A Greater COVID-19 Danger: Misinformation

My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge.  – Prophet Hosea (710 BC) 

The financial firm, Franklin Templeton, has teamed up with Gallup to determine people’s behavioral responses to the COVID-19 pandemic.  Their hypothesis: What people know and don’t know about the pandemic will play a crucial role in shaping the economic recovery. 

Maybe you’d like to participate in part of the survey.   If so, write down your answer to three of the questions based on what you know about the COVID-19 pandemic.  Here you go:  What percentage of total COVID deaths have occurred among Americans…
(1)  …age 55 or older?
(2)  …age 44 and younger?
(3)  …age 24 and younger?

COVID-19 Risk:  Survey Results
Now, let’s compare your answers to the actual COVID-19 mortality statistics from US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), as of July 22, 2020.  First, in order to make you feel better in case your answers are far from the actual percentages, here is part of the conclusion made by authors of the “Franklin Templeton–Gallup Economics of Recovery Study:”

These results are nothing short of stunning.  Six months into this pandemic, Americans still dramatically misunderstand the risk of dying from COVID-19.

Maybe you will be "stunned" as well.  To compare your responses with the responses of Americans included in the survey when the three questions were asked, here are the results:

Based on this sampling from the survey, can you see the stunning discrepancy between perceived health threat of COVID-19 and reality?  Amazingly, in spite of Americans having access the best health care system in the world and excellent access to information at our fingertips, we demonstrate a stunning misunderstanding of the risk of death from COVID-19.  

As the table below suggests, Americans 65 and older are much more aware of the heightened risk for their own age group.  On the other hand, the younger the age group polled the more misled Americans are about their risk of negative health consequences from the virus.  Shockingly, school- and college-age young people (age 24 and younger) overestimated the danger of COVID-19 by a factor of 40!!

What is even more unfortunate and even frightening is the way in which the misinformation causes fear among us.  The table below clearly shows the increasing fear of negative health consequences among the younger age groups in spite of the lowered risk of death from COVID-19.

The following statement from the Franklin Templeton report summarizes how misinformation can be used to generate fear and influence partisan outcomes (emphasis mine):

Fear and anger are the most reliable drivers of engagement; scary tales of young victims of the pandemic, intimating that we are all at risk of dying, quickly go viral; so do stories that blame everything on your political adversaries. Both social and traditional media have been churning out both types of narratives in order to generate more clicks and increase their audience.

Media and Partisanship Blamed
The more access we have to information about risks to our health and well being the greater the likelihood that we will make decisions that favor our safety and minimize our fears.  If this claim is true and the survey data is accurate, how can Americans make good decisions based on risk to personal health if they misunderstand the risk.  The same applies to making good policy decisions on the part of policymakers.

For instance, if the risk of death among school and college age young people is less than 0.2%, how can we justify closing classrooms and canceling sports?  If the survey results are accurate, the current debates about whether or not to open classrooms and schedule school or college sports this Fall are being made by poorly informed administrators, educators, students, athletes, parents, and policymakers.  But never mind the actual data.  If the media and political actors can create the “perception” of greater risk than reality, then they can use a falsely generated fear to manipulate us to follow unrealistic guidelines.

Proof of media involvement in creating a misinformed public is seen in the differences in responses between those who identify as Democrats and those identifying as Republicans.    “People who get their information predominantly from social media have the most erroneous and distorted perception of risk.  Those who identify as Democrats tend to mistakenly overstate the risk of death from COVID-19 for younger people much more than Republicans.”  Most cable news watchers are aware of the vast difference in messaging between CNN or MSNBC and FoxNews.

The Franklin Templeton/Gallup survey predicts that if “…those who can afford it are willing to pay significantly more for extra perceived safety, we might see a significant rise in inflation down the line.  Again, misinformation can lead to unwarranted fear which in turn makes a population vulnerable to manipulation in directions that fit partisan priorities and visions for a restructured American government and society.

It is becoming clear that misinformation and resultant unwarranted fear may be the greater threat from the COVID-19 pandemic.  Consider the following statement from the survey report:

From a public interest perspective, we believe the top priority should be better information and a less partisan, more fact-based public debate.  The fact that a large share of the population overestimates the COVID-19 danger to the young will make a targeted public health response more difficult to agree on. We think it is also likely to delay the recovery, causing a deeper and prolonged recession.

We Need to Be Informed
Maybe it is time we devote some extra time to becoming accurately informed by doing our own research and making decisions accordingly.  At the same time, we who are called to love our neighbor as ourselves (Mark 12: 31) need to deal graciously with those who are more fearful of negative health consequences whether or not their fear is warranted. 

Hopefully, readers who look in more detail at the Franklin Templeton and Gallup Survey will be better informed and able to articulate truth to neighbors who are misled or confused.  Otherwise, the greater risk may not be COVID-19.  Instead, we may experience very dire consequences to our culture and nation from those who seek to use the virus for selfish political motives.

Remember the words from the Prophet Hosea, My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge (Hosea 4: 6).  If you’d like to stay informed as the survey continues to expand over the coming months, you can receive ongoing updates on the project's findings by signing up here.  

