Coronavirus: Thread

[grarpamp]

A Different Perspective: How Threat-Free Are Americans From COVID-19?

https://www.aier.org/article/a-different-perspective-how-threat-free-are-americans-from-covid-19/

https://www.aier.org/article/stronger-more-robust-natural-immunity-thwarts-any-case-for-vaccine-passports/
https://www.aier.org/article/covid-policy-and-outcomes/
https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/cdc-finds-deaths-heart-disease-diabetes-climbed-amid-covid-u-n1270260
https://lockerroom.johnlocke.org/tag/nc-threat-free-index/
https://lockerroom.johnlocke.org/2021/08/04/cdc-hints-at-covid-19-hospitalizations-and-deaths-not-related-to-covid-19/
https://www.census.gov/popclock/

At present, based on the most recent government data, only about three
Americans in a thousand could conceivably transmit Covid-19 to
someone. In other words, nearly 99.7 percent of people in the United
States are currently no threat to anyone of spreading the virus. And
despite the large case count, 24 out of every 25 cases are recovered,
meaning not only that those people are no longer threats, but also
that they now have the strongest form of immunity against Covid-19.

Those numbers may sound counterintuitive — or at least counter to the
usual presentation of official Covid numbers. From the outset, media
reports on Covid-19 have been calculated to stoke fear. Whether out of
sensationalism for clicks, desire to shape political outcomes, or
panic in the pressrooms, media have offered an unrelenting diet of
terror about the pandemic with little to no context. Experts spoke
with impressive unanimity; anyone who dissented, regardless of
impressive credentials, was quickly canceled. Economists who could
discuss tradeoffs in policy choices were made especially scarce. For
the 24-hour, round-the-clock news consumer (an incredibly
self-defeating habit for anyone concerned about health), it would be
impossible to escape the conclusion that death stalked us at every
corner, let alone every restaurant table and school desk.

Adding to the panic is the problem of big numbers. Very big numbers
sound daunting, but at some point numbers get so big that people can
no longer conceptualize them. For example, we are upset at now having
to pay twice as much for a gallon of gasoline, and we worry the price
could triple. But it’s difficult to wrap our heads around how many
trillions of dollars are involved in congressional debates for
President Joe Biden’s hazy plans.

Early on, international number-crunching outfits gobsmacked us all
with enormous numbers of projected deaths. In turn, public health
officials everywhere laid it on thick with talk of field hospitals
soon to be set up everywhere, bandying about huge projections of
people who would need hospitalization and warning that, at the very
least, we would run out of ventilators and have to choose which of our
neighbors deserved saving. Fear compounded upon fear as we consented
to lockdowns and tried to figure out which Hollywood pandemic movie we
were in for.

We were conditioned for the worst, and when the projections proved to
be buncombe, our relief never progressed into righteous anger at
having been played. Anyone who pointed out the massive disparity
between the projections and reality was absurdly accused of not taking
the virus seriously and trying to get people killed. In the meantime,
the steady doom-drums of daily updated, ever-rising case and death
counts constantly reinforced the perception of imminent threat.

The idea that nearly everyone recovers from this virus, as from other
illnesses, rarely entered the news stories, let alone the minds of the
terrified populace. As the total case numbers rose, quietly so did the
number of those who had recovered and now were immune. Case numbers
were also never placed in the context of an even much larger number:
the population.

In short, people were vastly overexaggerating the number of their
fellow citizens who had the virus as well as their own risk of
contracting it and dying. People’s faces showed this terror when they
ventured out, from wearing masks alone in their cars, dodging and
staring at each other at grocery stores, even avoiding family and
friends and forbidding their children from play. I’ll never forget the
mountain hikers hastily pulling up masks whenever another human
bounded into view, as if the old expression “fresh mountain air” had
lost all meaning.

This overinflamed fear is itself unhealthy. People need a
dispassionate assessment of risk in order to weigh their choices
correctly. To listen to media and public-health bureaucrats, one would
think that the threat of death and severe life impacts from Covid-19
is the only threat worth avoiding, but that was never true.
Nevertheless, we have seen — and too many people have allowed —
unprecedented government interventions aimed at managing the Covid
threat to the exclusion of all others.

Those other threats had expanded, meanwhile, to include the deadly
unintended consequences of lockdowns and other extreme government
orders. They also included withheld but necessary medical treatments,
either from non-Covid treatments being suspended or people being too
afraid to seek treatment, which has been especially bad for heart
disease, cancer, and diabetes, but also bad for Alzheimer’s,
Parkinson’s, high blood pressure, and stroke. These other threats,
furthermore, included increases in substance abuse, anxiety,
depression, suicidal thoughts, and deaths of despair. Job loss as well
as school closings and isolation of young children contributed to
them, and all these carry long-term health implications, too.

For all those reasons, back in the summer of 2020 I started producing
contextualized looks at Covid case numbers in my home state that I
later started calling the “NC Threat-Free Index.” The idea was simply
to offer context to the big, raw numbers and tamp down people’s fears
to a healthy, warranted respect for the virus rather than unhealthy,
unwarranted abject terror. Normally such a service would have been
performed by media and government officials trying to stave off a
panic.

Here I offer a threat-free index for the nation as a whole. There are
several components, all easily derived from official government data.
They include:

    Presumed recovered: the number of convalescent people who have had
a lab-confirmed case of Covid-19 and are no longer sick and
infectious. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
considers recovery to be generally 10 days post infection. For my
index I have been rounding that to two weeks (14 days). The number of
presumed recovered is generated, then, by taking the total number of
cases from two weeks prior and subtracting out all deaths from or with
Covid-19.

    Active cases: the number of people currently with lab-confirmed
cases of Covid-19. These are the people who could conceivably transmit
the virus to others. The number of active cases is generated by taking
the total number of cases and subtracting out presumed recoveries and
deaths.

    Deaths: the number of people who have died either from or with Covid-19.

    Population: the daily U.S. population estimate provided by the
U.S. Census Bureau. The index states the above numbers also as
proportions of the U.S. population.

Here are the threat-free index estimates as of November 15:

    Presumed recovered: 45,265,569

    Active cases: 1,118,866

    Percent of total cases presumed recovered: 96.0%

    Percent of total cases that are active: 2.4%

    Percent of the total U.S. population with active cases of Covid: over 0.3%

    Percent of the U.S. population to have died with or from Covid-19: over 0.2%

    Percent of the U.S. population posing no threat of passing along
COVID-19: nearly 99.7%

These are estimates, of course, and the data are incomplete. Also, the
estimates will vary regionally, though not by much. Nevertheless, they
give a close approximation of the current risk to a hypothetical
person going out in public somewhere in the United States of
encountering someone with a transmissible Covid infection.

It’s a risk decidedly lower than what people have been made to
believe. This belief, unhealthy in and of itself, has given way to
tolerating dangerous government edicts while forestalling a grounded
approach to individual risk assessment and management.

Media-fed mass hysterias should remain the province of Orson Welles,
which is to say, history.