A Few Quick Questions

I've just been listening to Joe Biden - just back from vacation, while his disastrously executed withdrawal from Afghanistan went horrifically pear-shaped, making Saigon look like a foreign policy success - speaking to the American people in defense of his decision to withdraw.

For his liberal apologistas, yes, I know - President Trump planned to withdraw, too. I'm not saying that withdrawal is the wrong decision. I'm not saying we ever should have been there in the first place. (Note that Biden wasn't calling for his boss to withdraw during the eight years that he supposedly had his ear.)

My problem isn't so much with the what, but with the how. Biden said it wouldn't end like Saigon.

It didn't. In Saigon, we didn't see images of desperate Vietnamese hanging onto C-130s as they rolled down the tarmac, then plunging to their deaths as the planes went airborne - knowing as they fell that their fate would be preferable to what they faced at the hands of the Taliban.

Biden didn't anticipate the country falling so fast that he'd have to send troops back in to evacuate our embassy, that the fall of Kabul would be so fast that even that operation would be so late that he'd have to beg the Taliban to spare our people. That the translators who've helped us while we were in country will be mercilessly tortured and executed, because we can't get them out. That he's handing the country over to China. His pull-out was more sloppy than a frantic teenager in the backseat of Dad's car.

We all know that stupid stuff comes out of Joe's mouth like poop comes out of a baby, but I found four of his comments particularly curious, and I wish I could question him about each of them. Instead, I'll just point them out here, and question them rhetorically.

First, (and these are in no particular order in terms of when he said them during his speech, which isn't important anyway, since he rambles like a drunken gnat), he said that the Afghan political leaders couldn't come together.

Am I the only one who sees the irony in this?

Remember Joe's inaugural address? He was going to be the great uniter, the healer, the guy who brings the two sides together. Then he signed executive order after executive order, rather than trust the legislative process. He praised Republicans in a presser for their bipartisan support of a $1 trillion infrastructure deal, then immediately held another presser with Democrats crowing about how they were gonna use reconciliation to shove another $3.5 trillion in spending on the Socialist wing's agenda down the American people's throats.

When it comes to uniting, this guy is to America as Moses was to the Red Sea.

Second, he said that on a call a while back, prior to the withdrawal, he advised the Afghan President to clean up the corruption in his government.

Whaaaaat?

Again, does no one else see the irony in this? If you don't, Hunter would like to sell you a painting. Never mind that it'll look exactly like your kid's refrigerator art, but will cost you millions. That's assuming he has time to whip one up in between his Burisma board meetings, a gig daddy kept from being investigated by threatening to withhold aid from one of our allies.

Third, he seemed incredulous that we spent $1 trillion in Afghanistan. Over the last 20 years.

You have to see the irony in that. We've spent more than that in the last week.

Finally, he said, "I won't repeat the mistakes of the past 20 years."

Hey Joe, explain your border policy. Looks to me like you're not just repeating them, you're doubling down on them.

By the Numbers

The Curmudgeon does not like misinformation, no matter the source or the slant. He did not like it when covid cases and deaths were sensationalized through fuzzy reporting, or when the PCR cycle thresholds were set at high levels to increase positive test results. He especially hates it when fuzzy math is used to misinform, as it was with the positivity rate, or unemployment data last April and May.

So he is going to be equally deliberate in addressing misinformation fueled by bad math no matter what it relates to. In this post, it will relate to vaccine effectiveness. Specifically, claims that breakthrough infections show that vaccine effectiveness is low, or waning, or that the number of cases among the vaccinated is about the same as among the unvaccinated. But first, some disclaimers.

I am not a vaccine crusader. I have stated before my own fence-sitting position regarding the vaccines, and if and when that changes, I will keep it to myself. I will not proclaim my vaccination status on social media; if one derives one's virtue from having gotten a shot, one is rather devoid of virtue. The same is true if one has to signal one's virtues on social media in general.

I believe strongly that it is each individual's choice whether to get any vaccine: covid, influenza, shingles. (Although I do believe there is a special corner of the loony bin for those blanket anti-vaxxers who believe that childhood vaccines cause autism; as the grandfather of an exceptional child on the spectrum, I know better.) I do not believe in mandates, although as a free-market capitalist I defend the right of any business to make its own decisions regarding them. Just as I defend any consumer's or employee's right to make their own decisions regarding patronage or employment.