What Do You Think?
Do you consider yourself well informed about the pandemic?  How well did you score on the opening three polling questions?  If you’d like to respond to this blog with comments or questions, just use the “Comments” link below, or contact me at silviusj@gmail.com   Thank you for reading, and may God honor your efforts to be informed, make good decisions, and inform others as we try to learn how best to respond to the pandemic and the politics surrounding it.

If We Had Only Known: But Why Didn’t We?

After nearly three months of social distancing and economic shutdowns aimed at preventing the spread of COVID-19, what do we have to show for the policies aimed at preventing the spread of the virus?  Answer:  Tens of millions of Americans out of work, thousands of businesses destroyed, our health care system disrupted, schools and colleges across the land shuttered, and over 40,000 at-risk senior citizens who were exposed to virus infection and caused to die.  The actual virulence of the disease and the number of lives saved by all of this remains unknown.

What a staggering price to pay in order to defeat a virus!  But was all of this really necessary?
According to The Blaze, "A U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report published April 1 cited the ‘potential for presymptomatic transmission’ as a reason for the importance of social distancing, the network said.”  However, there was significant dissension within science and medicine.  Now, heads are wagging and many are regretting not having listened to the dissenters; or, regretting that many dissenting voices of science were marginalized or silenced.

The World Health Organization (WHO), according to CNBC, now claims that asymptomatic carriers of COVID-19 rarely spread the virus!  According to a CNN report yesterday, Dr. Maria Van Kerkhove, head of WHO's emerging diseases and zoonosis unit has stated, "We have a number of reports from countries who are doing very detailed contact tracing. They're following asymptomatic cases. They're following contacts. And they're not finding secondary transmission onward.  It's very rare."

Based on an article this morning in BBC News, the Van Kerkhove statements may be a bit too emphatic given the size of the study she referenced.  The article stated that, “While people without symptoms do seem to be capable of infecting others, current evidence still suggests people with symptoms are the highest risk” of transmitting the disease. The article adds that a positive test doesn’t tell us the “viral load” (how much virus in a person’s system).  However, Dr. Van Kerkove still maintains that secondary transmission requires high viral load which are passed mainly through infectious droplets from coughing and sneezing.  She adds, “If we actually followed all of the symptomatic cases, isolated those cases, followed the contacts and quarantined those cases, we would drastically reduce (Parenthetically, she inserted:  I would love to be able to give a proportion of how much transmission we would actually stop.) but it would be a drastic reduction in transmission."

WHO:  Accountability and Admission of Error
Are you shocked?   Many are not.  If Dr. Van Kerkhove’s assessments are true, then prior suspicions toward the WHO are only being further confirmed.  While some still question how much virus transmission can occur just prior to expression of symptoms, it is looking more and more like the WHO is either incompetent or complicit in an effort to distort the truth.  At very best, it appears that the measures that resulted from WHO and CDC recommendations were much too drastic to be justified by the limited data and associated predictive models.

Although somewhat haltingly, the WHO is basically admitting that the decision to institute social distancing and business shutdowns, supposedly “following the science," was misguided.  If, instead of recommending the widespread social isolation and lock down of all but essential services, health officials had simply recommended tracking, tracing, and isolating symptomatic cases, the COVID-19 pandemic may have had no greater impact than annual influenza viruses that come and go.

If these recent claims of WHO officials are confirmed in the days ahead, history may record the “COVID-19 pandemic” as one of its greatest fiascos.  Of major concern already is not only the disruption of our economy, health care, education, family, social interactions, and worship, but the avoidable deaths of 40,000 of our senior citizens who were left vulnerable and then moved in large numbers into close quarters where COVID-19 infection and death were largely unavoidable.  But I believe we will be adding insult to injury if millions of Americans and billions worldwide do not raise some serious questions that justify a major investigation of exactly who and what led us down this costly and deadly path.  

Important Questions:  Answers Please?
Here are some questions for starters:
1.  What was the origin of the COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2) virus?
2.  Why did the Chinese Communists silence several of their prominent scientists?
3.  Why did these Chinese leaders claim the virus was not contagious while they were restricting travel from Wuhan and grabbing up related health care equipment?
4.  Did the Chinese Communist regime conspire with the WHO to control information flow?
5.  Why was doctor-prescribed use of Hydroxychloroquine so strongly opposed by many?
6.  Who are those responsible for decisions that led to the deaths of over 40,000 residents of nursing homes and long-term care facilities, representing 40% of the COVID-19 deaths in the US.
7.  Why have the WHO and CDC now begun to admit to recommending measures that were unprecedented and apparently too drastic? 
8.  In what particular ways did the media fail America and other nations by essentially censoring dissenting voices?  See Hydroxychloroquine: “Good Science” Challenges Politicized Science.
9.  Were there instances in which scientists deliberately acted unethically by withholding data and assessments that might have led to an end of the lockdown much earlier.   See Bring a Speedy End to the Pandemic Shutdown
10.  Is it time for a national discussion to heighten our awareness of how important good journalism and honest reporting by the media is to maintaining our democratic republic?
11.  What changes need to be made to assure that our national leaders receive broader-based, expert scientific and epidemiological input and can make good decisions to protect American people?
12.  How can Christians strengthen their faith in God and sharpen their discernment of the issues of our time, and then position themselves to be able to represent Christ to people mired in confusion, anxiety, depression, addiction, and fear?

