20 Apr COVID-19: One Man’s Perspective
By Stephen E. Fauer
In the midst of the current health and economic crisis caused by the novel coronavirus COVID-19, there is one statement that can be made with 100% certainty: America and the rest of the world are impacted in ways that will not be fully known until the pandemic is over and we have the benefit of hindsight.
As we wait things out, we have little recourse but to succumb to the influence of the internet, where we are barraged with opinions from bonafide experts (e.g., virologists, epidemiologists), reporters, politicians, and, now, me. I profess no expertise on the subject of COVID-19. I share my thoughts solely as opinion from my perspective as a scientist who deals with the analysis of data on a daily basis.
Data Models: Down the Rabbit Hole
The data presented each day by the major news outlets, while at times interesting, shows trends at a point in time during a process. I don’t put much stock in that data for two reasons. First, much of the available data is taken out of context, forcing comparisons that are often invalid. Second, much of the data is generated from models — a mathematical “what if” exercise. These models consist of many variables which, if one variable is modified, can create wildly different results. These hypothetical scenarios often foment unnecessary fear, distrust, and confusion for the general public. So, for me, model-generated data without context is also often of little or no value. And it scares people.
Is COVID-19 Unique?
If by unique we mean that this virus is like no other virus, then the answer is probably yes. But if we’re asking if the current pandemic is unprecedented, then the answer is no. It appears to be roughly as contagious as the flu virus that strikes the United States every winter. Data indicates that, each year, on average, 5 to 20 percent of Americans contract the flu. That means between 17,500,000 – 70,000,000 people contract the flu each winter. At the end of March 2020, the CDC reported that, in the U.S., the common flu (not COVID-19) has caused an estimated 38 million illnesses, 390,000 hospitalizations, and 23,000 deaths so far this season.
So then what makes COVID-19 more dangerous than your average, “run of the mill” flu virus? The answer: COVID’s mortality rate, combined with its high degree of contagion, makes it a far more formidable antagonist to our human physiology. Hence the extreme precautions being enacted across the country. More on that later…
What’s scarier than Novel Coronavirus?
Many examples can be given of those who have dealt with circumstances far worse than our own current situation. For me, the historical account of Winston Churchill’s first year as Prime Minister of Great Britain in the book The Splendid and the Vile by Erik Larson helps keep this current pandemic in perspective.
Virtually from his first day in office, Churchill was faced with crisis after crisis. He dealt first with the evacuation of Dunkirk, avoiding what would have meant devastation for England’s army. Then soon after began the Nazi’s blitz on Great Britain. Their nightly aerial bombing campaign, designed to force a negotiated “peace,” was horrific. For eight solid months, the citizenry of London, England — and all of the United Kingdom — faced an unprecedented barrage of bomb attacks:
“Between September 7, 1940, when the first large-scale attack on central London occurred, and Sunday morning, May 11, 1941, when the Blitz came to an end, nearly 29,000 of its citizens were killed, and 28,556 seriously injured. No other British city experienced such losses, but Nazi bombs rained throughout the United Kingdom. The total of civilian deaths in 1940 and 1941, including those in London, reached 44,652, with another 52,370 injured. Of the dead, 5,626 were children.”[1]
I cannot imagine living under this constant threat for eight full months, and, yet, English life carried on, albeit in a decidedly different manner. Our self-imposed quarantine for the past several weeks feels, to me, somewhat insignificant in contrast. Yet, for a youthful generation that has seen little hardship in their lives, the current situation must feel akin to wartime conditions.
In the Public’s Best Interests?
In the wake of the spread of COVID-19 and the resulting “shelter-in-place” mandates, I recently heard a governor state something to the effect that “Every life is precious. Even if we can prevent one death, it’s worth it.” This statement has a noble ring to it, but our government’s own behavior contradicts this maxim. Take, for example, the seemingly innocuous increase of the national speed limit from 55 to 65 mph back in 1987. This action resulted in an 18 percent increase in highway fatalities. Then, in 1994, when some states began raising the limit even higher, the increase in fatalities rose to 28 percent above 55 mph limits. Yet we see no sign of retracting these increases for the sake of preventing “even one death.” And, as I reported in last month’s article, improving the gas efficiency of new cars made them lighter and, thus, less safe, rendering their occupants more likely to die in a car accident than those who drove cars before those standards were imposed. And consider also the politicians who represent agricultural states, fostering rules and provisions to support their constituent farmers while caring less about the repercussions those actions may have on the overall health of the U.S. citizenry — including hormones and antibiotics in dairy products, high-fructose corn syrup, ethanol, GMO products, et al. Often, the good intentions of our government representatives do not always equally translate to “every life is precious.” The unavoidable truth is that the human condition is always a risk-based proposition, and sometimes it requires the sacrifice of some lives or livelihoods for the good of many. And I think our current experience with the COVID-19 pandemic is a stark example of this concept.
Conclusion
I have believed since mid-March that this novel coronavirus will be less severe and shorter in duration than most experts have predicted. Whether this belief will bear out becomes less certain as each day passes, and we will likely never know the full extent of the scourge. But we do know that “sheltering in place” is our best defense against it right now. So, perhaps, the greater question is to what extent do we alter the lives of an entire nation of individuals? Our politicians are doing things that, in their best opinions, are needed to “#flattenthecurve.” Some of those difficult decisions, such as the closing of public parks and beaches, could have been prevented by the application of simple common sense and social distancing. As a fly fisherman, the closing of Sandy Hook felt especially harsh, reminding me of my elementary school days when our entire class would be kept inside during recess because one or two kids misbehaved. Having to submit to this level of control as an adult bothers me.
It is my hope that our government will seize any opportunity from this pandemic to learn from the mistakes that have been made and, when the next crisis strikes, will do what works and avoid acts that, in an effort to save one life, destroy a multitude of others. Ultimately, much like Churchill’s Great Britain of the early 1940s, life as we have known it has already become decidedly different.
—
If you liked this article, please let me know. Send me an email at sfauer@askesa.com.
[1] Erik Larson, The Splendid and The Vile: A Saga of Churchill, Family, and Defiance During the Blitz (Crown, 2020), 484.