fatality rate, it's the IFR, or infection fatality rate. That's the number of deaths divided by the number of people infected, rather than reported cases. Why is that important? Because people may get infected, but are asymptomatic, and never get tested. If we go by the CFR, we over-estimate how deadly a disease actually is. The IFR is the true measure of lethality.

The only way we'll ever get to the IFR is if every person in the world gets an antibody test. That should be the focus, not trying to get every person in the world vaccinated. Once we know how many people have antibodies, we'll come closer to knowing how many people were infected. Then, we'll have our denominator. And then, if we divide deaths from the virus by that denominator, we'll probably find that for people without co-morbidities, the IFR is no greater than that of influenza.

14. The other important reason to have everyone tested for antibodies is that we might find we're already at herd immunity. But the CDC doesn't want you to look at it that way. While their website still defines herd immunity in terms of those who have been infected plus those who have been vaccinated, the Director has publicly stated that herd immunity refers only to immunity through vaccination. Health officials have never applied this definition before.

We don't even have reliable case numbers, and that's not just because we don't know about all the early asymptomatic infections (or symptomatic, but untested, infections). China was hiding this thing early on, and suppressing their numbers. So was Russia. Then, as testing became widespread, there was a desire for political reasons to overstate the case numbers. (Had the pandemic not occurred during an election year, the whole thing would have looked quite different. But then, maybe it's no coincidence that it occurred during an election year.)

So the testing cycle thresholds were manipulated higher. Here's how the PCR test works. It detects bits of the virus in the sample taken. The test is run over a number of cycles, and each cycle has a chance of detecting more bits of the virus. The more cycles you run, the more likely you'll detect a bit of the virus. But -

At some point, you may start detecting dead virus cells. In other words, the subject may have had the virus, but it's no longer active, so they can't spread it. They've recovered. It's no longer an active case. They were one of those early asymptomatic infections. So counting them as an active case is a false positive. One epidemiologist (a qualified one) said that a cycle threshold above 35 would produce too many false positives. (Fauci himself later said the same thing.) The same epidemiologist said that using a cycle threshold of 40 or above would overstate cases by a significant number. She used the analogy of finding a hair from a serial killer's head in a room full of people six months after the killer left, and determining that he's still a threat to the people in the room.

On November 13 - after the election - the CDC updated its FAQs to include information on the effect of cycle thresholds on test results. Only this year, the WHO released guidance on cycle thresholds, and many states began quietly reducing theirs. Kansas, for example, had been using a cycle threshold of 42. In early January, it dropped its threshold to 35. Other states that had had high thresholds, and then dropped them in January, included New York, California, and North Carolina. All three are in the top 10 among U.S. states in reported SARS-Cov2 cases.

So we don't know the number of cases, we don't know the number of infections, and we don't know the number of deaths caused by the virus. (I suppose if those high-cycle tests were picking up dead virus cells in people who had been infected and didn't know it, maybe that gets us closer to total infections. But the best measure is still to get everyone an antibody test.)

The bottom line, though, in terms of herd immunity, is this: let's say the case count is accurate. So 10% of the population has immunity through infection. We know that some number above that has been infected and didn't know it, and they have immunity too. (I know the "experts" are saying that they may not, but they did with every other virus known to man, including every other coronavirus, so their fearmongering has no scientific foundation. There is no evidence to support it.) And, reportedly one has about 60-70% immunity from having at least one dose of vaccine, and over 52% of the population have had that. So we're somewhere north of 62% immunity.

More importantly, 92% of those over 65 have had one shot, and 80% of that population have been fully vaccinated. That's the population the vaccination effort should have been focused on. The rest of us should be getting antibody tests.

15. Back to the flu for a minute. If the flu is more deadly for kids than other illnesses, why were most of the deaths in the 1957 and 1968 flu pandemics among those aged 65 and older? Because most of the deaths from all causes in 1957 and 1968 were among those aged 65 and older. Why? Because most of the deaths in any year are among those aged 65 and older. We're born, we grow up, we age, we get old, we die. The older we get, the nearer death we are. Ask any actuary.

Read the next paragraph slowly. Read it carefully. Read it more than once. Think hard about what it means, about what it says about all the fear-mongering and bad reporting and false Faucisms and stupid political mandates we've suffered through over the last 16 months.