With Question #12 in mind, I am finding Luke 21, particularly verses 7-19, very relevant to the events of our day.  While careful study is needed to place the future events Jesus is describing into context, He makes two statements that should be very encouraging (New Living Translation): 
Luke 21: 9 -- And when you hear of wars and insurrections, don’t panic.
Luke 21: 13 -- But this will be your opportunity to tell them about me.

I do not want to pretend to have all of the answers to the COVID-19 pandemic, nor even all of the questions.  I realize that there are many dedicated, honest professionals that were and are involved in some aspect of the pandemic; and, I don’t want to impugn well-meaning, honest people, nor deny the fact that hindsight sometimes prompts great criticism of decisionmakers.  Yet, the questions I have raised are among those that we would do well to answer in the days ahead.

How About You?
Are there particular questions you have about how the pandemic was handled, or about factors that influenced policy to move in such an unwise direction?  How have these events influenced your trust in “science,” the media, our leadership in Washington, and health care professionals?  How has the pandemic influenced your faith in God?

Hydroxychloroquine: “Good Science” Challenges Politicized Science

Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), for over 60 years a familiar antimalarial drug, has fast become one of the most popular subjects in daily news surrounding the COVID-19 virus pandemic  allegedly caused by Chinese Communist mismanagement of a lab in Wuhan, China.  Like any drug, the safety and efficacy of HCQ as a treatment for a new disease, ought to be thoroughly investigated.  However, in spite of numerous favorable reports of the life-saving benefit of doctor-prescribed HCQ, many influential people including Dr. Anthony Fauci continue to oppose its use.  Are there legitimate reasons for this opposition to a potentially life-saving drug?   Or are we about to see just how many lives will be lost simply because “good science” is being ignored or silenced by selfish political and economic agendas? 

So-called “good science” has been a frequent subject of my blog writing in Oikonomia (Greek = “household management; or, stewardship”).  To me, “good science” is an inquiry into the workings of the “household of creation” by those who recognize the necessity of and abide by a faith-based ethical foundation for their pursuit of truth [See “The Conscience of Science: Part 1 Ethics & Accountability.”]  A faith-based ethic enables the scientist to see that his or her pursuit of truth is good stewardship of his or her God-given intellectual gifts.  Scientists who view their science as a stewardship are more likely to contribute in ways that promote the flourishing of God’s creation.  In so doing, they bring benefit to all mankind.  Above all, “good science” ought to be guided by honesty in its inquiry and in reporting of conclusions.

We can only hope that current debate over the safety and efficacy of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) will be governed by “good science” and later remembered by the thousands of lives it saved.  Therefore, I am encouraged by an article authored by Dr. Harvey Risch, a Yale epidemiologist, published May 27 in the Journal of Epidemiology.  In it, Dr. Risch refutes an earlier article published in The Lancet which had caused the World Health Organization to halt trials of HCQ as a treatment for COVID-19 infections.  Dr. Risch’s critique is a classic lesson in careful scientific analysis of published results.  It also illustrates the importance of peer review in verifying scientific methodology and correct application of results.  I encourage you to read the article.

In order to provide context for this stage of the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Risch estimates that over 1.6 million Americans have been infected and up to 10 to 50-fold larger numbers of people carry antibodies to the virus.  In spite of “flattening the curve” through mask-wearing, social distancing, etc., Dr. Risch believes that over time

…very large numbers of people in the US may eventually get the infection.  The great majority of infected people are at low risk for progression or will manifest the infection asymptomatically. For the rest, outpatient treatment is required that prevents disease progression and hospitalization.  Exposures will occur as isolation policies are lifted and people begin to mix, even with various degrees of public isolation such as mask usage and physical separation still in place.

Dr. Risch also recognizes that, while we are averaging an estimated 10,000 COVID-19 deaths per week in the US, we are facing a greater risk of deaths due to policies that have created an unsustainable economic and social condition with over 36 million Americans out of work and disruptions in many essential services necessary to maintain our physical, emotional, and spiritual well-being.  He concludes: “We are rapidly reaching a breaking point in the ability to maintain the status quo; states have begun the process of lifting their restrictions, and we thus need to evaluate what evidence we do have for promising outpatient treatments.” 

Dr. Risch’s COVID-19 treatment recommendation may be summarized as follows (emphasis mine):

… the key to returning society toward normal functioning and to preventing huge loss of life, especially among older individuals, people with comorbidities, African Americans and Hispanics and Latinos, is a safe, effective and proactive outpatient treatment that prevents hospitalization in the first place.

Based on Dr. Risch’s analysis of the results of numerous treatments in which COVID-19 patients were given HCQ in combination with the antibiotic azithromycin (i.e. HCQ+AZ), his recommendation is as follows (emphasis mine):

HCQ+AZ has been directly studied in actual early high-risk outpatient use with all of its temporal considerations and found empirically to have sufficient epidemiologic evidence for its effective and safe employment that way, and that requiring delay of such general use until availability of additional RCT (randomized controlled trial) evidence is untenable because of the ongoing and projected continuing mortality. No studies of Covid-19 outpatient HCQ+AZ use have shown higher mortality with such use than without, cardiac arrhythmias included, thus there is no empirical downside to this combined medication use.

