Reader Bruce Hall declares:
When adjusting for population, the number of new infections in Europe has now overtaken those in the United States, with Europe reporting 231 new Covid-19 cases per 1 million people, based on a seven-day average, compared with 177 new Covid-19 cases per 1 million people in the U.S. Overall, Europe, which includes 27 European Union countries and the U.K., is seeing nearly 120,000 new cases per day, Johns Hopkins data shows. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/20/covid-is-accelerating-across-the-globe-as-us-and-europe-head-into-flu-season.html
I think it useful to consider (1) cumulatives, and (2) undercounting given undertesting. Both point are relevant to this graph:
Given the problems the US has getting sufficient testing in place (a problem I do not believe is being resolved), one has to take cases with a grain of salt. My untutored view is that we probably undercount relative to the European Union.
In countering “what-about-ism”, I think it useful to take a look at cumulative fatality rates per capita.
New fatalities rates per capita are now higher than in the US, but I am confident that the US, under Mr. Trump’s direction, can catch up.
Apparently the virus in Europe is a new mutation that came out of Spain in June but has not gotten to the US yet noticeably. It seems to be both more contagious and deadlier than the Covid-19 still dominant in the US.
This has been known for some time now, but I see very little reporting on it in the US media.
Not to worry. Just take a little more hydroxychloroquine and everything will be fine. After all, it’s no worse than the flu and only affects people in blue state nursing homes.
And it will all wash away on November 4. MAGA!
2slugs, I am surprised to find you bringing up HCQ and it s variant treatments protocols. The latest count of studies re: its effectiveness is: 160 HCQ studies
95 peer reviewed. From that ole nemesis of liberal thought: https://c19study.com/ They calculate the difference is: Sum of the studies results in ↓64% fewer deaths for those where it is used in early treatment and Late treatment ↓26%.
Liberals, especially Western liberals, know so much more than those poor STOOPID residents of the remaining world, but that sure liberal knowledge has cost 578,011 more lives when compared to those countries which accept its use.
So righteous and so wrong, because of TDS. Follow the science. Please.
CoRev You don’t learn. Maybe it’s that failing old man memory. As has been pointed out to you several times, that’s a fake website that manufactured fake studies and misreported the results of many legitimate studies. Do your own research and check into who is behind that website along with its sister website. You’re obviously too stupid to vote, so please stay home. It will also be healthier for you.
2slugs, repeating the same lie only points to your own ignorance and bias. For a fake site it lists the same studies as the ?official? sites.
I distinctly remember your unsupported claims from the previous discussion and you continue to make unsupported claims.
Strangely there is at least one study shown that the study author and the site managers disagree, but it is obvious you never read the study. The conclusions are not supported by the study data. Had you read the study instead of blindly following the complaints supporting your own bias you would have realized that simple conclusion. Even the site authors note the differing opinion.
You’d think an arrogantly biased person would at least do due diligence. Not you evidently.
CoRev I actually read some of the studies that were supposed to show a positive HCQ response. The website owners lied and misrepresented what those studies actually said. I also provided you with an example from the authors of a Univ of Minnesota study that said the website misrepresented their conclusions.
The owners of that website have a long history of faking studies. Like I said, you should do a little research about the owner of that website and its sister site. The owner is not someone you would want to trust. With a little googling you will find a lot of study authors who have complained about that site misrepresenting their findings. You’re a sucker who’s been played.
2slugs, repeating unsupported claims adds nothing but does identify the bias. Yes, you did provide a referenced to the now infamous Boulware study, which is the study I concluded you did NOT READ. I also noted that there was a single study noted and disputed on the web site. Because you failed to read the web and the study you never realized that this was that singular study.
Had you read either you might have noted this: “COVID-19 cases are reduced by [49%, 29%, 16%] respectively when taken within ~[70, 94, 118] hours of exposure (including shipping delay). The treatment delay-response relationship is significant at p=0.002. PEP delayed treatment RCT.
