Covid-19 Graphs, Part 2

I received some helpful feedback regarding my graphs from two posts ago. Some objections were noted, and were not without merit. For example, it was pointed out to me that the huge spike in Covid-19 cases and deaths here in the U.S. was not representative of the large U.S. population vs. the population of other countries. It was argued that, if I weighted the results against population size, that the U.S. would show a much lower infection rate.

This turned out to be true - sort of. When I re-did the totals as a percentage of population size and re-ran the graph, I got some surprisingly different results.

The largest spikes on the graph show the largest number of Covid-19 deaths as a percentage of that country's population size. The largest by far turned out to be Spain (blue spike), with 0.05% of its entire population killed by coronavirus so far during this outbreak. That's one person dead for every 2,000 Spaniards. In close second is Italy (yellow spike), with 0.045% of its population killed by Covid-19, one person dead for every 2,200 Italians. In third place (light pink) is the U.K. with just over 0.03% of its population killed, one person dead for every 3,300 Brits. But very close behind, and even leading the U.K. at one point, is Sweden! (green). It's more jagged line actually shows its death rate was faster than Britain's at first, then it slowed somewhat, then caught up again, and then slowed once more. Sweden had been shown to be one of the lowest totals in terms of actual number of cases and deaths, but when I weighted it against Sweden's very low population size, I found that they were all but tied for third place in terms of the highest death percentage with about 0.022% of its population killed off, one person for every 4,545 Swedes. I had previously tipped my hat to Sweden for its low numbers, but when compared with its population size, Sweden sucked!

And the U.S.? It's the light grey line, coming in at a clear 5th place with 0.018%, roughly one person dead out of every 5,500 Americans. Now, I find that interesting because, even though the U.S. has a very low infection rate when weighed against its large population, it still comes in 5th place out of all countries in terms of deaths!

One criticism I received was "What about Iceland?" Iceland has an incredible health care system, and more people on the island have been tested for Covid-19, percentage-wise, than anywhere else. That means that its infection rate numbers may be the most accurate out of any country, giving us, potentially, the clearest picture about what the actual mortality rate may be. Here's what I found:

The incredibly huge light blue s-curve is Iceland's running total of infection cases, shown as a total percentage of its population. Over 0.5% of its entire population has contracted Covid-19, far outstripping any other country! The next closest is Italy (dark blue) with 0.2% of its entire population infected, and it doesn't even come close! The United states is that tiny, brown speck in the lower-left corner, showing that, sure enough, only a very small percentage of America's population has been infected so far. (Careful! Nowhere to go but up!)

If we take Iceland's total number of deaths, only 10 (!), and divide that by the total number of infections, 1,792 as of April 27, we get a mortality rate of only 0.00558, or roughly 0.56% This is an incredibly low rate of mortality from this disease! Less even than is usually recorded from annual flu viruses. So does that mean, given Iceland's best-testing record, that this is the most accurate mortality figure?

Not so fast! Iceland is a very volcanic country, and pyroclastic ash is a regular occurrence. The eruption which took place in 2010 was big enough to shut down most of the airline flights all over Europe, and created respiratory problems for nearly everyone living on the island. As a result, Iceland's excellent healthcare system has more ventilators per hospital than anywhere in the world - more than enough to accomodate any number of Covid-19 cases, even if there were a huge spike in patients, which hasn't been the case so far. I think it's safe to conclude that this incredible preparedness for respiratory ailments drives down the mortality rate to an amazingly low number in Iceland - too low to be representative of the rest of the world, which is still struggling to catch up with the outbreak in terms of supplies and equipment.

Compare this with the U.S. It's not hard to do the math, here, as two milestones came around April 28th at the same time. The first was passing 50,000 deaths from Covid-19, surpassing the total number of Americans killed during the Vietnam War. The second was passing over 1 million confirmed cases of Covid-19. 50K divided by 1 mil = 0.05, or a 5% mortality rate! Much, much higher than that of Iceland!