The strong support for the use of HCQ+AZ from Dr. Risch was accompanied by two other endorsements of its therapeutic value.  Last week, President Trump announced that he has been using a prescription of HCQ, demonstrating that he is willing to put his health on the line to support his belief in the safety and efficacy of HCQ.  Then, this week, Breitbart reported that HCQ will be administered by Britain’s National Health Service (NHS) to as many as 10,000 health workers representing up to 20 hospitals as part of a clinical trial.

In conclusion, the debate continues between those who favor and those who oppose the use of hydroxychloroquine plus azithromycin (HCQ+AZ) for early treatment of high-risk COVID-19 patients.  However, the May 27 publication of Dr. Harvey Risch’s thorough analysis as summarized here ought to make the prescription of these drugs the centerpiece of our COVID-19 treatment strategy.  

It remains to be seen which voices will have the most influence on policy makers and medical health professionals--the voices of "good science" or the voices of those with political agendas that seem to care little about either “following the science” or protecting individual lives.   Meanwhile, I am siding with the voice of “good science” and can only hope HCQ+AZ will be available to me in the event that I am infected with COVID-19 and require medical intervention.  

Bring a Speedy End to the Pandemic Shutdown

Some baby-boomers like me remember a stressful part of our childhood:  having to get a penicillin shot, or waiting in line for “the needle” for vaccinations.  I’m not sure which was worse, the anticipation or the needle prick itself.  But afterwards, my fear and pain were eased by a warm feeling that I was protected from becoming ill.  Today, the results affirm the success of antibiotics and vaccines.  The anxiety and pain were a small price for a good outcome.

But what if, in order to protect us and our nation from a mortal enemy, we were required to surrender freedoms that we hold dear?  Such a request or demand would have a much more pervasive affect on our lives than the requirement to stand in line for a vaccination? 

Our COVID-19 Conundrum – Looking Back
As you know, my “what if” became a reality on March 15 of this year—the day that 65 Coronavirus deaths were reported in the US.  On that date, Dr. Anthony Fauci and the White House Task Force instituted a 14-day “national shutdown” with “social distancing” and limitations on our coming and going.  The purpose was to “flatten the curve” of daily hospitalizations and viral infections so that hospitals would not be driven beyond capacity.  But 14 days of shutdown was gradually extended to 1 month.  By that time, many voices in the medical and epidemiological fields were questioning the wisdom of this policy.

With all due regard for any loss of life due to the Coronavirus, many of us asked whether the national shutdown was actually saving lives.  Or, was it simply flattening the curve of infections and hospitalizations and delaying inevitable exposures and infections with uncertain future consequences?   By mid-April it had caused thousands of small businesses to close, millions of people to be unemployed, delays in scheduling of medical procedures, disruption of church worship and other human social interactions, and resultant mental stresses and suicides due to social isolation. 

Because of my own personal skepticism, I began to research the science and statistics related to the COVID-19 pandemic and shutdown.  At the same time, I wanted to assess my own attitude and faith in response to the pandemic threat on my life and family.  About this time (April 17), after one month of national shutdown, the US was approaching 40,000 deaths almost half of which originated in New York state.  I wrote a blog article entitled “Considerations for Our COVID-19 Conundrum” which outlines how I was personally responding to the pandemic and shutdown.  [I believe this article still contains valuable recommendations for readers who want to maintain their “health” in body, mind, and spirit.]

One week later (April 24), I had posted another article on COVID-19, entitled  “COVID-19 Policies &  Outcomes: Learning Online.”  Here, I cited experts who were concerned that the indirect effects of social distancing and the economic shutdown were having more devastating long-term effects than the COVID-19 virus itself.  The primary goal of “flattening the curve” had been reached in most parts of the US.  So, the rationale for remaining locked down shifted to a seemingly trumped up fear based on questionable predictive models and a philosophy that we ought to remain shut down until a vaccination is developed.  Fortunately, in spite of these dire warnings, several state governors began to aggressively follow the phase-in plan offered by President Trump and the White House task force. 

It’s Time to End the Shutdown
During the next two weeks, it became more and more obvious to those who followed objective media sources that the economic, social, and even medical costs of prolonged partial lockdown were exceeding the benefits in saving of lives.  Everywhere, hospital capacity and equipment to treat COVID-19 patients were all much in excess of demand.  As I wrote in “COVID-19 Policy Ignores ‘Good Science’,” “some experts such as Dr. Dolores Cahill called the lockdown policy “anti-scientific” and “anti-nature” because it has ignored the importance of the human immune system and how we need to beef up our immunity through good nutrition and vitamins.”  [Dr. Cahill’s informed logic is featured in a video interview accessible in my article, “COVID-19 Policy Ignores ‘Good Science’.”]