Currently this is the only study where we have evaluated the result as positive while the authors indicate it is negative. We provide a detailed explanation of why the results presented here are positive [1]. Note that author comments also differ from the published conclusion.” I can only lead you to evidence. I can not make you read and especially accept it. https://c19study.com/boulware.html
You’re a sucker who’s been played, and too biased, arrogant and ignorant to accept and understand how badly you’ve been played. Show us your references!
corev, did you notice that donald did NOT take hcq when he acquired the trump virus? ever wonder why? the void is especially notable considering how much trump and his followers doubled down on the effectiveness and legitimacy of hcq. but when donald really needed treatment, he went with medicines like remdesivir and dexamethasone. he was also approximately the 10th person outside of clinical trials to receive an experimental drug from regeneron. and yet no hcq? why risk an experimental drug when the miracle cure is available? curious, isn’t it?
Baffled, another ignorant comment. Read the study results or at least read my comment about when it is most effective. Just for you: “Sum of the studies results in ↓64% fewer deaths for those where it is used in early treatment and Late treatment ↓26%. ”
The rest of the world is laughing at the US liberal mind.
corev, apparently trump did not read your report either. because he did NOT follow your advice to treat his covid infection. as usual, you simply tried to steer the discussion elsewhere. but even trump and his doctors do not believe hcq is a good treatment for covid infection. trump is a con man, and he found his mark.
CoRev keeps touting some bogus web site that claims HCQ is an effective treatment against COVID-19 but it seems the web site has a habit of lying about what the actual studies it relies on really said. Like you, I have refused to follow the rants of CoRev as he often lies and then goes on forever with his dishonest rants. 2slug does the hard work of taking down this dishonest troll. In their latest CoRev brings up the Boulware study which he claims 2slug has not read. I have not either but I do recall this:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hydroxychloroquine-coronavirus-prevention-covid-19-study/#:~:text=Boulware%27s%20study%20involved%20821%20people%20in%20the%20United,full%20protective%20gear.%20Coronavirus%3A%20The%20Race%20To%20Respond
A malaria drug President Donald Trump took to try to prevent COVID-19 proved ineffective for that in the first large, high-quality study to test it in people in close contact with someone with the disease. Results published Wednesday by the New England Journal of Medicine show that hydroxychloroquine was no better than placebo pills at preventing illness from the coronavirus. The drug did not seem to cause serious harm, though — about 40% on it had side effects, mostly mild stomach problems. “We were disappointed. We would have liked for this to work,” said the study leader, Dr. David Boulware, an infectious disease specialist at the University of Minnesota. “But our objective was to answer the question and to conduct a high-quality study,” because the evidence on the drug so far has been inconclusive, he said.
This is from early June. In Dr. Boulware’s own words, his research showed no benefit from taking HCQ. And this is what CoRev touts as one of the studies that does show it works? The man is that dishonest.
I don’t think that the Spanish variant is more infectious or leads to more mortality than other circulating strains. I did not see anything in the pre-print that leads one to conclude this. There is more phylogenetic research on SARS-CoV-2 than perhaps any other virus. Researchers are establishing databanks of genome data. The recent White House outbreak that led to infections in two NY Times reporters has been analyzed by scientists and the Hutch and Univ of Washington. It’s important to note that many mutations can occur in the virus and the great majority have no impact on it’s behavior.
alan is correct. in fact, it is more likely that a mutation inhibits spread and mortality rather than increases it. from a probability perspective, most changes are simply benign. the clusters of geographically dominant strains probably is more a result of super spreader events, travel and the exponential spread capability of the virus, especially emerging from areas that had previously limited the spread of the virus for a few months. i think if you really do get a mutation that increases infection or mortality, it will stand out in the data very clearly. that does not seem to be the case today.
Alan,
I consider you to be the best informed person here regularly commenting on the pandemic, so I do not wish to argue you with you too much. However, I have looked at the pre-print you are citing as well as a flood of recent reports coming out of Europe in the last few days, including one from the Tech Times two days ago.
What the pre-print basically says is that we do not yet have enough data to say too much about this new mutation, apparently known offiically as 20A.EU1. We especially do not know about its lethality. But it has been spreading very rapidly in several nations, with those including the ones that are currently having more new cases than the US according Menzie. The question then becomes why. There is a debate, with one view being that indeed it is more infectious, with the really recent Tech Times report supporting that, although it is probably too soone to really know. The alternative view is that it was spread by tourists coming out of superspreader events in northeastern Spain, presumably Catalonia, with it having first appeared among farmworkers.