So what's going on, here?

One factor is certainly the fact that the U.S. has been under-equipped to do testing from the very beginning, and is still struggling to catch up. The number of confirmed Covid-19 cases is therefore nowhere near the actual number of infections, and this creates an artificially high mortality rate.

But if having adequate health facilities creates an artificially low mortality rate, and insufficient healthcare equipment and low testing creates an artificially high one, where is the truth?

Naturally, it's somewhere in between.

Two doctors recently did a press conference taking the low mortality totals in southern California, and concluding from this that the virus is not so dangerous. Naturally, these two have become darlings of the right-wing media, who wish to glom on to anything which might rescue the economy from Trump's ineptitude. But is southern California representative, either? Couldn't it be that the better healthcare California provides its citizens means that mortality gets driven lower?

Yes. Duh!

Averaging out the mortality rates from other countries, we find the percentage tends to be around 2% mortality for Covid-19. That means that if you get the disease here in the U.S., your odds of dying are probably 1 in 50. But given our lousy preparedness for this outbreak, and the holes in our healthcare system, that number could reasonably be higher.

IF healthcare quality is improved, mortality might be low. In other words, Covid-19 might be no more dangerous than the seasonal flu, BUT ONLY IF HEALTHCARE QUALITY IS IMPROVED! Right now, our healthcare quality is so poor, and Trump's preparedness so lax, there's no reason why we shouldn't expect mortality to be closer to 5%, especially if you happen to have no health insurance.

And with so many going out of work, people are losing their health insurance too. This will drive UP the numbers.

Oh, and here's another thought: Iceland has one of the best social welfare systems in the world, as well as one of the best nationalized healthcare systems in the world. Chalk one up for socialism!

So stay home! Keep social distancing! Stay safe! And if you are protesting a state capital, hoping to prompt things to reopen early, fuck you! If you are doing so armed with a gun, DOUBLE FUCK YOU! You have zero right to endanger others with your protests, much less do so while armed!

Of course, protesting armed is just one small step from red-hats patrolling the streets, too. But I'll leave that Orwellian nightmare for another blog post.


Eric

*

Blasey Ford vs. Tara Reade

Are we hypocrites?

In the post-"me-too" era, is it acceptable to vote for a Democratic candidate with sexual assault allegations levied against him? I mean, when we look at the huge number of male celebrities brought down by the corrected ethical standard, Al Franken, Charlie Rose, Garrison Keillor, Kevin Spacey, Matt Lauer... the list goes on and on... to say nothing of the more egregious offenders like Harvey Weinstein, Larry Nassar, and Bill Cosby, I can't help but wonder what we're doing in settling for Joe Biden. No one disputes we're settling, but how much are we settling? And are we compromising our principles for doing so?

First, let me point out that there is a threshold where we are willing to forgive. We were willing to finally forgive Neil DeGrasse Tyson after allegations were brought against him. Scott Baio took an initial hit with allegations brought against him, but he seems to have recovered. (Hollywood is less likely to forgive his conservatism than his on-set affair.) And Al Franken seems to be on the verge of obtaining forgiveness and staging a comeback. So I can't help but wonder, does Joe Biden sneak underneath that threshold? Or are we simply willing to overlook his sins in order to get rid of the End Times Antichrist, Donald Trump?

In my debates with conservatives on social media, my response to complaints about Joe Biden's past behavior is to label Biden "Trump Lite." This is both funny and brings home the point rather sharply. So far, no conservative has dared argue with the label - truth is truth! No matter what allegations are brought against Biden, Trump's are far worse. But is that enough?

I'm about to argue that it is not hypocritical to render Biden as "passable." Not forgiven, and not even forgivable, just passable. I cannot over-emphasize enough that Biden's past behavior of "handsiness" is disgusting, creepy, and wrong. I also can't over-emphasize enough that Biden needs to knock that shit off going forward. But this bad behavior does not meet the threshold of ruling Biden out as a candidate, nor does it make liberals hypocritical for voting for him. And I'm going argue this in the most effective way I know how: by comparing Tara Reade's accusations with those of Christine Blasey Ford.