Today, opposition to the lockdown from professionals is being joined by an increasing chorus of Americans who want to get back to work.  Dr. Scott Atlas, MD. and senior fellow and experienced policymaker of the Hoover Institute, argues that there is no reason not to move more quickly to reopen our society with proper precautions for the elderly and other at-risk individuals.  In his op ed article published May 18, in The Hill, Dr. Atlas wrote,

The total lockdown may have been justified at the start of this pandemic, but it must now end — smartly, without irrational, unnecessary requirements contrary to medical science, common sense and logic. The goal of the strict isolation was accomplished in the overwhelming majority of places. We have direct data on risk and extensive experience, individually and as a nation, with managing it, even as new cases arise. We know that gradually relaxing total isolation will lead to more infections, but that’s acceptable, given that we know whom to protect and this disease is not harmful to the vast majority of infected people.

What Do COVID-19 Data-by-State Suggest?
Yesterday, I devoted many hours to pouring over data from multiple sources.  I chose 15 states that represent 62% of the US population but which are responsible for approximately 85% of the COVID-19 deaths in the US to date (see Table).  The data by state is ranked according to “% Recovery” from lowest (top) to highest—i.e. the percentage of individuals who were “Reported Cases” who recovered and were not tallied in “Deaths.”  Note that Michigan currently has the lowest percent recovery at 90.5%.  All other states range above this percentage and reach as high as 98.3% recovery in Tennessee.

The 7 states that make up the upper-half of the table account for just over half (51%) of the total reported COVID-19 cases in the US to date but account for 67% of the total US deaths.   It is also noteworthy that nearly all of the 7 states in the upper half of the table have governors who have been slower in opening up their state than most of the 8 states in the lower half.  This suggests that governors who have been more aggressive in opening their state have not been unwise.  Both % recovery and mortality rates are lower in these more aggressive states.  More comments on my Data Table will come below as they relate to several claims by Dr. Atlas.

Supportive Data But Poor Communication
Dr. Atlas argues that neither policymakers nor the public have received several key messages that are both critical in alleviating public fear and valuable as a guide to safe reopening of society.  In his article Monday, in The Hill, Dr. Atlas lists four policy failures at the state level, each with scientific data from the CDC and other sources to support his claims.  The four policy failures he lists are as follows (emphasis mine):

1.  There has been a failure to remind everyone that the stated goal of the policy — total lockdown and whole-population isolation — has been accomplished in most of the United States, including the epicenter of New York.

2.  There has been a failure to reassure everyone that we fully anticipate more cases will occur, whether we test or not, with continuing relaxation of today’s isolation.

Many Americans are gripped in fear when they hear that more reported cases of COVID-19 are appearing daily with even more cases reported in some areas.   But remember, we are doing more testing—more testing means more reported cases!  But notice from my Data Table above that 90 to 98% of reported cases recover. 

3.  There has been a failure to educate the public that the overall fatality rate is not only far lower than previously thought but is extremely low in almost everyone other than the elderly.

Allow me to elaborate on failure #3 as it relates to the relatively large percentage of COVID-19 deaths among the elderly.  According a New York Times article, May 11, one-third of all US deaths to Coronavirus (est. 26,000, May 18) are from nursing home residents and workers.  Notice from my Data Table that nursing home deaths vary widely in percentage of total deaths by state.  

It is now believed that the large number of deaths of nursing home residents and workers in several states including NY, MA, and PA was due at least in part to the negligence or incompetence of state government officials and nursing home administrators.  The unfortunate higher number of nursing home deaths in some of these states is reflected in their higher “Mortality” rates (#Deaths/100K) (see Data Table).  The clear implication is that we dropped the ball in protecting our high-risk seniors while focusing instead on social isolation of the rest of us who are at low-risk.

4.  There has been a failure to clarify to parents the truth about the extremely low risk to children, and that has accompanied a gross failure to offer a rational medical perspective regarding schools reopening.

The #4 failure on Dr. Atlas’s list is the unfortunate lack of clear information provided to parents of young children—information which might have relieved much anxiety, and hopefully still can.  According to a Journal of the American Medical Association article cited by Dr. Atlas, “Of the critically ill children with COVID-19, more than 80% had significant long-term underlying medical conditions. Overall survival and outcomes from critical illness in infants and children with COVID-19 in this series was far better than reported for adult patients.  At the present time, our data indicate that children are at far greater risk of critical illness from influenza than from COVID-19.” 

Lack of good information and its dilution with misinformation threatens to drive school and college administrators to consider delaying reopening of classrooms in the fall of this year.  Dr. Robert Hamilton, pediatrician and founder Pacific Ocean Pediatrics, stated in an interview on The Ingraham Angle that only around 1.7% of people infected with Coronavirus are children up to age 18.  The majority of these are asymptomatic and don’t even realize they have a virus.  Meanwhile, we are learning about the negative impacts of school shutdown on adolescents and on their parents as they adjust to online courses while being deprived of spring sports and traditional commencement observances. 

Conclusion
Every human life is of great value to our Creator.  Therefore, policies dealing with the pandemic should be designed to do the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people.  However, given that we live in a culture where the definition of “good” is so often rigorously debated, policymakers have a difficult time.  This is especially true when we allow our definition of “good” to selfishly dominate our political agendas to the point where we allow biased interpretation of data and media reporting to create an unreal world that is far from the truth.

