This one may surprise you: Switzerland is not doing well in the COVID-19 pandemic

The New Neo Posted on by

It surprised me. But when I thought about it for a moment and read this article, it made perfect sense. After all, Switzerland borders on Italy – specifically, northern Italy, the center of the problem in that country. And tourism is big business in Switzerland:

The country is a tourism and trucking crossroads in one of the business hearts of Europe. As well as the two cantons of Svizzera Italiana, which border Lombardy, the centre of the Italian pandemic, there are 68,000 Italian citizens who until a few days ago crossed the frontier into Switzerland from Lombardy every morning to work, returning home at nightfall.

What virtually no checks were carried out previously, all Switzerland’s land borders with Italy, Germany, Austria and France have now been sealed except to Swiss citizens and 16,000 people have been turned back when trying to enter.

One Europe was a dream, but now the nations of Europe are realizing there’s a role for border control after all.

How bad is it in Switzerland? Not so bad when you first glance at the statistics. You see they have 9877 cases and have had 122 deaths for a case fatality rate of 1.24%. But what you don’t see – and what you don’t see on almost all the charts that total deaths per country – are numbers adjusted for differences in population. [UPDATE: Just a few minutes after I published this, a reader informed me that those statistics have been added to the site. I didn’t notice them when I wrote the post because I use a large font on my screen and the far right-hand column – which is where these numbers appear – was cut off from view and I wasn’t even aware of that. So I’ve used their comparative figures now on that.] Switzerland has a population of about 8.57 million people, and its death rate per million people is listed as 14. For comparison, the population of the US is about 38 times bigger, and our death total so far is 625 (case fatality rate 1.29%), but our death rate per million is 2.

All of these numbers are in constant flux, of course, so it’s hard to conclude much of anything except that the Swiss are indeed having a significant problem that isn’t immediately apparent when you look at the charts alone.

Best sites for COVID-19 statistics?

The New Neo Posted on by

I had a couple of sites bookmarked as my go-to places to find the latest US (state by state) and world (country by country) statistics. The best one seemed to be this, but in the last few days the figures don’t seem to have changed, even though the site says it’s been updated.

What gives?

Do any of you have a better site for this?

I once came upon a site that gave the number of cases that were considered serious or critical, in addition to all the regular statistics the other sites gave. But I haven’t been able to find it again. Does anyone know where to get that information?

It’s all the Republicans’ fault: the NY Times returns to what it knows best, after a very short detour

The New Neo Posted on by

First let me say that I find what’s happening in Congress right now over the stimulus bill to be profoundly depressing.

Not really surprising, though. When I was young there was a sense and a faith that in a pinch, when there was a real crisis, Congress would work on behalf of Americans in a bipartisan manner. But that was then, and that faith died some time ago. This is only the most recent and most blatant and nasty example of it, with the media playing right along.

I would imagine most Americans are disgusted. I think it’s obvious to anyone paying attention that this is the fault of the Democrats playing politics, jettisoning a bipartisan agreement they’d previously worked on and had input to, and holding out for their wishlist of unrelated items. As Professor William Jacobson at Legal Insurrection says, “The alternative bill Pelosi put forward is the extortionist’s price for the release of your loved ones.”

It’s repulsive.

Initially, the Times surprised everyone by blaming Democrats in its first headline. That little momentary truth didn’t last long, as detailed here. Their first headline read “Democrats block action on $1.8 trillion stimulus.” It was quickly changed to “Democrats block action on stimulus plan, seeking worker protections.” And then “Partisan divide threatens deal on rescue bill” (like the old Palestinian/Israeli “cycle of violence” – remember?).

And the “evolution” of the Times’ perspective continued yesterday with an editorial from the august editors, the ones who brought you that historical wonder “The 1619 Project.” The title of the editorial is: “The coronavirus bill stalled, and it’s Mitch McConnell’s fault.” This turnaround from the first headline on Sunday night to the editorial yesterday appears to have taken about a day. And looking at the comments to the editorial just now, the readers are for the most part dutifully stepping in line to condemn McConnell and the Republicans.

In related “news,” the Times is also intent on presenting a picture of Fauci and Trump divided, one that Fauci has explicitly denied – which of course couldn’t matter less to the Times editors. Fauci says he wishes this type of coverage from the Times would stop. Dream on. That is their life’s work, and no mendacity is too great in service to the cause.

How many people are fooled by the Times these days? People on the right often say that virtually no one believes the Times anymore and it’s not influential, but I heartily disagree. Fewer people trust them than used to trust them, but plenty of people still get their information – and point of view – from the Times.