It is now predominant in several nations with the most rapidly spiking numbers of cases, with 90% of those in UK having it, with British tourists famous for running to Spain at the end of the summer a lot, 70% in Switzerland, 60% in Ireland, and about 40% in France, Netherlands, Norway, and Latvia, with 12 other nations now having it, including Hong Kong and New Zealand.
Again, you are right that there is not yet data sufficient to say it is deadlier, and this rapid spread may be a fluke due to the end of the tourist season, but at a minimum it may well be more infectious. Also, I am sure it will come to the US, sooner or later.
Oh, in Spain itself it is 80% of cases, perhaps showing the strength of regionalism and Caltalan separatism that it has not completely taken over all of Spain yet despite being first observed there in June.
Thinking about this a bit more, indeed we shall probably not know a lot on this 20A.EU1 for some time longer, but it strikes me that the tourist argument about why it looks like the rate of infections is rising so rapidly in nations where this new mutation is highly prevalent has a problem. Tourism explains how it got so rapidly from Spain to a bunch of other nations. But it does not explain why we are seeing such rapid increases in new infections in such nations as UK, Spain, and France. Looks to me like there is a tentative case for this new mutation to indeed be more infectious, if not necessarily more fatal, although on the latter we shall have to wait and see.
But I think there is reason for people in the US to be concerned about this new version of the virus. It will get here, sooner or later, and at a minimum it does not look better than the one currently predominant here. Maybe we shall have some better policies for containing it when it does get here.
This is a real question. Do viruses like SARS-CoV-2 mutate faster as the number of new infections increases? In other words, would slowing the spread of the virus also reduce the rate at which it is likely to mutate? Like I said, this is a real question.
Phenotype is probably not the correct word here. There is a variant of the genotype, perhaps. But the virus and its behavior has not really changed.
@ 2slugbaits
“Viruses that encode their genome in RNA, such as SARS-CoV-2, HIV and influenza, tend to pick up mutations quickly as they are copied inside their hosts, because enzymes that copy RNA are prone to making errors. After the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) virus began circulating in humans, for instance, it developed a kind of mutation called a deletion that might have slowed its spread4.
But sequencing data suggest that coronaviruses change more slowly than most other RNA viruses, probably because of a ‘proofreading’ enzyme that corrects potentially fatal copying mistakes. A typical SARS-CoV-2 virus accumulates only two single-letter mutations per month in its genome — a rate of change about half that of influenza and one-quarter that of HIV, says Emma Hodcroft, a molecular epidemiologist at the University of Basel, Switzerland.
Other genome data have emphasized this stability — more than 90,000 isolates have been sequenced and made public (see http://www.gisaid.org). Two SARS-CoV-2 viruses collected from anywhere in the world differ by an average of just 10 RNA letters out of 29,903, says Lucy Van Dorp, a computational geneticist at University College London, who is tracking the differences for signs that they confer an evolutionary advantage.
Despite the virus’s sluggish mutation rate, researchers have catalogued more than 12,000 mutations in SARS-CoV-2 genomes. But scientists can spot mutations faster than they can make sense of them. Many mutations will have no consequence for the virus’s ability to spread or cause disease, because they do not alter the shape of a protein, whereas those mutations that do change proteins are more likely to harm the virus than improve it (see ‘A catalogue of coronavirus mutations’). “It’s much easier to break something than it is to fix it,” says Hodcroft, who is part of Nextstrain, an effort to analyse SARS-CoV-2 genomes in real time.”
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02544-6
Also this. Especially this 2nd paper,, I don’t pretend to understand anything more than a very surface view of this, but though it might be helpful in answering 2slugbaits question or any onlookers wondering the same thing as 2slugbaits:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/mutation-rate
More stuff here, I think in the general train of thought of 2slugbaits Question. Hopefully it is helpful to someone:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/mutation-rate
My guess here and it is only a very very UNeducated guess, is that the rate makes no difference as far as a mutation popping up, only in the since of an Olympics track running event, in which the rate/speed of the runner’s legs gets him to “the finish line” (“finish line” reading here as a new dangerous mutation) faster, but the speed/rate of his legs moving (transmission rate), wouldn’t cause him to get a mutation anytime before he crossed that finish line. In other words, it’s other factors involved than transmission itself, and there’s probably some “increment” or “segment” of an absolute number of transmissions where the dangerous mutation would be likely to happen. If that paragraph makes any sense. I know what I am trying to say, but it’s hard to convey in words.