While I have not escaped the world of pride, selfishness, error in computations, and bias, I have tried to deal accurately and honestly in compiling my Data Table and in presenting the arguments of notable scientists and policymakers.   Based on what I have gleaned from my study, I cast my small vote with those who recommend opening our culture as speedily as possible. 

Returning to my analogy of the anxiety I felt while waiting in line for my vaccination as a boy, I gladly remember that painful experience with no regrets.  However, I believe we will all have great regrets after our current painful pandemic if we don’t soon make it a priority to reopen and restore our economy, health services, family togetherness (especially with our beloved elderly), worship opportunities, education, and recreation.  Death from disease is a reality, but life and health depend on many aspects of our culture that have been restricted or ignored all too long.  As always, I welcome your “Comments.”

Acknowledgement:
This article is a joint effort between my wife, Alvadell ("Abby"), and I.  I thank her for her patience, helpful research, and critical suggestions in the writing.

COVID-19 Policies & Outcomes: Learning Online

As the third month of the war against the COVID-19 pandemic draws to a close, we are learning more and more about our “invisible enemy” and how best to defeat it.  Many will acknowledge that the strategy of “flattening the curve” of infections and hospitalizations has bought us time to manufacture or otherwise acquire and distribute necessary medical supplies and equipment, and time to organize the medical front lines to cope with the number of COVID-19 cases.  It appears that this strategy is preventing hospitals, dedicated doctors, and nurses from being overwhelmed. 

How Fast to Restart the Economy
However, as scientists obtain more and more data, sharp disagreements are emerging about how we should proceed from here. The Coronavirus Task Force Team, and in particular, physicians Dr. Anthony Fauci and Dr. Deborah Birx, recommend a gradual startup of the American economy.  They are concerned that if we are not cautious, our gains in curve flattening could be reversed quickly. However, a significant number of influential people are questioning the wisdom of a prolonged, gradual startup.

Like many Americans, I am concerned that the indirect effects of social distancing and the economic shutdown may have more devastating long-term effects than the COVID-19 virus itself.  So, I have been wondering which strategy for restarting our economy will be wisest.  This decision requires answers to many questions, many of which need more data.  Especially, we need to know the extent of COVID-19 infections already represented in the US (and in other nations) and the rate of spread.  Thankfully, answers appear to be coming almost daily.  

Online Learning in Science, Technology, and Politics
There is no doubt we are living in a high-anxiety period.  As elderly, “at-risk persons,” Abby and I can easily feel anxious.  From a distance, there is anxiety within the homes of our son and daughter.  We have talked about our faith and how we need to draw upon our belief in God and His Word and learn how to apply it daily.  The Judeo-Christian Scriptures teach us that the wise do not “bury their heads in the sand.” 

In 1 Chronicles 12: 32, there is a praiseworthy reference to the sons of Issachar, men who understood the times, with knowledge of what Israel should do.  If we want our children and grandchildren to develop into men and women who “understand the times” and know what to do, we ought to encourage them to learn from the various media available and to help them to mentally and spiritually process the information.  The best medicine against anxiety is good information integrated with a biblical worldview.  In an earlier article, I discussed some factors that we need to take into consideration in an effort to understand COVID conundrums.

One lesson that primary school and college students, and all of us can learn from news broadcasts and online data is the amazing speed of progress in the “war” against the virus.  Within a few weeks, American industrial capacity has been harnessed into the manufacture of masks, ventilators, and other medical supplies.  At the same time, there has been an explosion of testing for infection, antibody and antigen testing, and distribution of equipment and methodology to thousands of locations across the country.  Reports and a great volume of data, updated in real time or daily in many cases, are available with the click of your computer mouse.

A case in point of science and technology in action was the excellent presentation by Bill Bryan who leads the Science and Technology Directorate at the US Department of Homeland Security. Bryan reported on the progress of laboratory studies in which suspended COVID-19 virus particles were subjected in contact with various media and subjected to treatments such as disinfectants, light, and ultraviolet light to determine how long it would take to kill the virus.  By watching this session, viewers can see science and technology in action.  A very interested and engaged President Trump and members of the news media questioned Mr. Bryan  about how their results should be factored into safe human practices and policy for restarting the economy.  If you are interested, go to C-SPAN recording of Mr. Bryan’s presentation (skip forward 20 minutes if you don’t care to watch the introductory presidential report).

Approach to Restart Economy:  Lesson from Sweden?
As part of my personal effort to learn more about how our economy should be restarted, I asked a question, “Which nation has followed the wiser strategy in dealing with the COVID pandemic, the United States or Sweden?”  Here’s some of what I am finding and some links for you to do more of your own research.

First, for some background on Sweden’s approach to combat COVID-19, check out this interview on the Laura Ingraham Angle, on April 23.  She presents virus mortality data from Sweden which has instituted a very loose lock-down policy compared to other European countries and with the United States.  Therefore, Sweden is considered an outlier in its policy but no so much in regard to the outcome.  While Ingraham makes it clear that the overall outcome remains to be seen, she advises against ignoring Sweden as the US decides its path to “normal.”

