Yesterday, a post by a fellow commentator addressed whether anyone would listen to epidemiologists again. This, in itself, is not a controversial question. There is a range of opinions, even among epidemiologists, on how to deal with viral outbreaks. That said, most posts are designed to create a discussion. None are likely to ever come to any complete answer, though hopefully some shared ground can be hammered out. It seems this did not occur and considerable animus was shared in the comments section.
I will begin by saying I have not lost anyone to Covid, but I can list about 15 people in my family who are at risk. They have all been isolating, as they should. They know isolation won't prevent them from getting ill, as we know there are many other problems with isolation. But it is a safety feature. There are no guarantees for any of us.
The questions which remain are whether we 'flattened the curve', actually 'saved lives', and even if we could do these things.
There is no way, literally none, to answer whether we 'flattened the curve' or 'saved lives'. Saying we did will only be based on what you presume may have happened otherwise. That's not science, that's an opinion. My opinion is we didn't and can't do either, but my opinion is no better informed than yours. I base my reasoning on logic. Isolation has happened, and people are still getting sick despite isolation. The virus spreads more easily in confined spaces, and shutting up a family with one asymptomatic member may well doom the entire family. Multi-generational homes in Italy, where that kind of living is more common than in the US, certainly played a role in the Italian situation.
On a personal note, having had Covid, and taken the antibody test, we know that my wife (despite sharing, as couples do, food, utensils, etc.) does not have the antibodies. My son (24) and I (58) both have them. He was clearly asymptomatic. My wife believes she's a Viking. Perhaps she is. It did raise the question for her, though, 'how is the most contagious virus, as we're told this is, not infecting me when you've been so sick and he was asymptomatic?' It's anecdotal, but I can rattle off 20 such anecdotes from friends and family. Studies are good, and real science is useful, but anecdotes should also inform, because they are personal experience. So this is contagious, yes. But how contagious? We simply don't know, and neither do 'experts'. So both sides can be 'correct' and 'informed'.
Based on my personal experiences here in New Jersey...I'm afraid I just don't see the danger others do. Even if I did see it, many others don't, and their views matter.
Speaking of personal experience, I can point out someone very close to me also had it, and had it very badly. They are diabetic, and where my symptoms lasted 2 weeks with 4 bad days, theirs was 3 horrible weeks. We have come out of our experiences with completely different views of the virus. They are angry, blame Trump, and feel we should be locked down until it goes away or there is a vaccine. They are so angry, I have stopped speaking with them about Covid. That didn't stop them from asking me to not speak at all ever again, though I doubt this will happen. I hope.
It seems personal views have led to extreme outcomes, reactions and policy opinions.
I have tried reason and rationality in speaking with my good friend, citing studies, results, outcomes. They resorted to invective, anger and emotion. This is the issue we're facing. Reason vs. emotion. For a disease. I get that it can become personal, but I had it and it didn't feel personal to me. When you suffer loss, it's personal. I understand. However you lose a loved one, the loss is always personal. I have no experience with that with Covid, but understand where it comes from. That said, no matter what policy we choose to support, the virus doesn't just 'go away' if we isolate forever. All we do is potentially slow the spread, and extend our period of isolation. In addition, there's absolutely, positively no guarantee a vaccine will work. After all, the flu shows up every year despite our ability to make a vaccine. SARS, MERS and the common cold - all coronaviruses - lack vaccines, and even if we had them, there are questions whether it would even matter due to their ability to mutate. So this logic of staying shut down until there is a vaccine is odd and can only be held as 'rational' if you've personalized a bad experience.
Taking personal experience and crafting policy from it is a strange thing. How can there be a one-size-fits-all response when my own story (remember, anecdotes inform) show that even a severely contagious disease is not always as contagious as you think? The spread in NYC was, but shouldn't have been, unexpected. A crowded city with millions arriving and leaving every day with billions and trillions of points of contact? It's shocking something like this hasn't happened before. Now that it has, New York's experience cannot, and should not be, the same as South Dakota's or Minneapolis', let alone Podunk's. We are finding that it isn't, and it doesn't have to be. The lockdown where I grew up, in rural areas of Pennsylvania, has literally devastated some families. Even here in NJ, we drop off food at the food bank every week because it is literally empty. People may be trying to avoid the risk of Covid, but the risk of hunger and deprivation is growing faster.
This avoidance of Covid risk is clearly (to me) misguided. We'll learn more over the next 2 to 4 weeks, as the main issue is whether reopening to any degree will cause a 'spike'. I don't mean one day increases like Florida's on May 21 (due to a massive influx of test results, practically double the normal), but sustained, multi-day increases of 25% or more from average levels. That has not happened, so far, in any reopening.
Instead, the media has focused on single day increases in deaths (a lagging indicator) or cases (which might indicate an issue, but probably not if test results back up and suddenly appear on one day versus over 3 days). The goal of the media is to scare you and get you to watch/read/pay attention to the news sources. These sources, however, are very bad at sharing good information. They do share information. Most of it isn't useful. You have to use reason to suss out the garbage, and there's a lot of garbage - most of it politically driven by the opinions of the journalists providing that information. That is why I rarely watch the news.