And I absolutely am opposed to vaccine shaming - the practice of using phrases like "what we have is a pandemic of the unvaccinated," or using the fact that the vast majority of infections are among the unvaccinated to attempt to marginalize those who have exercised their right to make their own health decisions, and not get a vaccine. Nobody tries to shame people who don't get the flu shot every season, and the flu kills a few hundred kids a year. (Spare me the false equivalencies over numbers.)

Now, on to the topic of this post. Amid the spikes in cases that we've seen from the spread of the Delta variant in the U.S., we've all seen the reports from doctors that "99% of infections are among the unvaccinated." Those, I believe, are indeed slanted toward the vaccine-shaming narrative; the more reasonable reports are probably those that say "97-99%," and that's likely even on the high side.

However, in recent days I've seen several articles floating around, reporting on breakthrough cases in various locations, and using bad math to imply that infections among the vaccinated are as common as among the unvaccinated. I'll look at each of these in turn, address the problems posed by the assumptions made and any conclusions offered, and explain the math that refutes the argument that cases among the vaccinated are equal to those among the unvaccinated. Finally, I'll present some verified statistics that support that math.

Provincetown, MA

Several sources reported a CDC finding that 74% of people infected in an outbreak stemming from several events and gatherings in Provincetown in July were fully vaccinated. (This, in part, was the basis for the CDC's ridiculous reversal of its mask guidance.) Provincetown sits at the tip of Cape Cod, and hosts a number of summer events.

However, here's what's important about the Provincetown data. First, the CDC study was based on a total of 469 covid cases that resulted from those events. That's 0.03% of the total covid cases in the U.S. in the month of July. So to extrapolate the Provincetown experience to the entire U.S, you'd have to multiply the Provincetown breakthrough infections by 3,333.33. In other words, given that there were 347 breakthrough infections of fully vaccinated individuals from the Provincetown events, that would mean that there were 1,156,866 breakthrough infections of fully vaccinated individuals in the U.S. in July. Don't you think that we'd have heard about that, were it true? Even if one is so predisposed to conspiracy theories as to believe that the mainstream media would bury such a story, consider that the mainstream media reported on the Provincetown study. At a minimum, Tucker Carlson of Fox News would have let us know if there were over a million breakthrough infections in July.

So the first thing the Provincetown case suffers from is the law of large (or in this case small) numbers. It just isn't statistically significant. It cannot be extrapolated.

The second thing that's noteworthy - and this is important, so pay attention, because this is the crux of the math behind all of these breakthrough reports - is that Massachusetts has the second-highest rate of vaccination among U.S. states, at more than 64% fully vaccinated. The highest vaccination rate in the state is on Cape Cod (other than the sparsely populated island communities), at 77% of the eligible population.

Why is this so important? Here's how the math works. Let's take it to the extreme and assume a hypothetical country (or state or county) where 100% of the population is vaccinated. At that point, every infection will be a breakthrough infection. But why will there be any infections at all, you ask? Because the vaccines' efficacy - their ability to prevent infection - is less than 100%. In trials and in actual experience since emergency use authorization was granted back in December 2020, the efficacy rate has been proven to be 90-95%. So 5-10% of those vaccinated could still get infected.

Now, if we back that off a bit, and take a place like Cape Cod, where the vaccination rate isn't 100%, but rather 77%, you're going to get some infections among unvaccinated people, and some breakthrough infections among vaccinated people. I'll provide a graphic below that neatly illustrates how this works, but for now, let's stick to the math.

So let's put a bunch of people, vaccinated and unvaccinated, together at some large events in Provincetown, all in close proximity. (Provincetown is a pretty small place.) If we assume that about 77% of them are vaccinated, in line with the Cape Cod vaccination rate, and we wind up with 74% of the people who wind up getting infected being fully vaccinated ... are you starting to see how the numbers might line up?

It's important to note that among those 347 breakthrough cases, 274 (79%) were symptomatic, four (1.2%) were hospitalized, and none died.