*in the sense of an Olympic track running event
“Apparently the virus in Europe is a new mutation that came out of Spain in June but has not gotten to the US yet noticeably.”
There is no evidence that we have a new phenotype in Europe. The infection fatality rate is still the same.
U.,
You are at least half wrong. There is definitely a new phenotype in Europe. What is unknown especially are fatality stats. Way too soon to make a statement like you just di about infection fatality rate.
Look, infection behaviour of the virus is tested in cell culture, if the phenotype were different, we would likely have heard it.
And mortality of ICU cases is well known.
U.,
Could not find numbers for many European nations, but death rates in UK, Belgium, Germany, and Italy all moving up more rapidly than in the US, although another reason this may be happening given tourist season long past is many of these nations colder than much of US with people going inside. But it looks like both cases and death rates are rising more rapidly in Europe than in US right now, with some of this especially noticeable in those with the new mutation coming to dominate.
Do you have data on deaths in ICUs? I have not seen any.
U.,
Even if ICU fatality rates are the same, if number of cases rises due to more infections this will lead to more deaths.
As it is, we still do not have enough data to really tell, but there is at least some evidence that the new mutation may have some higher degree of contagiousness, although if it does probably not by a whole lot.
Gee Brucie used to say cases don’t count – only deaths do. So why is he writing this now? Oh yea – daily deaths in the US are rising. So Kelly Anne Conway has ordered him not to mention deaths anymore. Now Don Jr. is allowed to but only by citing his reliable sources at his IG account.
Of course the real point was raised by 2slug:
‘What’s happening in Europe is what happens when countries abandon their earlier successful efforts to hold down the pandemic and choose to adopt the very policies that you’ve been recommending; viz., relaxing restrictions. The EU countries that are currently having the biggest problems are the very countries that decided to relax restrictions.’
Take a bow Bruce – your fellow idiots following your stupid advice has been a boon to this virus.
https://newseu.cgtn.com/news/2020-11-02/What-are-mutated-strains-of-COVID-19-and-are-they-important–V4tFNb82pq/index.html
November 2, 2020
What are mutated strains of COVID-19 and are they important?
By Arij Limam
Scientists and researchers in Europe are discovering new mutated strains or variants of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, and tracking their increasing spread across the continent. *
But what are mutations and do they really matter?
The term ‘mutation’ may invoke fear of a freakish transition, thanks in part to science fiction films, but when it comes to viruses it is a very natural occurrence and generally is not a huge deal.
Put simply, a mutation is a change in the virus’s genome, the set of genetic instructions that have all the information the virus needs to function. When the virus makes contact with a host and starts to replicate, this set of instructions is copied, but mistakes can happen during this process.
Depending on where in the genome the errors happen, they can have a negative or positive impact on the virus’s ability to survive and replicate. Or, as is the case the majority of the time, they may have no impact at all.
The new coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2, is no exception. It is an RNA virus, which is more prone to changes and mutations compared with DNA viruses like smallpox. So, as it has been passing from person to person over the past months, it has been, and continues to be, mutating, although scientists say this has been happening at a very slow pace.
“It’s really important to keep in mind that most of these mutations do not affect the virus at all,” molecular epidemiologist, Emma Hodcroft, told CGTN Europe.
“It’s actually best to think of them a little bit like typos. They happen because the virus replicates so often, but they don’t affect the overall message of the virus. But what that does mean is that when we see two viruses that share a lot of the same mutations, we know that they’re closely related,” she explained.
The new 20A.EU1 strain from Spain
Different variants of the SARS-CoV-2 virus have been found by scientists around the world since it was first identified at the start of the year. While the level of potential danger from these strains varied, most were not noteworthy.
Most recently, a scientific study led by the University of Basel’s Emma Hodcroft, identified a new strain of the virus which originated in the fruit picking regions of northern Spain, which has since spread far and wide across Europe.
The scientists are calling it the 20A.EU1 strain.
“What we spotted here was we were looking at our analysis of SARS-CoV-2 actually in Switzerland, where I’m based, and I noticed a cluster of Swiss sequences that seemed to be quite intriguing, they had expanded recently in time,” Hodcroft said.
