One of Tyler Cowen’s correspondents writes,
I expect that there are a certain set of genes which (if you have the “wrong” variants) pre-dispose you to have a severe case of COVID, another set of genes which (if you have the “wrong” variants) predispose you to have a mild case, and if you’re lucky enough to have the right variants of these you are most likely going to get a mild or asymptomatic case.
. . .It’s now mostly accepted that there are two “strains” of COVID, that the second arose in late January and contains a spike protein variant that wasn’t present in the original ancestral strain, and that this new strain (“D614G”) now represents ~97% of new isolates.
On June 1, I wrote,
We will down-rate the importance of lockdowns or track-and-trace. Instead, we will up-rate genetic differences and lifestyle differences that affect the immune system in general (take this WSJ essay as a portent). The significance of vitamin D will receive more attention. In addition, we may find that someone’s previous exposure to other viruses affects the immune response to this virus, so that the history of other viruses in a population matters. Sunlight and/or temperature may prove to be important factors affecting the severity of the virus. Finally, we may find that some of the regional variation is due to different mixes of virus strains that prevail in different areas.
Congratulations. Quite a lot of accurate predictions.
And press reports say Vitamin D sales are way up.
Going forward it will be interesting to see how top-down actions perform versus bottom-up.
Top-down actions are things like track-and-trace, mandatory mask decrees, state-enforced quarantines, lockdowns, antibody passports, and vaccine moonshot spending.
Bottom-up actions are things like supplementing with vitamin D and zinc, voluntary reduction in social contacts, spending more time outdoors when permitted, increased use of grocery delivery services and online shopping, voluntary wearing of masks when it makes sense, opening windows, buying air sanitizers with UV light, buying UVC lamps and wands, increasing frequency of use of mouthwash, and self-monitoring body temperature and blood oxygen saturation.
My priors are that the latter will be more efficacious than the former. Not seeing anything so far to suggest they need updating.
Indeed, individual choice and adaptation has probably been far more successful that those top-down (read “government imposed” measures). But government being government, and the media being the media, we have heard zip-zilch-squat on this topic and how government might foster more market innovation by relaxing institutional rules. In fact, overregulation has in some cases stifled innovation.
I should probably have included immigration control as a top down (government imposed) reaction to the virus. It might be the strongest argument for government efficacy. However, it appears to work best in island nations like New Zealand who can avoid dealing with the virus by simply becoming hermetically sealed bubbles. Eventually though the virus will find its way in and it will be the fox amongst the chickens I suppose.
Certainly, the nation-state of California (Governor Newsom’s words) by having opted out of the immigration system of the USA federal government would seem to suggest borders matter what with California hospitals being over-run with Mexicans waltzing in for treatment, but with 40+ million “migrants in need of amnesty “ or whatever the preferred epithet is these days, already running around the country, it’s pretty hard to pretend that the USA has meaningful borders. Immigration control and enforcement is simply another way of keeping the law-abiding in perpetual terrified submission, much like gun control laws and mandatory mask requirements for people in rural areas who are lucky to come within 60 meters of another person in public.
That question mark is doing a lot of lifting.
Hong Kong has had 1,552 cases of covid-19 to date. Florida has had over 287 thousand, despite much lower population density and a significant lag in arrival. For societies with the state capacity to actually do lockdowns seriously, lockdowns have been very effective. Also, lockdowns are subject to short-term human control, unlike genetic and lifestyle differences.
Wikipedia has an interesting entry on Hong Kong and covid.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_in_Hong_Kong
Instead of sending the infected back to their homes to infect other residents in their dwellings, the infected were actually isolated. So sure, score one for competent government capacity. But on the other hand, Hong Kong actually had a an anti-mask law that citizens defied. So score one for the populace too.
Wiki:
“In a study published in April 2020 in the Lancet, the authors expressed their belief that border restrictions, quarantine and isolation, social distancing, and behavioural changes such as wearing masks likely all played a part in the containment of the disease up to the end of March.
Another important success factor is the critical thinking of citizens, who now distrust the government through lessons learned from the pro-democracy protests. The Atlantic credits the swift, collective and efficient grassroots movement. Already familiar with tides of misinformation during months of protests, obsessive fact-checking is practised; after the 2003 SARS epidemic, claims about the non-transmissibility of the disease advanced by the government, the Communist Party and the WHO were also ignored by citizens, who took to wearing masks despite the anti-mask law in place.”
True. Actually doing lockdowns seriously means not just sending people home on the honor system; it means locking people down. Considering the number of deaths from the spread of covid (something like 138,000 American so far, and likely to exceed a million before Christmas), that’s probably the lesser evil.
I suspect most people read your blog because we think you’re a smart guy from whom we can learn.
Seems to me there have been several emails in the last couple months that are explicitly highlighting what you got right, but without adding any new thinking. Do you think you need to convince us?