Charlie Sykes, the retired king of conservative talk radio in Milwaukee, and current never-Trumper, pointed out in his newsletter that the real reason conservatives are so white-hot mad over the sexual assault allegations against Joe Biden has little to do with Uncle Joe. Rather, it has do do with the accusations brought against Brett Kavanaugh, who conservatives insist was unjustly demonized while being 100% innocent. In their minds, the accusations brought against Kavanaugh by Christine Blasey Ford are exactly the same as the accusations brought by Tara Reade against Joe Biden. But as you will see, this is not quite the case.

There are a few parallels between the two. Both women have brought their accusations after decades of silence. Both women have stories which cannot be corroborated directly by witnesses, and have only what was told to friends afterwards to back up their timelines. Both women could not verify the exact date, time or place, but could only generalize. And both men who stood accused were in the process of auditioning for jobs whose repercussions on national policy were/are breathtakingly huge. But there are also some stark differences between their two stories which I will now highlight.

Michael J. Stern, in his opinion piece in USA Today, pointed out the reasons I'm about to list here in more detail. Although it is merely an opinion piece, it was written by a victims' rights advocate lawyer, and one who's observations are quite astute. If anybody knows what a good plaintiff's story should be, it's him. He did not truly contrast Reade's story with Blasey Ford's so I shall. Here are some of his points, and my contrasts with the accusations brought against Brett Kavanaugh:

First, and most importantly, Tara Reade's story changed. Blasey Ford's did not. Jack Brewster in Forbes magazine provides a concise timeline of how Reade's story changed from 2019 onward. Her initial complaints were of Joe Biden touching her inappropriately in a way which made her feel uncomfortable. On social media throughout the 2010's and 'teens, her posts on social media showed that she was very supportive of Biden. For example, in 2017, on multiple occasions, Reade retweeted or “liked” praise for Biden and his work combating sexual assault. In the same year, Reade tweeted other compliments of Biden, including: “My old boss speaks truth. Listen.” It seems unlikely that Reade would publicly praise Biden for fighting sexual assault without bothering to mention anything about Joe assaulting her.

In March of 2019 she told her local California newspaper, The Union, that while Biden “used to put his hand on my shoulder and run his finger up my neck,” she didn’t feel she was a victim of sexualization, instead comparing it to being treated like an inanimate object, like a lamp. At the time she gave this version of her story, she was one of what eventually would become eight women who accused Biden of essentially the same thing.

By January of 2020, she went all in for Bernie Sanders, and started saying negative things about Biden. By late March, Biden had announced that he was re-evaluating his campaign, and that's when Reade went all-out on her accusations. In a podcast with Katie Helper, she accused Biden, for the first time, of "digitally penetrating her." She said she hadn't said this before out of fear of retribution, and it's fair to say that women often delay telling their stories for many years out of such fear, but her story matched that of several other women before this radical shift in her story took place. Biden has been accused of inappropriate touching on numerous occasions, and been caught on video doing so. Why, suddenly this accusation of such out-of-character behavior, timed perfectly with the Sanders campaign being in serious trouble?

Second, Tara Reade's story cited documents which turned out not to exist. Blasey Ford's story did not. Reade told The New York Times she filed a written complaint against Biden with the Senate personnel office. But The Times could not find any such complaint. When The Times asked Reade for a copy of the complaint, she said she did not have it. It is difficult to imagine how a woman as competent as Reade, who held many government jobs, could have neglected to keep any legal document, much less one of this importance. Furthermore, while Christine Blasey Ford was visibly rattled by her trauma, as all her friends noted, and made clearly verifiable career choices based on her traumatic experience, no similar track record of career behavior is seen for Tara Reade.