“The more I looked into these, though, I realized this was not just in Swiss sequences, it actually involved a lot of countries in Europe, and we realized the earliest sequences came from Spain. And so this is when we realized that it was worth investigating this variant further,” she added.
However, despite this variant of the virus spreading to 12 countries in Europe, that the researchers know of, and accounting for more than 80 percent of all coronavirus cases both in Spain and in the UK, the scientists don’t believe the mutation itself is to blame.
“It’s really important to note that we don’t actually have any evidence that the mutation itself has done something like increase the transmissibility of the virus or made it more dangerous. In fact, what we really think has happened is that it was travel over the summer that’s made the difference here,” Hodcroft explained.
Researchers say that the reason for the quick spread of this strain of the virus across Europe and potentially compounding the second surge of COVID-19 cases in several countries, is mostly due to relaxed travel restrictions over the summer and ineffective track and trace programs.
They highlight the need for these types of studies in informing policy and evaluating how well restrictions and guidelines work, in order to be able to contain the virus effectively.
Scientists in Europe and around the world are tracking mutations in SARS-CoV-2 as it spreads over time and analyzing the effects of these variants. /CGTN Europe
An ‘important gap’ in our knowledge ….
* https://newseu.cgtn.com/news/2020-10-31/Spread-of-COVID-19-strain-traced-from-Spain-across-Europe-V2yNOAevsI/index.html
November 1, 2020
Coronavirus
US
Cases ( 9,473,911)
Deaths ( 236,471)
India
Cases ( 8,229,322)
Deaths ( 122,642)
France
Cases ( 1,413,915)
Deaths ( 37,019)
UK
Cases ( 1,034,914)
Deaths ( 46,717)
Mexico
Cases ( 924,962)
Deaths ( 91,753)
Germany
Cases ( 544,346)
Deaths ( 10,622)
Canada
Cases ( 236,841)
Deaths ( 10,179)
China
Cases ( 85,997)
Deaths ( 4,634)
November 1, 2020
Coronavirus (Deaths per million)
US ( 713)
Mexico ( 709)
UK ( 687)
France ( 567)
Canada ( 269)
Germany ( 126)
India ( 89)
China ( 3)
Notice the ratios of deaths to coronavirus cases are 9.9%, 4.5% and 2.6% for Mexico, the United Kingdom and France respectively. These ratios are high, but have been significantly higher, while falling recently as new cases are recorded and treatment is increasingly effective.
November 1, 2020
Coronavirus (Deaths per million)
Belgium ( 1,002)
Spain ( 767)
US ( 713)
Mexico ( 709)
UK ( 687)
Italy ( 642)
Sweden ( 587)
France ( 567)
Netherlands ( 434)
Ireland ( 386)
Canada ( 269)
Switzerland ( 268)
Luxembourg ( 254)
Portugal ( 250)
Germany ( 126)
Austria ( 125)
Denmark ( 125)
India ( 89)
Finland ( 65)
Greece ( 61)
Norway ( 52)
Australia ( 35)
Japan ( 14)
Korea ( 9)
China ( 3)
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/02/nyregion/coronavirus-orange-county-new-york.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage
This is disappointing (referring to the NYT story in my link). This kind of behavior is what one expects from uneducated communities. Not from people who should know better than to deal in LIES.
Coming soon to a theater near you…
Through this whole pandemic people have posted stuff like this – citing ‘elsewhere’ as evidence of something or other, saying that cases are rising but not death rates, in general misinterpreting early evidence as the final score.
Then when reality catches up, when case loads rise in “Trumpland”, when death rates rise, when the field hospitals fill up, those posters just disappear.
We’re turning the corner, I tell ya… the problem is that around the corner is a world of hurt.
These two analyses address different issues. Bruce is speaking of new cases on a seven day moving average basis, if I read him correctly. Menzie is speaking of cumulative cases. Both assertions are true, to the best of my knowledge. And they may be related.
Europe saw cases fall to very low levels during the summer, and this may have induced a complacency which the US, in the midst of a major outbreak, did not see to such an extent. Therefore, the fall surge surge may have caught Europe off guard — it came with shocking speed. Much of the US, meanwhile, was grinding through with masks and social distancing, and that may have slowed the spread in the last month.
Here are the new cases on a seven day moving average basis, normalized to a US population. (For example, if France had the same population as the US, its 7 dma would be 243,000 cases.)
