Back in March, NPR put out a story that assured us that increased testing would reveal more U.S. COVID-19 cases. I mean, it seems completely logical, doesn't it? Better detection means more detection. So when Trump and Pence suggested that part of the reason for the spike in cases recently was the surge in testing, the media is outraged.
So am I. Outraged that we're being given a one-size-fits-all report. "The numbers are up" is a data point without qualification. Are deaths or death rates up? Are symptoms up? Is the "at-risk" group changing? At least two Dallas Cowboys players have tested positive. Are they sick? Or are they among the majority of COVID recipients who are without symptoms? Are the cases up because more places are opening or are they up because of better testing? I'm not saying ... because we don't know. We're looking at numbers and drawing faulty "cause and effect" conclusions without scientific fact. (Example: If you look at the chart for daily cases for this virus, you find a spike every 7 days. Odd, isn't it? Well, that's not because Fridays were bad days for COVID; it's because Friday's were reporting days. Basing "a spike in COVID" on those numbers would be misleading.)
I don't think Americans understand PPE. The term refers to Personal Protective Equipment. A lot of careers use it. Depending on the environment, there are different requirements. In the case of viruses, PPE would include a mask that can block the virus from entering the airways, protective clothing that would allow you to remove it after exposure without exposing yourself to it, safety glasses or face shield to protect the rest of your face, probably a hair covering to keep it out of your hair, and gloves to keep the virus you come in contact with from coming in contact with your skin. It is Personal Protective Equipment. But we have face masks to protect others and gloves that protect no one. Companies advertise "no-touch" services as if it exists. (The minute a person puts the product in a box, that box has been touched and the next person to touch it will come in contact with whatever that handler had. Gloves pass it on, not block it. Gloves, remember, simply keep the wearer's hands from being exposed.) So we panic and we tear about trying to ensure that we all have PPE while we fail to grasp its purpose or its capabilities and we feel so much better ... falsely.
This disease is bad. It needs to be handled. If you want to shut it down, it's easy. Everyone stay home. No one in contact with anyone. Wait two weeks; four if you want to be completely safe. End of story. Oh, well, some won't survive. No food, no essential services, that sort of thing, but that wasn't the question, was it? Or we can "middle ground" it and make most people stay home, destroy a world economy, kill people by suicide and health problems brought about by stress, panic, loss of work, income, etc. and call that a "better alternative." Or we could actually target COVID. Test, actually isolate, and don't penalize the rest of the world for being healthy. That might result in some deaths as well (although the "at risk" group remains the same in all cases), but it doesn't kill the innocent -- our current plan -- with the sick. "Oh, you just want everything opened up." No, that's not what I said. At no point did I list that as an option. But haters are going to hate and panickers are going to panic and there is surely an element of "whatever it takes to discredit Trump and injure America" in there, too. So for reasons that elude me we continue down a failing and debilitating path, angry that anyone would question our "settled science" and unconcerned about the death in our wake. It seems there is a worse "virus" here than COVID. It is narrow-minded obstinance -- "My way or the highway."
3 comments:
It wouldn't hurt if they pick a story and stick with it, either, though I fear they would pick the most alarming and fear-inducing story to "play it safe".
As to the "spikes", it is true. They are looking only at the new cases, not in context with how many more are tested nor other factors that can explain the spike. But when put against the total tested, we're seeing annual flu-like numbers and percentages. THAT just won't do!
It seems like "We're testing more, so we're detecting more" is unavoidable and reasonable. It looks the only reason that is considered "outrageous" is because Trump suggested it, too.
I completely agree that the "new" cases number without context of how much new testing and how severe the cases are is almost worthless at best, and misleading at worst.
I also don't see how we can ignore the massive errors made by the "experts" and the inconsistency in how large crowds are treated.
Post a Comment