But another really important thing to note is that there will be fewer infections, the higher the vaccination rate. This also belies the notion that there would be no difference in cases between the vaccinated and the unvaccinated. We'll address that toward the end of the post.

Israel.

There's a video making the rounds on social media of an interview on Israeli TV of a doctor from a Jerusalem hospital talking about breakthrough infections there. The interview is in Hebrew, with subtitles also in Hebrew, but the video has English subtitles. I question the veracity of the English subtitles, because having searched all over the internet for the video (I originally saw it on a pretty questionable site), I could only find it on some rather obviously dubious conspiracy theory sites, plus on the YouTube page of a guy going by "Mr. Ace."

I eventually landed on the hospital's English-language Facebook page, which posted the interview along with some quotes from it in English. However, that video did not have the English subtitles, hence my suspicion. (The Curmudgeon has a rule: if I can't verify it, I can't believe it. Of course, that doesn't mean it isn't true. But it earns bonus suspicion points if it appears on a lot of questionable sites.)

The subtitles say that the doctor is claiming that the vaccines' effectiveness is waning, hence the breakthrough infections in Israel. Now, even if he never said that, I will say that I have confirmed that Israeli officials have approved a third booster of the Pfizer vaccine, and are encouraging it for those over 60 or who are immunocompromised. However, they acknowledge that they don't know whether the vaccine's effectiveness is actually waning, or whether it's just not as effective against the Delta variant as against previous variants, so they're willing to give the booster a shot (pun intended). They also have stated that even absent the booster, the severity of illness among the vaccinated is much less than among the unvaccinated.

But in Israel, there aren't very many of those left. Like Massachusetts, Israel has a very high vaccination rate. They got an early start in their vaccination program, and they had mandatory vaccines for students as a requirement to sit for exams in the Spring (something I also don't agree with). Nearly 60% of the population is fully vaccinated. So again, the math is going to follow the pattern noted above.

A recent study published in the New England Journal of Medicine found a 2.6% breakthrough infection rate among fully vaccinated Israeli healthcare workers. Of those, two-thirds were mild and a third were asymptomatic, although, among the elderly who have been hospitalized in Israel, there have been serious breakthrough infections. Still, a 2.6% breakthrough rate is pretty low.

As early as June, the Israeli health minister noted that about half of infections were occurring in vaccinated individuals. At that time, 85% if Israeli adults were vaccinated. The graphic below illustrates how 50% of cases among vaccinated individuals can be distorted given that high a vaccination rate:

Each circle represents one person assuming a hypothetical population of 100, with a vaccination rate of 85%. Two of the vaccinated people got infected, and two of the unvaccinated people got infected, so yes, 50% of the infections were among the vaccinated population. What that statistic doesn't reveal is that the infection rate among the vaccinated was only 2/85, or 2.3% (not dissimilar to the NEJM study's finding), while the infection rate among the unvaccinated was 2/15, or 13.3%. In other words, the infection rate among the unvaccinated is about six times higher than among the vaccinated.

I'm going to pull a Jen Psaki and circle back to the Israeli government's decision to recommend a third booster dose. The CDC doesn't recommend that, not that we can trust their guidance much. Nor does Pfizer yet, even though they have a financial incentive to do so. So maybe Israel is onto something; maybe they know something we don't know. Or maybe they're just throwing a dart here (pun intended again). Too soon to tell. But even they admit that they can't conclusively say the vaccine's effectiveness is waning - they're hoping that if it's not that, if it's just that the efficacy against Delta isn't as high (and we've seen that to be true), another shot can't hurt.

The UK.

You may have heard of Alex Berenson. He's been making the rounds on some cable shows. He's written some booklets on covid, related to the ineffectiveness of the lockdowns, the inaccuracies of death count reporting, and the ineffectiveness of masks. He's also written about vaccines.

Now Berenson is a novelist, of the spy genre, which I'm keen on. I've been reading his stuff since long before the Wuhan lab engineered covid. He has degrees in history and economics, and he used to write for The Street.com, which was founded by CNBC's Jim Cramer. I like Cramer, and I follow The Street. I also agree with much of what Berenson has had to say about lockdowns, death count reporting, and masks. But I have to part ways with him on his vaccine "analysis." Not because I'm a vaccine advocate. But because his math is flawed. And let's not forget that, by trade, he's a writer of fiction, not a researcher.