[NOTE: By the way, when I Googled “debate in Senate over bailout” just now – a rather neutral search in the political sense – that Times editorial blaming McConnell was highlighted right up in the top line of the search results, with a photo.]

Sleep that knits up the raveled sleeve of care

The New Neo Posted on by

Sorry for posting a bit late today. I find that one of the many things that happens to me lately is that my sleep has been somewhat more disturbed. I either have trouble falling asleep, or I wake up in the night thinking and then start to read my phone. I figure I’m up anyway, but it’s probably a bad idea because it only sparks more thoughts. And many of the thoughts aren’t what you’d call soothing.

I wonder whether a lot of you might be feeling the same way.

So here’s some Shakespeare for all of us:

Sleep that knits up the raveled sleave of care,
The death of each day’s life, sore labor’s bath,
Balm of hurt minds, great nature’s second course,
Chief nourisher in life’s feast.

[NOTE: I first studied “Macbeth” in high school. It wasn’t my favorite Shakespearean play and still isn’t. But I love certain passages, and that’s one of them. Note that the word “raveled” is used the way we’d use “unraveled.”]

I don’t know whether this is comic relief or just another reason to weep

The New Neo Posted on by

Maybe both.

Joe Biden, addled backseat driver of the nation, and The Man Who Would Be President:

And here’s Biden’s shout-out to the governor of Massachusetts:

From the governor:

Epidemiologists as the new gurus: what about the excess death rate?

The New Neo Posted on by

Epidemiologists deal with dry facts and figures, but the subject matter of those facts and figures can be very dramatic: illness and death, and how best to go about minimizing the former and delaying the latter. Usually we don’t pay all that much attention to them unless we have a particular interest in the subject.

But now epidemiologists are constantly in the news, and anyone with an “epidemiologist” before or after his or her name is now the new authority. We hang on their every word as though our lives depended on it. Governments set policy based on their recommendations and those policies are having extreme effects on our lives.

It is definitely true that epidemiologists have expertise in this arena that most of us lack, and that we can learn things from them. But they disagree with each other in their prognostications. They are good at describing something ex post facto, often with estimates derived from statistics that are far from exact. It often takes years to understand what has happened in an epidemic or pandemic. And that’s understandable.

But their forecasts? They disagree with each other. Well, someone’s correct, but who? The worst doomsayer? The sanguine optimist? The in-betweens?

And I have a question for them all. I know we are missing some important numbers for COVID-19 that can’t be ascertained just yet. For example, to know the all-important case fatality rate of this disease, we have to know the numbers of people infected. As we test more and more of the population we learn more about that, but not even remotely as much as we need to know. And unless we test the entire population, including those with no symptoms, and do it at intervals, we can’t know in real time or perhaps ever.

But we do know another important number: how many people have died so far of COVID-19. Or do we? Is everyone who dies of any respiratory disease being tested for the presence of the virus? And if they are all being tested, do we know that those with a positive COVID-19 test actually died from the virus and not from some other condition they might have? That sort of thing has been described as taking place in Italy, for example:

…Prof Ricciardi added that Italy’s death rate may also appear high because of how doctors record fatalities.

“The way in which we code deaths in our country is very generous in the sense that all the people who die in hospitals with the coronavirus are deemed to be dying of the coronavirus.

“On re-evaluation by the National Institute of Health, only 12 per cent of death certificates have shown a direct causality from coronavirus, while 88 per cent of patients who have died have at least one pre-morbidity – many had two or three,” he says.

This does not mean that Covid-19 did not contribute to a patient’s death, rather it demonstrates that Italy’s fatality toll has surged as a large proportion of patients have underlying health conditions.

To understand the meaning of all the deaths in Italy, it would be extraordinarily helpful to know one figure that I’ve never seen discussed: the number of excess deaths; that is, the number over and above what is usual this time of year in Italy.

I have no doubt the number is higher than usual and that there are excess deaths, particularly in certain regions of the north where the virus has been concentrated. But how much higher? Italy ordinarily has a particularly high rate of death from the flu, which makes the “excess death” figure especially important to know. Are significant numbers of the deaths we’re seeing in Italy deaths that would be taking place anyway from the flu or other illnesses we’re accustomed to? And if so, how many?

One of the huge problems with COVID-19 is that so far it seems to cause localized outbreaks that burden a health system and in particular hospital ICU sections. That in turn results in some people dying who might otherwise be saved but for the sudden influx. That is particularly frightening, and many of the strategies being brought to bear in the US are a result of trying to prevent such a calamity. But in order to know how much we need to do and what we can expect in the worst-case scenario, wouldn’t figures for excess deaths in Italy be especially helpful?

