Well, we have arrived at a lot of good news, finally. The growth of the virus has been declining and we can have serious talks about reopening the economy. It is actually a measure of good news that we can spend the next century arguing over whether staying home helped or not. We get to have that argument because we took all the necessary actions to stop the spread of the virus.
Erick, you were quick to point out the "flaws" of the California study, yet the flaws of the models on which the shut down was based were egregiously wrong. Further, the study was based on actual data through tests, whereas the models were simply that - abstractions based on information input. There may be "flaws" in the study but the reality is, that a whole bunch of us have antibodies, because our bodies got the virus, fought it, and we didn't even know....just like with other flu viruses.
Good arms length summary and rational to boot. Your comment on the political side of things is I think accurate. The liberal states in the northeast have become based on “live free or send me a check”. Thunderstorm Sandy comes to mind. Any death is a tragedy, but the Great Recession with Pelosi’s fingerprints all over it caused an estimated 400,000 children’s deaths according to the World Bank. We need to get moving, smartly. There are huge unstated risks here.
As I watch the White House briefings every day and the amazing leadership from our President and VP, I think... if this would have happened in the last administration, oh Dear. The task force would have been under J. Biden!! Oh Dear!!
The real issue before us is how much new infection is going to occur as the states open, and what level are we willing to accept. Whether you end up being one of the ones that die or not, might be an important swaying point. So, I am for reopening as much of the business side as we can. But we need to make it clear that at risk areas should remain closed, and at risk people, like myself, (my wife had open heart surgery, and she is still in recovering stage) and unfortunately I need to stay home and limit contact with others. I have a business, so what I just recommended comes at a continued personal cost. I work with another business, and I will continue to need to work from home for that business. I filed for PPP way before they ran out of money,(actually on the first day the program was announced), but the bank I work with was so slow, that my application did not get processed. So, I am in a bit of a dilemma about what to do. Anyway, Eric, I think you know that many of us look to you for the truth. Please keep us informed about what is really happening as the states reopen, and remember that if a death was preventable, it is an incredible tragedy for the family, and for the society as well. What price tag you put on your own life is an interesting discussion. Charles de Andrade
Please tell me how this spread so far and so fast?
According to the AJC this morning, at least 40 members of Afghanistan's royal palace have tested positive for the virus. Does not seem logical that such a secure location could have these numbers.
What the Stanford study showed is that if you analyze Corona penetration in early hot spots like Santa Clara with minimal testing you will find that testing missed a lot of Corona patients (not a surprise). According to the Stanford study, "the unadjusted prevalence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 in Santa Clara County was 1.5%."
This is a long way from the 60% figure that is estimated to provide a significant degree of herd immunity. 40x (60/1.5) times 40K deaths is 1.6 million. If one assumes low-risk areas have less than 1.5% immunity than models predicting 2 million deaths with outright herd immunity is not unreasonable given the results of the Stanford study.
A similar German study found 14% antibodies in an early German hot-spot that had 2% of the people in the study testing positive (a 7x factor - much less than the 85x factor suggested as the upper bound of the Stanford study). About 0.18% of Germans are testing positive and if you multiply that by 7x, it amounts to 1.23% (similar to the 1.5% figure of the Stanford study).
Thanks so much---we all need this good news right now....
M-I-crooked letter-crooked letter....
Appreciate your level headed analysis. Thanks.
Very well written and a welcomed respite from all of the "Debbie-downer" media. And yes, I do spell out Mississippi when I write/type it.........!
Wow. I just scrolled through the comments. I am definitely in the minority here.
Erick, you were quick to point out the "flaws" of the California study, yet the flaws of the models on which the shut down was based were egregiously wrong. Further, the study was based on actual data through tests, whereas the models were simply that - abstractions based on information input. There may be "flaws" in the study but the reality is, that a whole bunch of us have antibodies, because our bodies got the virus, fought it, and we didn't even know....just like with other flu viruses.
You are spot on Erick!! God Bless you as you try to spread truth, encouragement and God’s word whenever you can!!!
Good arms length summary and rational to boot. Your comment on the political side of things is I think accurate. The liberal states in the northeast have become based on “live free or send me a check”. Thunderstorm Sandy comes to mind. Any death is a tragedy, but the Great Recession with Pelosi’s fingerprints all over it caused an estimated 400,000 children’s deaths according to the World Bank. We need to get moving, smartly. There are huge unstated risks here.
Thanks for standing up for the truth and facts
Thank you
Thank you, very insightful.
As I watch the White House briefings every day and the amazing leadership from our President and VP, I think... if this would have happened in the last administration, oh Dear. The task force would have been under J. Biden!! Oh Dear!!
The real issue before us is how much new infection is going to occur as the states open, and what level are we willing to accept. Whether you end up being one of the ones that die or not, might be an important swaying point. So, I am for reopening as much of the business side as we can. But we need to make it clear that at risk areas should remain closed, and at risk people, like myself, (my wife had open heart surgery, and she is still in recovering stage) and unfortunately I need to stay home and limit contact with others. I have a business, so what I just recommended comes at a continued personal cost. I work with another business, and I will continue to need to work from home for that business. I filed for PPP way before they ran out of money,(actually on the first day the program was announced), but the bank I work with was so slow, that my application did not get processed. So, I am in a bit of a dilemma about what to do. Anyway, Eric, I think you know that many of us look to you for the truth. Please keep us informed about what is really happening as the states reopen, and remember that if a death was preventable, it is an incredible tragedy for the family, and for the society as well. What price tag you put on your own life is an interesting discussion. Charles de Andrade
Please tell me how this spread so far and so fast?
According to the AJC this morning, at least 40 members of Afghanistan's royal palace have tested positive for the virus. Does not seem logical that such a secure location could have these numbers.
What the Stanford study showed is that if you analyze Corona penetration in early hot spots like Santa Clara with minimal testing you will find that testing missed a lot of Corona patients (not a surprise). According to the Stanford study, "the unadjusted prevalence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 in Santa Clara County was 1.5%."
This is a long way from the 60% figure that is estimated to provide a significant degree of herd immunity. 40x (60/1.5) times 40K deaths is 1.6 million. If one assumes low-risk areas have less than 1.5% immunity than models predicting 2 million deaths with outright herd immunity is not unreasonable given the results of the Stanford study.
A similar German study found 14% antibodies in an early German hot-spot that had 2% of the people in the study testing positive (a 7x factor - much less than the 85x factor suggested as the upper bound of the Stanford study). About 0.18% of Germans are testing positive and if you multiply that by 7x, it amounts to 1.23% (similar to the 1.5% figure of the Stanford study).
Well put as always.
Thank you Erick for truthful and dependable reporting.