You know what the average age of COVID deaths is? Eighty-six. You know what the average age of deaths in the U.S. in any given year is? Eighty-six.

So, Grasshopper - what have you learned?

I have to say that what I've learned simply confirms - with hard data, and words we now know came from Herr Fauci himself - what I already believed, or at least suspected. You see, when the government and media and public health officials (who are part of the government) start to get all ginned up about something, my BS meter tends to bury the needle in the red. And the needle's been bent for a little over a year now.

A Lesson in Supply-Side Economics, in Two Graphs

 In this post, the Curmudgeon will get down to brass tacks. Many of his detractors claim that supply-side economics (which they call "trickle-down" economics) does not work. Of course, they are wrong. The reason they are wrong is that they miss the point that supply-side economics only provides "trickle-down" benefits to those willing to work for them. They would prefer a Keynesian world of "hand-me-down" economics, where the government gives them everything they need (or, more accurately, want). But, as President Gerald Ford wisely said, if the government is big enough to give you everything you want, it is big enough to take away everything you have.

There is no better real-world illustration of the contrast between supply-side and Keynesian economics than today's labor market. One couldn't write a better textbook case study. In fact, the Curmudgeon will present this illustration using just two graphs of recent labor market data.

The first graph below is the JOLTS Index, which measures total non-farm job openings. The most recent data point is as of April 2021. That number is an all-time record, smashing all previous records, as what Larry Kudlow calls the "Reopening Vaccinated Trumpian Super-V Recovery" has resulted in a massive wave of business re-openings, and even new openings, as Americans who suffered through more than a year of unnecessary shut-downs are yearning to once again be free, and are dining out, shopping, traveling ... living.

Now, one could perhaps surmise from this that businesses are just re-opening so fast that there simply aren't enough available warm bodies to fill the available jobs. Anecdotally, anyone who dines out has seen the ubiquitous help wanted signs. You've probably even seen signs, as I have, noting that hours and/or seating is limited due to a lack of staff. Yes, these same small businesses who suffered under unnecessary and unconstitutional government closures of their businesses and restrictions on their seating capacity are now facing the same conditions due to a lack of workers.

Why? Did that many people die during the pandemic? Well, given that the trend level of the JOLTS Index was about 7 million prior to the pandemic, and the most recent reading tops 9 million, I hardly think that 2 million worker gap lines up with the 600,000 or so American lives lost to the virus - especially since more than half those lives lost were over the age of 75, so they probably wouldn't be working anyway. In fact, 78% were over the age of 65.

Is it just that population growth has failed to keep up with economic growth? Well, that wouldn't line up with consumption data, and we've seen no signs of that previously. But to rule that out definitively, let's look at the second graph.

The graph below shows Continued Claims for Unemployment Benefits. As the Curmudgeon explained early in the pandemic, when the media insisted on misrepresenting the cumulative total of weekly initial claims as the total number of people unemployed at any given time, Continued Claims does, in fact, represent just that: the number of people who are still filing for benefits in a given week. As an economy recovers, that number should fall, as more and more displaced workers fall off the unemployment insurance rolls and go back to work, especially if job openings are abundant - 

Unless ... the government, in its unending and limitless stupidity, has provided enhanced unemployment benefits, and has stubbornly failed to withdraw those enhancements even as the economy has fully recovered, providing people with a disincentive to work. Don't believe that's what's happening? Check out the graph, and do the math.

The trend level of Continued Claims, prior to the pandemic, was about 1.7 million, during the strongest labor market in most of our lifetimes, thanks to low taxes, deregulation ... but I digress. Note that the recent trend has been dead-flat since March. Why? Re-read the previous paragraph.

Now, look at what the recent trend level is. About 3.8 million. What's the difference between that and the pre-pandemic trend level? Unless my math is wrong, it's just over 2 million.

And - what was the difference between the trend level of job openings pre-pandemic, and the April 2021 record?

I'll let you take it from here.

To Your Health!

Sure, I'll raise a glass to your health. Somebody should be willing to, because you can bet Anthony Fauci and Rochelle Walensky (the new CDC Director, in case you didn't know) aren't going to. Think they're interested in your health? Think again.

See, their covid protocols have nothing to do with health, and they haven't since the 14th day of flattening the curve - if they ever did at all. Want proof? Here you go.