It seems to me, the only important numbers should be the number of new cases reported prorated to testing levels, and the number of hospitalizations for Covid cases. Deaths are also important, but should be listed as a lagging indicator. Remember, the two main reasons for the lockdown are 'flatten the curve' to avoid overburdening hospitals and/or 'save lives'.
Still, trying to develop policy and response comes back to personalization.
Your opinions will drive what you think is reasonable and rational, and what you think is logically useful. If you've lost a loved one, or have someone struggling with the virus or on a ventilator, you will think it's more serious than it may really be. The news has tried to make it seem that way.
On the other hand, if you had a mild case or none at all, you may take a walk down the street as I do each day since my recovery. You'll see it's not really as frightening as the media makes it out to be. 95% of the people are simply not sick. Some percentage of them are recovered, a larger percentage are asymptomatic, and even more may be like my wife and just not getting infected. Of the 5% who are sick, most are not hospitalized and are dealing with their symptoms at home, as I did and all my friends did.
If you thumb through the pages of history and look at previous pandemics and plagues, you'll see this is not as deadly as most pandemics have been. Many killed larger percentages of the world's population. Prior to the 1900s, most of those deaths were due to lack of good health care and lack of knowledge and understanding - but people still went about their lives. Oddly, we're in a better place today, knowing more, but still knowing little about this particular virus, and yet we're scared. Why?
I'm certainly not willing to expose myself to a deadly disease, yet I was somehow exposed. I seriously doubt isolating would have 'saved' me. We don't know if my son got it from me, or from his travels in and out of New York or at his office. Maybe he gave it to me. Isolating may be what got me sick. But I was never scared. The day they sent us home from the office, I said I didn't want to work from home full time. They said I didn't have a choice. Fine. I'll save some money on the commute and meals. The damage to my psyche, on the other hand, has been significant. Isolation has costs. I'm dealing with some of these as best I can, and they are not enjoyable, let me tell you. I guess I fall into the lucky group of having to suffer from Covid, but also suffer from the other debilitating mental issues that come along with isolation.
As a result, after reading all the comments on the epidemiology post, I came to a conclusion. If you're getting emotional over this, you've given up on thinking reasonably about our situation. You're personalizing it, which is certainly your right. But personalizing a disease doesn't make your policy view scientific or more informed. Listening to 'authorities' claiming to have 'science on their side' doesn't make any view scientific. It's just a view.
I get to share my views here, so I do. In addition, it helps to share our thoughts, that's why I like the comments section. Issues and disagreement arise when we're sharing an emotional response, a personal response, or rational thought. My posts are personal, and as rational as I can make them. I try to drop the emotion.
We're all going to be fine. 99.1% of us, or so, will survive Covid. These numbers will increase as treatments improve. Isolation is unlikely to be helping, only extending the period of infection. Even if isolation was reducing infections, it's causing a multitude of other unintended consequences.
If you're angry that you have a loved one that died due to Covid, I'm truly sorry and understand your point of view. If you're angry because others don't take it as seriously as you do because of your loss, I'm sorry too. However, I can respect those feelings, and the points of view associated with them without agreeing that the policy you support is correct or 'best'.
There is, clearly and obviously, no way to make everyone safe. This is a literal impossibility. Some people will die and, sadly, that's unavoidable. Some close to of us will die. That's how viral outbreaks work. Personalizing these facts are what we will do, but personalizing them and trying to force others to agree on policy is useless. We can mourn the losses, and we can hope our medical professionals continue to improve treatments and find cures or vaccines. We shouldn't be angry with each other because we choose to support different policies. The goal is to protect yourself and your loved ones - not to force others to provide that protection.
Each day I drive my car I worry about the bad driver, the reckless driver, and the drunk driver. I drive defensively to avoid a bad outcome. As a result, with the virus, I live defensively. Laws can punish the reckless and drunk driver - but the law won't make these drivers go away. That doesn't mean the law is 'bad', but it does mean we need to keep in mind the value of laws are extremely limited. The true problem, the one you can't pass a law to punish, is the bad driver and unseen circumstance. The bad driver is the one thing you can't account for. You also can't account for the good driver who is momentarily distracted. You can't account for the dog in the road, the deer leaping from the woods. These are useful analogies for managing myself in this new reality. We all have a lot going on in our lives, even without a virus. But the virus hasn't changed how we should live our lives. It has only shifted how we should think about managing ourselves around others and in public.
For some reason, though, it's driving a wedge between people. I hope my close friend doesn't stop talking to me as the result of a virus. That would be silly and childish. I'll avoid the topic, if they are willing to, as well. If the topic comes up, though, I will discuss it rationally. I won't get emotional, if they reference their experience, I'll reference mine. If they reference science, I'll reference science that supports my view. We can disagree, that's fine - there is literally no correct science on this topic yet. My different point of view doesn't put you at risk, no matter how much you think it does. It's fear that is making the difference, and that fear is irrational when you look at the numbers. Even though there may be personal losses to consider, the numbers still matter more on a societal level, than the individual sense of loss. "If we save one life" is not a good mantra for a safety policy - as we here at Maggie's have pointed out.