When estimates are made for pandemic death rates (that is, deaths per million in the population, or deaths expressed as a percentage of the population, as opposed to case fatality rates that are deaths among those diagnosed), the “excess deaths” figures are commonly used to arrive at those figures. I would think that epidemiologists would be well aware of the importance of knowing what the excess deaths have been so far.

So why haven’t I yet found anything that discusses it? I realize that, since the disease only began a few months ago, we don’t have figures for total excess deaths. But shouldn’t we have some preliminary figures to compare to average figures per day or per week or per month during a bad flu season and during a good flu season? Aren’t epidemiologists interested in doing this? And why aren’t more people curious about it?

Democrats fiddle while economy burns

The New Neo Posted on by

I wonder who they think this stalling will please:

On the Senate floor shortly after noon on Monday, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell lit into Democrats, specifically alleging they were trying to extract concessions from airlines over their “carbon footprint,” with the economy hanging in the balance.

“They ought to be embarrassed,” he said. “This is no time for this nonsense.”

…

Democrats overnight blocked the massive economic rescue package, teeing up new negotiations Monday morning. But issues having nothing to do with coronavirus have become impediments to the relief package, according to a senior Republican aide.

“As Leader Schumer continues to hold up the desperately-needed relief package, the last-minute list of demands from Pelosi’s and Schumer’s ideological wish list are coming into focus,” the aide said

Oh, I suppose the Democrats’ diehard supporters will back them in this. But won’t most people see the delay as playing nasty partisan politics in a time of crisis?

The Democrats really only seem to see two options right now for themselves. The first is to block improvement and make the crisis worse rather than allow Trump to have any victories. The second is to blame Republicans and try to make it appear as though only the Democrats’ actions somehow led to any improvement that may occur. But if Democrats’ politics-playing is too transparently obvious, the people ought to notice.

I’ve given up on trying to say whether enough people will notice, though. All I can say is that the Democrats’ behavior right now is not only despicable and disgusting, it is in my opinion also obvious and off putting, even to some people who ordinarily would be predisposed to be kind to them.

I think this is the sort of thing that makes people’s blood boil.

Globalization is the first casualty

The New Neo Posted on by

Well, maybe not the first casualty. But the entire concept of globalization is taking a big hit. And rightly so:

The question about assigning agency and blame is pretty straightforward to answer: The communist Chinese state, which for more than three decades has been draining capital and knowledge from the West, benefiting from our greed and myopia, has just let loose a virus that in the coming months is about to effectively paralyze Europe and the United States and bring severe pain, both human and economic on the world. The “eruption at a wet market” explanation for the virus has to be questioned until we know the full story, if for no other reason than the fact that Beijing suppressed data for two months when the coronavirus first appeared, and even to this day refuses to come clean as to exactly what happened. Indeed, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is now spinning propaganda stories that both seek to somehow pin the blame on the United States, and that try to frame their bungling, denial-ridden, heavy-handed reaction as some kind of model for the world.

As a result of all this, the West is now shutting down, at least for a while. The ultimate cost to the world, in terms of new government debt, failed businesses, and human lives and suffering, is difficult to quantify at this point. But there are indications that the fallout from the Wuhan Virus could be transformative.

I’ve said many times that one of my weakest knowledge areas is economics. However, even as a liberal Democrat of the olden variety, I always thought globalization was a bad idea. But I figured that since so many people who knew so much more than I did about economics thought it was the bee’s knees and the cat’s meow, then I must be wrong.

But over the years, and by the time I had my political change experience, I stopped trusting their opinion. And recent movements in the US, Britain, and so many other countries in the world seemed to reflect what I was thinking: how could it be a benefit to country A to become so tremendously dependent on Country B, especially if B is not an ally? Isn’t it good to be somewhat self-sufficient and/or to have the power to become very self-sufficient fairly quickly if events called for it?

But I also understood that companies wanted to make things cheaply and be able to sell them cheaply in the US, and that quickened the pace of globalization. Trump finally fought against it, and the globalists of the world howled in response because the stupid populist people (is that redundant?) didn’t know what they were doing.

The COVID-19 crisis may have ended that many-decades-long globalization trend, which will have been proven to be a hollow idol liable to blow down in the first strong wind. Who is going to outsource the bulk of an entire vital industry (drugs) to China after this? My answer would be: no one.

The suddenness with which this has happened is also stunning. The globalists who excoriated Trump as a racist xenophobe might have to face the fact that events have been proving him right: we do need to make America great again. It’s not academic, it’s not just a campaign slogan. It’s a reality staring us in the face.