Third, Reade lied about how she was fired by Biden. Reade told The Union in April of '19 that Biden wanted her to serve drinks at an event. After she refused, "she felt pushed out and left Biden's employ." This is vastly different from the story she told the Times a year later, about filing a sexual harassment claim with the Senate personnel office, and being fired in retaliation. The disparity between the two versions, told only a year apart, raises questions. By contrast, Blasey Ford was not caught in any lies. Her story had a lack of evidence, but nothing was flatly contradictory.

Preliminary conclusions:

Of course, I always reserve the right to change my mind. But I think the evidence is fairly clear that Tara Reade's original story was the correct one. Joe Biden touched her inappropriately on her shoulders and neck, and made her uncomfortable. She later left on the pretext of refusing to serve drinks. I believe the phone call made to Larry King Live by Reade's mother is genuine - but does not tell a tale of outright sexual assault. I believe that Reade has been intentionally trying to damage Biden in a style which we have seen all-too-often from a minority of other desperate Berniecrats, and that Fox News and OAN are now eating it up like candy.

We all know Joe Biden is handsy, creepy, and inappropriate, but at least all his sexual harrassment happened with everyone's clothes still on. I again, cannot over-emphasize how unacceptable Joe's behavior is. It is imperative Joe does not do any more creepy crap like that. But Reade's latter accusations do not seem credible. There is no true parallel between Blasey Ford and Tara Reade, and Joe Biden is no Brett Kavanaugh.

Joe is not forgivable. But he'll do in a pinch. And we're in a real pinch.


Eric

*

Oh, What A Graph Can Tell!

For some time now, both on this blog and on social media, I have been sharply criticizing President Trump for his shoddy job in preparing for the Covid-19 pandemic. The evidence that I cited was, and still is, Trump's own words, when he bellowed his irresponsible behavior at the top of his lungs throughout all of January and February. But I have constantly heard objections to this, saying, essentially, "Aw, come on! This virus affected the whole WORLD! How can you blame Trump when so many other countries have been unable to stem the spread of this virus as well?

Well, to answer that point, I tried to find some charts which showed the numbers. But I was frustrated in what I found. Most charts showed the spread of the virus based on calendar date, and that's not what I wanted. Some countries became infected much later than others, and so calendar date jumbled the lines up so that a clear pattern wasn't readily visible. What I wanted was a chart which compared the spread of the virus from the date of onset forward. In other words, if the first incident marks Day #1, how many cases and/or deaths took place from that point onward?

So, unable to find many charts with such a "like to like" analysis, or if found, were horribly out of date, I decided to make some of my own. Hell, being an accountant, I've worked with spreadsheets all the time. It was really not difficult to crunch the numbers and give you all out there a chart which was very useful.

What I expected to find was a graph which showed Trump's inaction and ineptitude clearly visible in a line which showed a sharp spike upward very, very early. But as you'll see, what I actually found was even more surprising.

NOTE: All numbers shown here are up to date through yesterday, April 27th. The source of my numbers was ourworlddata.org.

First, I made a chart to show the running total of deaths, each day, beginning at onset of death #1 from coronavirus. Here's what I found:

As you can see, when one compares the number of daily deaths from Covid-19 on a "day 1 to day 1" analysis, one can see that other nations actually did a poorer job of containing the virus initially than the United states did. The orange line is Australia. The blue one, Italy, and the light blue one is the U.K. The dark yellow line is France. I would have expected France to have done a much better job of containing the outbreak, but apparently I was wrong. Everyone knew that Italy was in a bad way with Covid-19, but I had no idea that France had been hit so hard. Yet even more interestingly, all these lines begin to taper off. They have not yet leveled as of 4/27, but they are beginning to. And the United States? Not even close! After having fewer deaths than Europe and Australia at first, The U.S. started racking up a shameful death toll. This sharp spike upwards manifests in what corresponds to the entire month of April. No signs of tapering off.

