I am not an infectious disease expert nor am I an epidemiologist. I know oncology and the related viral and epidemiological factors so I am not totally ignorant. But underneath I am an engineer and as such deal with facts. Strange thing about those facts, different people see different things, I think. Then there are those who see things not even justifiable by interpretation at the extreme.
Let me give two example charts. First is the death rates as shown below. This is a metric showing deaths based upon prevalence. What it shows is that the death rates are collapsing to near zero. The State has eliminated most from the LTC facilities by having them die off and that is shown by the higher early rates. But now there are few. If any.
If the above two facts are true, and they are based on my following this since late January, then we are seeing a mollification of the disease even as it spreads. It seems if you get through the early stages, it still hangs around but is not as deadly.
So how does this fit with the ongoing battle of facts and science. First, facts are just that, facts. Even if they are corrupted by the fact collectors they are close. The science is really still an unknown in many areas. Scientists are all too often a bit arrogant thinking they know the truth and they will inform us. Yet one thing you learn in science is that what you may think today is not the case tomorrow. New facts are introduced and off you go with another theory. I see that with cancer every day. Just when I think I get it, there is another twist. Perhaps the scientists in this plague area should get a bit humble.
Now we have a slight religious issue. You see many of the tellers of "truth" were products of the Jesuits, the order well known for educating political controllers. I believe half of the CIA heads were so educated, Georgetown et al. Thus as a young man spending time with my Franciscan Friar friends I was warned to beware of Jesuit sophistry. Better yet my education was by the French Christian Brothers, teachers of the poor, not the elite. We get to see the world from the bottom up not the top down. Thus we have the tendency to question the facts and beware of the pontificators.
That perhaps is why we have this battle between facts and science.
Back to the "facts". We are clearly testing more so we most likely have more positives, slightly. But I fear that this may not change the doubling time a great deal. Mortality rates are based on deaths divided by currently infected. Perhaps there were many more infected than actually reported, or perhaps deaths were improperly attributed. It is worth examining this. However, assuming we are even in the same ballpark, what we now how is a much more benign virus.
But, beware, it continues to mutate, especially each time it infects someone. It is worth reading the sequence variations from the White House mini spread. That is perhaps where we should have our esteemed immunologists spend time.
Posts