I'm not going to go back and find the Twitter post where he talked about the UK data, but it was very similar to the Israel data: he "found" that breakthrough infections accounted for about the same number of recent cases as infections among the unvaccinated. And he used that to conclude that the vaccines were ineffective.

But the UK also has a very high vaccination rate: 58.8% of the population fully vaccinated. So when I applied the math to his data, I found that the infection rate among the vaccinated was quite low compared to the infection rate among the unvaccinated, as illustrated above.

Now, let's look at some data from a place where the vaccination rate is low: Southwest Missouri. I'm picking this area because a) it's been a recent hotspot for infections and hospitalizations, and b) I personally know people who work in the two main hospitals in Joplin, Missouri.

Joplin straddles two counties: Newton and Jasper. In the month of July, those two counties had 2,379 covid cases. Compare that to the 469 cases from the Provincetown study. The two counties have a combined population of 179,654. So the infection rate was 1.3% of the population. 

As of July 31, 17.9% of the population of Newton County was fully vaccinated, and 33.6% of the population of Jasper County was fully vaccinated. A local news article interviewed officials from both major hospitals in Joplin, and both reported that 92-94% of hospitalizations were among the unvaccinated. They also noted that those hospitalized who were vaccinated had less severe cases and were discharged earlier.

Now, this is important: if the hospitalizations among the vaccinated are less severe, logic would tell us that the cases overall among the vaccinated are less severe. Thus you'd have fewer hospitalizations overall among the vaccinated. So if 93%, on average, of hospitalizations, are unvaccinated, then it may not be a stretch to say that 97% of all cases - hospitalized, not hospitalized but symptomatic, and asymptomatic - are among the unvaccinated.

But who really cares? The number, averaged across the U.S., with its average vaccination rate of just over 50%, is likely north of 90% among the unvaccinated, especially since many of the 21 states whose rates are above the national average aren't very populous. In the states with the highest vaccination rates, the number will be below 90% due to the math explained above; as we approach 100% in a given location, we'll approach 100% breakthrough infections. In states with very low vaccination rates, like Alabama, you're probably close to 99%.

Again, who cares? As I said before, I'm adamantly opposed to vaccine shaming. But I'm equally opposed to spreading misinformation just because it aligns with one's preconceived notions - because it purports to prove what one desperately wants it to prove. Don't want to get vaccinated? I wholeheartedly support your choice. Just don't use flawed "analysis" propped up by bad math to try to convince the world that your decision is rooted in "evidence" that the vaccines are ineffective. The math proves that they are - but you're still free to choose not to get one. You think the guys who choose not to wear motorcycle helmets post articles on Facebook claiming scientific evidence that they're not effective in preventing brain injury in a crash? No. They know that they are. They just make a personal health choice that is their right to make (where the law allows).

Let me also say that I do not believe that this spreading of misinformation is always willful or wanton. Sometimes, it's just that those who share it want so much to believe the narrative, to believe that there is scientific justification for their decision to not get vaccinated, that they latch onto anything that aligns with their pre-conceived notions, without questioning it. And maybe they don't understand the math well enough to question it in the first place. They think they've found a smoking gun.

But others see themselves as right-fighters, and do share the misinformation willfully and wantonly (not that they understand that it's misinformation, mind you - they just don't get the math). They decry the vaccine crusaders, while they crusade against the vaccines. They criticize those who would infringe upon the rights of those who make their own private health choice to not get vaccinated, while they attempt to influence the rights of those who might make the private health choice to go ahead and get the vaccine, by plying them with flawed information fueled by bad math. Just leave everybody alone, already, and let them make their own choice, just as you want to be free to make your own choice. You want to be a right-fighter? Fight for that.

One final bit of evidence that I alluded to earlier, related to the difference between cases in the vaccinated vs. the unvaccinated: in July, Massachusetts, with its 64% vaccination rate, had about 10,000 covid cases among its 6.9 million citizens. Missouri, with its 42% vaccination rate, had more than 50,000 cases - more than five times as many - among its 6.1 million residents.

