1. In Connecticut,
Between April 22 and April 29, the state’s death total rose from 1,544 to 2,089, or 545 new deaths, according to data released by the state Department of Public Health. In that same seven-day period nursing home deaths rose from 768 to 1,249, meaning 481 among the 545 new deaths — about 88% — were nursing home patients.
We have a friend who lives in the highest-end elder-care facility in the St. Louis area. She is truly locked down. The front door is guarded, and the residents are not allowed out. They can outside into the back courtyard, but they cannot leave the facility. They can receive grocery deliveries. Meals are not eaten in the cafeteria, but instead are placed in front of the door, wrapped in plastic.
The nation’s governors are fighting on the beaches, they’re fighting in the fields, . . .and the real battle is in the nursing homes. Not our finest hour.
2. I recommend this Heying-Weinstein podcast from yesterday. I listened at 1.25x speed, because he talks slowly for my taste. From about minute 30 to minute 47 they discuss the issue of whether the virus likely originated in nature, came from a lab intentionally, or came from a lab by accident. I think they would put their money on “came from a lab by accident,” and their arguments make sense to me.
On another topic, they are not “openers.” Of course, they raise concerns about deaths from the virus, as do all “closers.” My responses are two fold. One is that it is not fair to assume that everyone will immediately revert to gathering in closed spaces and traveling as much as they were before. The other is that with so many of the deaths in nursing homes, I am not convinced that the marginal saving of life from locking down the rest of us is all that high.
One argument that they make as evolutionary biologists is that the more that we expose humans to the virus, the more chances we give the virus to evolve in ways that make it more adept at infecting people.
My problem with that argument is that it seems to me that a lockdown only stops the virus from adapting if we eradicate the virus. But the lockdowns we have are not going to eradicate the virus. Those of us who shelter in place need to eat, which means that there are people out there who need to move around to get food to us.
It seems to me that these two people for whom I have great respect have allowed themselves to fall into the “moving goal posts” fallacy. The lockdown that was originally sold as delaying the spread of the virus is now being defended as if it could eradicate the virus.
As a thought experiment, a total worldwide lockdown that is militarily enforced might be sufficient to eradicate the virus. But the partial, flatten-the-curve lockdown does nothing in the long run to deprive the virus of opportunities to explore mutation space.
3. Clare Malone and Kyle Bourassa write,
Almost uniformly across these states, people started staying home beginning on March 14. The percentage of people staying home rose rapidly over the following nine days and tended to plateau by March 23.
The Cuebiq data suggests that behavioral changes were largely driven by people making a voluntary choice to stay home rather than being forced to do so by a state-sanctioned stay-at-home order. One need only look at the behavior of residents in North Carolina and their neighbors in South Carolina: While North Carolina issued a stay-at-home order eight days before South Carolina, a stabilized number of people in both states started staying at home about a week before North Carolina’s order.
Pointer from Tyler Cowen. In mid-March, people were making decisions to restrict activity independently of what political leaders were telling them to do. I don’t think that has changed.