April 15, 2020
Meanwhile, fatalities directly caused by COVID-19 are
nowhere near projections. Models (with margin of error variabilities exceeding
400%) are adjusted daily without any reference to baselines which would
immediately demonstrate the poor predictive capabilities of these same models.
Comorbidities are ignored, while risk populations remain unclear, and transmission
rates, viral loads, and susceptibility are deemed unimportant.
The Models Have Been Poor Predictors
At the end of March, we were warned of "2.2 million US
Deaths" from COVID-19. A week later the estimate was revised to
"200,000 fatalities." The latest claim is "60,000 by
August." Not a single model used as impetus for emergency mandates has
been correct. (The British Medical Journal concluded: “[The] proposed
models are poorly reported, at high risk of bias, and their reported
performance is probably optimistic.” See https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m1328)
Yet, even these numbers are skewed, as the figures only
count people who seek medical care. COVID-19 displays a wide range of
presentations from asymptomatic to a mild cold to severe pneumonia. In
addition, CDC guidance has been that mild cases should stay home. Thus, many
cases are never tested and thus never counted.
Suspect Infection Rates
We’ve been told otherwise healthy people coming within six
feet of a COVID-19 asymptomatic person will likely be infected. Yet there were
over 4,000 passengers and crew on the cruise ships Rotterdam and Zaandam
that docked in Miami on April 2. There was a grand total of nine confirmed
COVID-19 cases. Over the course of the cruise, 97 passengers and 136 crew
presented with influenza-like symptoms that were not assessed as COVID-19 (see https://www.miamiherald.com/news/business/tourism-cruises/article241740696.html).
Four people died of COVID-19, yet we still don’t know the age, sex, or other
underlying conditions of those who perished. Nevertheless, these enclosed, floating
involuntary test sites suggest the transmission rates are nowhere near the
worst-case claims.
Suspect Input Data
Limited testing and inconsistencies in the attribution of
the cause of death means that the COVID-19 fatality rate is not accurate. How
can we continue to impose the most crushing (and unconstitutional) mandates in
history based on flawed data?
Data Inconsistency
The COVID-19 fatality rates of confirmed cases run from a
low of 0.96% (SD) to 5.8% (MI). Nationwide the average is now 3.8% with the
majority of states 2% or less. New Jersey reports 99.54% of all COVID-19 as “tested
positive,” while the average in the US is 15^, and the range drops as low as 2.6%.
How can these wildly variable numbers be used to assess anything? Is New Jersey
testing people who are already known to be positive? Then why test? Or is the
test protocol so broad that anyone exhibiting any symptoms (which are common
for a wide range of maladies) decreed as “positive for COVID-19”? This variance
makes no sense -- unless the input data is inconsistent (which is the most
likely explanation -- see Occam's razor).
The CDC’s Reporting Guidelines require hospitals to
categorize as “HOSPITALIZED” all “Patients currently hospitalized in an
inpatient bed who have suspected or confirmed COVID-19.” Fatalities are
reported for those “Patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 who died in
the hospital, ED, or any overflow location on the date for which you are
reporting (see: https://www.cdc.gov/nhsn/pdfs/covid19/facilityqrg-508.pdf)
The problem here is a COVID-19 fatality using this
definition does NOT ascertain whether a person died from the virus – instead,
the data comingles confirmed and suspected COVID-19 infection with every
other cause of death. Therefore, a person who suffers a heart attack after
years of hypertension is listed as a COVID-19 fatality. Since the input data is
flawed, the resulting statistics are skewed.
The Pennsylvania Department of Health recently commented
that “Most people recover from the coronavirus but the health department does
not offer statistics on how many recover.” Why not? Wouldn’t this be an
essential metric to determine the danger posed by this particular virus strain?
Or are we to be subject to draconian (and I would argue unconstitutional)
restrictions based on flawed, incomplete, and ignored data?
Hospital Capacity
There are 931,203 staffed beds in 6,210 hospitals in the USA
(data from 2019. See: https://www.aha.org/statistics/2020-01-07-archived-fast-facts-us-hospitals-2019).
There are currently 562,506 known COVID-19 cases in the US (13APR2019. See: https://www.bing.com/covid/local/unitedstates)
Only between 5 and 15% will require hospitalization. In fact, current guidance
from both Federal and Commonwealth authorities is to stay home if symptoms manifest
that are “not life threatening.”