Then, Ingraham interviews Johan Norberg, senior fellow at the Cato Institute.  He points out that, in spite of a much more rigid tracking and data recording of deaths in Sweden, a larger percentage of adults at age 70 or older, and a large number of deaths in nursing homes, the mortality in Sweden, though slightly higher than that of the US, is much lower than neighboring European countries with more stringent lock-downs.  Norberg claims that the lock-down approach to “flatten the curve” may have the unfortunate effect of prolonging the deaths due to COVID-19.  In other words, in the final analysis, the disease is going to do what it does and the number of deaths will not be affected even if we try to affect the timeline by behavioral modification.  The prediction is that Sweden will reach “herd immunity” in approximately 2-3 weeks and then they will be finished with the virus.

Will Norberg’s prediction bear itself out?  Is “herd immunity” a factor that will also be verified by the passage of time and more antibody testing?   What can we learn from differences in how effective the reopening policies of different states (e.g. Georgia) are in avoiding infections and deaths.  I will leave you with these questions and refer you to excellent source of data to consult.  One source which is updated at least daily is the Our World in Data website for COVID-19.  This site provides abundant charts and tables with explanatory notes and commentary.  Another source is the Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center.

How About You?
Are you confused, anxious, or just tiring of the constant flow of information and not being sure what to believe.  I recommend that you be sure to maintain a strong faith by daily time in God’s Word and whatever connections that are possible with other people of faith.  In this way, you will not miss important lessons on the power of prayer and faith that God may want to teach you during this time.  Obviously, this pandemic is not the first great challenge Americans have faced.  A great book to gain a wider perspective on the hand of divine providence in American history is Michael Medved’s The American Miracle (Crown Forum). 

Also, try to stay informed by using a variety of news and online data sources.  Develop your own questions and do the research by examining the current data for yourself.  In this way, maybe we can exemplify and help our children and grandchildren to develop into men and women who “understand the times” and know what to do.

Considerations for Our COVID-19 Conundrum

Indications are that the 3-month “war” on our “invisible enemy,” the COVID-19 virus, is beginning to show signs of success in flattening the “curve.”  Many states with minimal COVID-19 cases are working on plans to reinstitute “normal” operations of services and the economy.  However, there is much controversy over how and when to proceed.  Some medical experts still favor delay of opening to avoid more serious spread of the virus.  Others want to use personal tracking of the virus, a potential new invasion of our privacy.

While living under this very different experience, I am realizing that my disposition should be characterized by several attitudes or qualities.  These include thankfulness, repentance, realistic outlook, informed discernment, and intercession.

Thankfulness
In everything [even in a Coronavirus pandemic] give thanks for this is God’s will for you in Christ Jesus (1 Thessalonians 5: 18).  As of this writing, I am thankful for the health of our family and friends, and for the following:
(a) recovery statistics are outpacing deaths by either direct causes (presumably by an overactive-immune system) and indirect causes (through pre-existing health factors in at-risk persons) causes. 
(b) infections and hospitalizations are far fewer than that of the swine flu (H1N1), in 2009-2010, and much smaller than other major causes of death (see table below).
(c) wise leadership of our president and the Coronavirus Task Force led by VP Pence, state governors, doctors and medical health care staffs, our armed forces, law enforcement, and church and para-church organizations (e.g. Samaritan’s Purse) deserves our thanks to God.
(d) alternative means of staying connected with our families and churches abound. Meanwhile,  we should recognize that many Christians in places like the Middle East, in China, and in North Korea cannot freely meet to worship even apart from the COVID-19.

Repentance
Repentance, confession of our sin, and worship should be an ongoing part of the lifestyle of a dedicated Christ-follower.  How blessed are the poor in [their] spirit (Matthew 5: 3).  We can be humbled to our knees when we read again the accounts in Scripture of how people reacted in repentance and worship when they bowed before the Living God.  Repentance and spiritual awakening often occurred when God’s people faced great challenges, opposition from mighty armies, or threat from pandemics.  Could it be that God lovingly desires to draw America back to a greater trust and obedience to Him through the pandemic? 

God’s Spirit and His Word revealed in Scripture cause us to humbly repent of our sin.  Of course the invitation to repentance stated in 2 Chronicles 7: 14 is very appropriate as we seek God’s face on behalf of our nation at this troubled time:  If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.

Realistic Outlook
Repentance leads to cleansing from confessed sin, restored fellowship with God, and the clearer vision needed in difficult times.  Every day, many lives are spared by the herculean efforts of those listed in (c) above, functioning within an amazing social structure and enabled by a sovereign God.  However, in reality, people still die for various causes including what we call “accidents” (est. 169,936 deaths/year).  Nothing like a pandemic to help us realize the limited human ability to produce perfect outcomes, even when battling such a tiny, invisible enemy as a virus.  Death is inevitable for us all.

The likelihood of a person dying from a COVID-19 infection depends upon his or her health, particularly the condition of their immune system and respiratory system.  By analogy, violent wind passing through a forest usually does not equally damage and fell all the trees.  The older trees with weakened roots and trunks due to prior storm or lightning damage, internal infection, or decay, are most likely to be toppled or otherwise damaged. 