Fauci and Walensky want you to get vaccinated, then still wear a mask (or two), only gather with other people who have been vaccinated, even then only in small numbers and only outdoors. (Why? Are they finally admitting that the virus isn't transmitted outdoors?) They've criticized large gatherings like the Sturgis motorcycle rally, fans at NFL games, the Texas Rangers' home opener at 100% capacity, Spring Break, the resumption of travel - even though none of those things has been tied to a remotely significant outbreak. They warn us of going to restaurants, bars, even church.

"Well gee, it sure sounds like they're concerned with our health," you say. Yeah? Then why are they okay with hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants crossing our southern border from countries whose case counts are not declining? Packed in caravans, many of them without masks, not only outdoors but crammed into trucks and buses? The vast majority of whom are not being tested at the border? For the small numbers who are, exhibiting infection rates more than seven times those of the U.S.? Then being dispersed into the general population in U.S. communities, and allowed to board public transportation to travel freely throughout the U.S.? Or crammed into detention centers at 700% of capacity, or more?

If Fauci and Walensky cared one whit about public health, they'd be screaming bloody murder about this. But it's not about health. It's about politics. A few days ago, Fauci was asked about the situation at the border, and why he wasn't saying anything about it. His answer? "I have nothing to do with the border." Well, if he cared about Americans' - or these immigrants' - health, he'd have everything to do with the border. (Fitting that he did a bang-up Pontius Pilate impersonation right around Good Friday.)

Still not convinced? Remember all the teachers who are scared to death of the virus, so much so that even though the CDC has said it's safe to go back to in-person learning, they insist on staying home, damaging - perhaps irreparably - the educations of millions of American kids? Well, in San Diego, a number of them are volunteering - that's right, volunteering, to go back into the classroom to teach those same immigrant kids who crossed the border illegally. So they're not afraid of being in the classroom with a bunch of untested kids who traveled and were detained in those kinds of conditions, from countries with high infection rates and poor health care, but they're deathly afraid of being in the classroom with a bunch of American kids who've been stuck at home for a year, whose parents have probably been vaccinated. Why? Because it's not about their health concerns. It's about their politics. Teaching those immigrant kids is woke. Teaching their own students is not.

Finally, there's this: many in the medical profession, and pretty much all in the media, are outright lying to you. This one, I proved myself. A few mornings ago I was listening to a national news anchor interview Dr. Michael Osterholm, an epidemiologist and Director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota, and - wait for it - a member of Joe Biden's COVID-19 Advisory Board. In other words, a doctor-cum-political hack, just like Fauci.

During the interview, the news anchor pointed out that in another recent interview, Walensky spoke of "the recurring feeling I have of impending doom." So much for "follow the science;" let's just go with our gut feelings, our baseless fears. Osterholm applauded her for her "honesty," and said the U.S. is the only country that's seeing a rise in new cases due to "this new variant" (referring to the B.1.1.7 variant, which has been known in the U.S. since early January, so it's hardly "new").

As is my wont, I decided to look at the data. And what did I find?

Daily new cases in the U.S. have been absolutely flat since the middle of February. Oh, but not only did he lie about the U.S. trend, he lied when he said we're the only country that has seen cases rise recently. I did a quick review of the trend in a few other countries with high case counts. Several are seeing sharp increases, to record levels.

(By the way, the media don't care about public health, either: the news anchor failed to question Osterholm's misrepresentation of the data. He either didn't know, or didn't care, that his interviewee was lying.)

Osterholm has since been making the rounds warning of the "fourth wave" or "surge" or "spike" we're experiencing. Why would he lie? First, because most won't fact-check him, and second, because it will justify not only maintaining restrictions, but spending massive sums of money on things the administration claims are related to covid, but in fact are not.

If it were about health, medical professionals would be telling us the truth, and citing the actual data. (We in Kansas have seen, on numerous occasions, how our own state health director manipulated data to attempt to convince us that masks are effective in reducing transmission.)

If it were about health, teachers would either get their butts back in the classroom, or wouldn't volunteer to teach immigrant kids in person, particularly given the conditions they traveled and were housed in and their relative infection rates. (Note: this is not a condemnation of all teachers. I know many who are back in the classroom, willingly, and many more who long to be.)

And if it were about health, the two people at the head of the spear would be focused on the human health crisis at our southern border, instead of washing their hands of it.

So get together with your friends, take off that mask, and have that drink - to your health!