Yet, even if every person who tested positive during the
“peak” were to be hospitalized, that would leave a buffer of 40% capacity. If
we use 10% of the total cases number as requiring hospitalization, that’s only
6% of all available hospital beds (this does not include emergency hospital
beds such as those provided by the US Army and Navy and charitable
organizations such as Samaritans’ Purse in NYC).
The Quarantine Orders are Too Broad
The CDC’s Recent study on hospitalization rates of COVID-19
patients states: “Most of the hospitalized patients had underlying conditions,
some of which are recognized to be associated with severe COVID-19 disease,
including chronic lung disease, cardiovascular disease, diabetes mellitus.”
(See https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6915e3.htm)
This means there are identifiable vulnerable subgroups who
most certainly should be protected from infection using a variety of protocols.
But there is no justification for treating the entire population as susceptible or even infected when there is
very little data to support such an assertion.
The State’s Definitions of “Essential” and ‘Non
Essential” are Arbitrary and Pointless
Ever since the Governor’s list was issued (and revised several times), not one official has been able to explain the criteria used to determine “essential” or “non-essential” other than broad brush categorizations that are ambiguous to the point of futility.[1] The most egregious example is the final line in the Governor’s List (“Private Households: May Continue Physical Operations: No”).
The “Shelter in Place” orders are Useless and have
Extended too Long
First, the exception provisions are so broad no one was
truly quarantined. All a citizen need state is that he or she was “gathering
essential supplies” or “caring for a minor or elderly person” and an exception
would apply.
Second, we are long past the incubation periods where
asymptomatic carriers were potential virus time-bombs. In a study on 181
confirmed cases, COVID-19 had an estimated incubation period of approx. 5.1
days (95% confidence interval is 4.5 to 5.8 days) (Lauer et al.). This analysis
shows 97.5% of those who develop symptoms will do so in 11.5 days (95%
confidence interval is 8.2 to 15.6 days). If this is the case, why are we
extending this order more than two weeks?
Finally, doesn’t it make sense to focus amelioration
protocols on susceptible populations rather than the entire population?
False Choices
In 2017, 647,457 Americans died from heart disease, 169,936
died from accidents, 160,201 died from Chronic respiratory disease, 146, 383
died from stroke, 121,404 died from Alzheimer’s disease, 83,564 died from
diabetes, 55,672 died from influenzas and pneumonia, and 47,173 deaths were
self-inflicted suicide. In 2018 there were 67,367 Drug Overdose deaths in this
country. Divided by 365 that’s 185 deaths every day of the year. (see https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr68/nvsr68_06-508.pdf)
The fatality rate of all humans remains 100%, with time the
only variable. It is a false dichotomy to suggest it’s “people dying or the
economy.” Humans are defined by the pursuit and sustainment of life which
REQUIRES “economic” activity. The reductionist "lives or the economy"
claim ignores the impact a faltering economy has to health in the short, mid,
and long term. Unemployment has jump from 3.5% to 4.5% in a month. 401k gains
over the last two years have been wiped out. World markets have lost $25
trillion in value. The CARES act has added $2 trillion dollars to the national
debt. Thousands of businesses will not survive the shutdown. Meanwhile
hospitals are far under capacity and proposed emergency field hospitals have
been cancelled. (see https://www.cbsnews.com/news/new-york-cathedral-coronavirus-patients-st-john-the-divine-canceled-today-2020-04-10/)
We’ve established that the data have been sloppy, undependable, suspect, and in far too many cases completely absent. Should a national and state emergency exist with this level of sloppy reporting, variable assessment, unclear mitigation, and dubious transmission modalities? We're supposed to keep guessing or will there be some hard, actionable data at some point? The prevailing “Safety First” mindset is trite an indefensible. Life is filled with risks. Every person faces risks each and every day. Those who live long quickly become adept at assessing and mitigating those risks and then moving on with life in the face of varying odds. So be it – this is life on Earth. No one expects (or should expect) Government at any level to allay all fears and mitigate all risks. Therefore, I vigorously urge you to remove the restrictions, restore the foundational freedoms Americans have defended, suffered, and died to keep, and defer to the will of your true overlords, the American people.
A concerned citizen, taxpayer, and
voter,
[your name]
[1] The
Governor’s own cabinet making business is deemed essential, however, as it’s
critical that lifesaving Corian be installed to help stem the tide of Grim Death
(see https://www.inquirer.com/business/spl/pennsylvania-coronavirus-wolf-home-products-essential-business-life-sustaining-20200330.html)