Like the wind passing through a forest, every pandemic operates by natural selection to cause greater mortality among those predisposed to the disease because of their age, genetic deficiencies, nutritional deficiencies, prior accidental injuries, or history of prior moral choices that had promoted or diminished physical and emotional health.  Some ethnic minorities experience higher mortality due to a history of discrimination and unfortunate moral choices that lead to disrupted family structure, poor education, and lack of spiritual development. 

Considering that death is inevitable and that any human population includes a wide range of susceptibility to, in this case, COVID-19, the question should be as follows: “In an attempt to protect as many people as possible from COVID-19 infection, how strict can a policy of social isolation be without weakening the entire population by causing socioeconomic disruption and physical-emotional effects that lead to increased addiction, crime, and deaths?

The table above reveals the seemingly inevitable high mortality due to influenza during most years, and particularly from the Swine Flu (H1N1) in 2009-2010.  Although Swine Flu caused a much higher case load of infections and hospitalizations than COVID-19 has to date, the response to the threat of Swine Flu did not include imposed social isolation leading over 22 million jobless claims (to date).

As of this writing, it is clear that President Trump and his team, and the nation’s governors need much discernment as they establish policy that limits deaths from COVID-19 infections without increasing deaths indirectly resulting from social isolation and disruption of our economy.

Informed Discernment
Difficult times test our faith.  We need to be informed of both current events and grounded in God’s Word.  These two disciplines can help us to exercise what I will call “informed discernment” to make wise decisions.  When I was employed by the USDA-Agricultural Research Service, my laboratory chief would say, “You will always make the best decisions from the point of maximum information.”  Now, I will add, “having the best quality information.”  Here are some areas needing our discernment as American citizens in regard to policies on COVID-19:

(a)  News sources should report events with objectivity.  They should separate commentary from objective reporting of the news.  With the rapidity of news cycles, good news analysis includes timelines of unfolding events—e.g. the decisions and actions toward COVID-19 from December, 2019 to the present.  Who knew what, and said what, and when?  How have opinions changed?  Who was correct from the beginning, even when receiving opposition.

(b)  Scientific data and statistics:  I have already written of the importance of “good science.”

(c)  Responsible parties behind the COVID-19 pandemic need to be identified.  Why did the World Health Organization (WHO) and Chinese Communist leadership fail to lead with information that might have avoided the pandemic?  Some are recommending a stiff economic retribution for China.  But we need to consider how any penalty aimed at the tyrannical Chinese Communist leaders will indirectly affect the innocent Chinese people.

(d)  Scriptural ethics and understanding of the need to protect our 1^st Amendment right to privacy in any strategy to defeat the virus. For example, should personal smartphone tracking be used to track the spread of COVID-91?

(e)  Worship services been altered by social distancing policies. What are we learning from alternative approaches to “corporate worship” that can positively affect our worship afterwards?  The same is true of how we educate, how we do health care, and how we maintain our personal health. (e.g. preventive medicine).

(f)  Our view of death, pain, and suffering (physical and emotional) needs to be brought under the authority and insights of God’s Word.  For example, Jesus said, In the world, you will have trouble, but be of good cheer.  I have overcome the world (John 16: 33).  In 2 Corinthians 4, the Apostle Paul wonderfully addresses the realities of the present world and the promise of Eternal Life:
  i.    Ruler of this world (Satan) has blinded us (1 Corinthians 4: 3-4).
  ii.   Christ-followers are to be light and salt (v. 5-7).
  iii.  Christ-followers will suffer affliction (v. 8-15; Luke 21: 12-13).
  iv.  But we do not lose heart for very good reason (v. 16-18).
Yet in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us (Romans 8: 37).

Intercession in Prayer
If the foundations are destroyed,
What can the righteous do?”
The LORD is in His holy temple; the LORD’S throne is in heaven… - Psalm 11: 3-4a

Historically, during times of trouble, men and women of faith have prayed to God on behalf of their own personal sin and the sin of their nation.  Here are several examples from God’s Word:  Psalm 51, Psalm 130, and Isaiah 6: 1-7 involve individual repentance; Daniel 9: 1-19 which is Daniel’s intercessory prayer for his nation; and the Apostle John’s call to repentance in 1 John 1: 5-10.

How should we pray?  Here are some prayer promptings that Abby and I are using, and that I have been using with a virtual prayer “meeting” with several men of our church:
(a)  Churches and their Pastors as they lead efforts to proclaim Truth and maintain the local body. 
(b)  People – that their hearts will be open to God’s Word, active in ministering to the needy.
(c)  Missionaries—to powerfully present the Gospel during times of opportunity
(d)  Government leaders— for humble submission to God’s wisdom in important decisions
(e)  Medical professionals— for renewed stamina, wisdom, professionalism, and compassion
(f)   Personal opportunities to assist materially, emotionally, and spiritually in this unique period.

What Do You Think?
If you’d like to leave a question or comment, please use the “Comment” link below.  Or, you may contact me at silviusj@cedarville.edu.