In other words, it was not Trump's initial irresponsibility which spread the virus. It was his administration's response afterward which was truly the biggest failure.

Perhaps the biggest surprise of this graph was China, the long, flat grey line. Despite having one of the largest populations in the world, and some of the most densely populated cities, AND having been infected with the virus the longest, the number of deaths flattened out quickly, and stayed relatively flat throughout recent days. China had many failures with regard to initially containing the virus, and lying about it. But afterward, it pulled out all the stops and got the job done. Either that, or they're lying their asses off now about how many have died recently.

Next, I did another "day 1 to day 1" analysis regarding the running total of the number of confirmed cases of Covid-19. The resulting pattern showed something slightly similar, but also starkly different. Check this out:

Again, you can see that the USA (green) has a huge spike upward, and doesn't appear to be flattening out anytime soon. It looks like it started to flatten out just slightly about a week ago, and then spiked back upward at the same rate as before. Undoubtedly this was due to the protests trying to get lockdowns to be lifted prematurely. But again, the real pattern is that the U.S. doesn't have a large initial jump in coronavirus cases. Instead, the spike comes after. In fact, WAY after many other nations began showing lots of cases. Now, this might be due to the fact that the U.S. had so little testing initially. Perhaps the virus was spreading everywhere and we didn't know it because we had no real testing to speak of. Or perhaps Trump restricting travel from China really did have a delaying effect. I suspect it's probably both. But the real impact, as the chart clearly shows, comes well after the virus' arrival. What really hurt the U.S. was a lack of preparation, lack of equipment, and a stubborn refusal to acknowledge the threat as serious until it was far too late.

Oh, and a stubborn refusal by many Trump fans to acknowledge the seriousness of the situation, even now.

Some might argue that it's the United States' size that accounts for the huge spike. Not so, or else China would have a similar spike based on its large population size.

Some highlight should be noted about some of the low numbers I found, and which the reader will not be able to see because the lines are scrunched down near the bottom with so many others.

Japan: Total number of confirmed cases, in spite of being one of the first nations for the virus to reach, only 13,385.

Singapore: Relatively close to China and a major transportation and commercial hub, but total number of deaths? 12! Yes, 12!

New Zealand: Has kept the total number of Covid-19 cases to a mere 1,112.

Mexico: In spite of Trump shutting down all immigration to stop the virus from coming in by Mexicans (and other Latinx immigrants) crossing the border, the total number of confirmed cases in Mexico is only 14,677. That's all time!

Sweden: A lot of attention has been given to Sweden's open policy, and lack of lockdown. According to this, it seems to be true that there is little impact as a result of this policy! 18,640 confirmed cases total, and 2,194 deaths. This may be due to the fact that Sweden is sparsely populated, or due to the colder climate keeping people largely sequestered anyway. Or, perhaps the people of Sweden don't need a government order to act responsible. I suspect all of these factors apply. Whatever the reason, their numbers are legitimately low.

South Korea: The model response! Only 243 deaths and 10,738 confirmed cases!

The United States could have been one of those nations which kept the numbers low. We could have been a model for the world like South Korea or New Zealand. Instead, we're the butt of new and disturbingly accurate jokes. Like this one going around Germany: Q: "What borders on stupidity?" A: "Mexico and Canada!"

You know it's reached apocalyptic proportions when Germans have developed a sense of humor.

So it turns out I was right, but not in the way I thought I would be. I thought the early-on lack of judgement by Trump was largely to blame. But Trump's early inaction and incompetence didn't lead to an early spike. They instead led to a much later spike, and that came largely through the virus being allowed to sneak in the back door, and then spread everywhere before the government really began looking for it. And afterward? When Trump says he's been responding so well? The numbers don't lie. Trump's response to the coronavirus is worse by far than any other world leader, and embarrassingly so! Hospitals ran out of PPE. Ventilators ran short, and then were sent to the wrong areas at the wrong times. States were forced to compete with FEMA for supplies instead of working with FEMA for supplies. Big Trump-fan states like South Dakota refused to shut down, leading to even more outbreaks in Billings and elsewhere.