The Truth, the Whole Truth, and Nothing But the Truth

Let's get straight to it. This data comes directly from the CDC. Everybody's been looking at daily data or cumulative data related to Covid, but I fear they've been missing the picture, so I decided to look at monthly data. The CDC doesn't, so for cases I had to aggregate their daily data, and for deaths I had to aggregate their weekly data. (And that means that, if the week didn't end exactly on the last day of the month, I may be picking up some deaths in, say, May 2020 that actually occurred in the first couple of days in June 2020; however, over time those differences will average themselves out, and in any event they're relatively small, statistically speaking.)

First, cases. And I want you to note that the mask mandates were largely put in place last June and July. So how did that work from October through January?

And how effective do you think it's going to be now? Yes, thanks to the Delta variant, cases in July were up - there's that 246% increase in just one month! that the media has been screaming about.

Yes. From the lowest level since March 2020, when "14 days to flatten the curve" began. The July total is 75% of that of April 2021, and nobody's hair was on fire then. It's 70% of the level from July 2020, when most states first put mask mandates in place (which, again, were wholly ineffective; what's the definition of insanity again?).

Still, I concede that, due to the higher viral load of the Delta variant, cases are up. (But as I've previously noted, in India and the UK, Delta cases peaked about 55-90 days in, then began to drop precipitously. We're about 45 days into the Delta spread here, with a far higher vaccination rate than India's, closer to the UK's. So it's not unreasonable to expect that we may be about 10 days from peaking.)

But even if we aren't - what about deaths?

July's total deaths - right in the midst of the Delta spike in cases - was the lowest since March 2020. We got our first big spike in April of last year, when Andrew "McFeely" Cuomo was sending infected octogenarians from the hospital back into the nursing homes. Then we got a bigger spike in the winter months, when cases mushroomed and the much more lethal Alpha variant was dominant. (Note that April through Inauguration Day was also the period when every U.S. death was labeled a Covid death. If you got hit by a bus, and tested positive post-mortem for Covid, you died of Covid. Same for drowning, drug overdoses, etc. And that's also when hospitals were getting a CARES Act bonus for every Covid death, so they were moving every patient from palliative care into the Covid wing so they could cash in. Never mind that that meant their loved ones couldn't hold their hands as they passed. And the medical profession wonders why Americans no longer trust them.)

But folks, since May of this year, the pandemic - if you define it as a wave of life-threatening illness - has been over. If you define it as a virus that might cause a bunch of people to get sick, like the flu or the common cold, well, okay, it's a pandemic. And by that definition, we may get a new pandemic pretty much every year.

So what do these numbers equate to in terms of Case Fatality Rate (deaths divided by cases)? Here's where the data is really telling.

See, the cumulative CFR is misleading. It's misleading, because even when cases and deaths spiked last December and January, the CFR was low. Deaths averaged more than 100,000 per month in each of those two months. But the CFR averaged just 1.8%. The cumulative CFR is 1.7%.

Now, why was it so high in January 2020? Remember the first outbreak was in a Washington nursing home. Concentrated in an at-risk population. Doctors didn't know what this thing was or how to treat it. And, the numbers are too small to be statistically significant - six deaths out of 51 cases. Again, the CFR spike in April can be traced largely to the New York nursing home deaths.

So what's the CFR in the month of the "deadly" Delta variant spike?

0.4%.

One-third the rate of any previous month. Much lower than the seasonal flu.

"Oh, but there's a lag," the fearmongers warn.

BS. The lag is less than a month. We'd have seen it by now. Remember, I had to aggregate this data from daily and weekly numbers. I saw no uptick in the weekly deaths in July. In fact, in the last week of the month, deaths fell by 40% from the previous week, even as cases spiked sharply as the month progressed. And, it's not what we saw in the UK: even as cases spiked to near-record levels, deaths remained flat throughout. So the "lag" argument is hogwash.

The data is clear, and it's unfiltered, straight from the very source that is spreading hysteria and issuing guidance that is leading to a return to state and local despots overreaching their authority. Be smarter this time. Look at the data. And tell the despots what they can do with their mandates.

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.