So, there it is! This isn't just a "whole world" problem. This is a whole world problem which Trump's administration colossally fucked up!

I knew Trump would wreck the economy sooner or later. I just had no idea it would be this bad.


Eric

*

My Latest Cartoons

For those who haven't seen my latest cartoons yet, here they are:

Vegetarianism Will Save The World

For those of you in a hurry, here's a synopsis: Wet markets in China create viruses which threaten the whole world. Vegetarianism, which feeds more people per farmable acre, is a better alternative and can and should shut such virus-centers down permanently.

I haven't blogged in a while, which is odd considering that I've been a member of the Covid-19 unemployed since April 1st. But with other projects caught up, and yet one more cartoon completed, it's time to start disseminating information that will save the world again. This time, it's to promote the idea of vegetarianism, and yes, that is an idea that can and will save the world.

Now, I'm not a strict vegetarian. Nor will I ever be, as my wife has Crohn's disease, meaning her diet must contain meat for nutritional reasons. But I've been going more and more vegetarian as I get older, both because my cholesterol levels demand it, and because the extra calories are something I could really do without. Thus, I consider myself enough of a participant in vegetarianism to speak in favor of its virtues. I'm not the ideal spokesperson, but then again, it's my damn blog.

We were turning an important corner before the Procrastinator-in-Chief allowed Covid-19 to sneak its way into America under his very nose. Impossible burgers and Beyond burgers were really beginning to make an impact. Now, those industries, along with everything else, have taken a hit. But where others might see disaster for this new vegetarian market, I see opportunity.

Right now, the entire global economy is taking a hit. Restaurants are shutting down left and right, and everyone is cutting back on processed foods they can't go out and get anyway. But when it comes back, as herd immunity and a vaccine virtually guarantees it will someday, why not give some preferential treatment to these new and delicious vegetarian dishes? Why not allow those products to grow faster than their alternatives? And before you say that they are worse than the real thing, let me make another point:

The Covid-19 virus was undoubtedly made in the wet markets of Wuhan, where exotic animals are herded, butchered, and sold all in one area. And viruses mutate by spreading from one species to another, back and forth, until a new strain emerges which the human immune system has never had to contend with. Then, suddenly the new virus spreads like wildfire, and we have a new pandemic to deal with. Nowhere are so many different animals herded together quite like China, whose population is so large that people eat literally anything. This is the biggest reason why China is such a hotbed for new viruses emerging. Wouldn't it be nice if we could feed a lot more Chinese people without having to resort to butchering so many animals? Well, we can. And if we do, we can shut down the virus cycle in China, and elsewhere, thus making everyone safer, and more well fed.

Now to my point about the flavor of meat-substitutes: It's wonderful! People say it's not as good as the real thing, but those who say that haven't tried the new products out there. I can confidently say that I prefer Lightlife chicken strips to the real thing. Boca chicken nuggets are better than McDonald's nuggets. And I even prefer boca bacon to the real thing. Beyond burgers are amazing, satisfying, and filling, and Impossible burgers are even better according to most people, although I consider it a tie. If you haven't tried these products, I highly and wholeheartedly endorse them. And for those of you who complain the flavor still isn't there, let me point out the other things that aren't there in veggie products: such as cartilage,, ligament, bone, grease, and other crap that doesn't belong in our food!

It's time to start eating better, not just for ourselves but to save the world. I truly think that vegetarianism is as important for the world now as recycling (and we need to kick recycling in the ass too, while we're at it). A more vegetarian diet feeds more people per farmable acre, lowers our LDL cholesterol, keeps us fit and trim, and rids our food of annoying gristle that ruins our dining experience. It's such the right thing to do, for so many right reasons, both selfish and selfless.

Well, that's my pitch! Stay healthy, stay safe, and until next time, chow!


Eric

*