France 243,000
Germany 61,000
Italy 144000
UK 115,000
USA 81,600
The US case count, although it continues to grow steadily, has not shown the explosive growth seen in much of Europe. Not yet, at least. Bruce is, to the best of my knowledge, correct in his assertion.
https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/publications-data/download-todays-data-geographic-distribution-covid-19-cases-worldwide
Steven Kopits: I didn’t write that Bruce Hall was incorrect on cases/population. I did write that context was important, particularly with US undertesting. Citing numbers without context and/or understanding of what goes in the numbers is what they tell social scientists what *not* to do.
Bruce did not qualify his statement, at least not as quoted by you. His statement was purely descriptive. It is you who are citing his quote without context, and this creates the impression of bias.
By your reasoning a sentence clause should have been inserted:
” While Bruce factually correct in his assertion, it useful to consider (1) cumulatives, and (2) undercounting given undertesting. Both points are relevant to this graph:”
Context for the goose is context for the gander.
Steven Kopits: Well, you can write that on your blog; as I’ve stated previously, your idea of what should be written on my blog is not what my idea is.
I beg to differ. What happens on your blog affects a broader public’s perception of the role and legitimacy of both economics and economists.
That you tolerate ad hominem attacks reflects poorly not only on you, but on the profession more broadly. It implies that all that hard math in economics is just a bullshit veneer for irredeemable ideological bias. Doing the hard work is pointless because the game is rigged.
I am frankly appalled at the reckless manner in which so many professionals — not least on the right — have squandered their integrity and credibility. I don’t know that anyone working for Trump survived unscathed. (Honestly, I could not bring myself to watch the Harris – Pence debate for just this reason.) But it is no less true on the left, and I could argue that you are no minor offender.
It is easy to feel embattled and small, and therefore given license to fight the partisan fight. But a full professor, a Harvard PhD, a frequent public contributor and recognized blogger — you are not just another guy to many, many people. You set a standard and influence beliefs about both the field and profession. People who want to be economists or are interested in the profession and its practitioners — virtually all of them will show up on Econbrowser at some point in time. And they will form an impression not only of the topic du jour, but of the way the topic is handled and the quality of the dialogue accompanying it: “Oh, so that’s what economics is about.”
If I’m taking it out on you, I am far, far more appalled with Republicans, including people I consider friends. They have reduced conservatism to an unchecked willingness to lie; to condone or endorse cheap, retail cruelty; and to whore their principles for favor at court. We will see how the election turns out today, but they will have discredited conservatism for years, perhaps a generation to come.
In any sport, including politics, one can bend the rules and take a partisan slant. For example, you did not lie with respect to Bruce’s quote. Everything you wrote is factually correct. Still, it drew a flag. A ref could call it , but it was still within accepted play — in the NFL they might refer to it as a ‘ticky-tack’ call. But there are limits. Some behaviors cannot — and must not — be condoned, or social order will disintegrate. The game itself will be undermined. (Here’s a nice example, if we are to use the NFL: https://www.foxsports.com/nfl/video/1814360131663 That was good for a two game suspension.)
So, to return to the key point: You are not some isolated individual living in a remote cabin in the woods with no internet. What you say — and how you say it — has wider repercussions in the community.
Steven Kopits: Sorry. I have no Ph.D. from Harvard (much as I would’ve liked one).
Please tabulate for me my ad hominem attacks, keeping in mind that when one ascribes stupidity or mendacity to a *viewpoint/argument*, that by definition is *not* an ad hominem attack.
steven, it takes a special person to demean the value of minority lives in puerto rico (they were old and would have died soon anyway, so don’t blame it on the hurricane) and then give menzie a lecture on integrity and credibility.
there is little value provided to the blog directly from folks like corev and bruce hall. why would you be so keen to protect folks who provide inaccurate and misleading dialogue like those folks provide? some people would compliment menzie on permitting such faux voices on the blog at all-i don’t. their only real benefit is it provides menzie, as well as some other very informed commenters here like 2slugs, a platform that others can actually learn from. folks like corev and bruce hall are not interested in an honest debate and discussion.
let me put it another way. if people refuse to stand up to the false rhetoric you get from folks like corev and bruce hall, you get EXACTLY what we saw in the first presidential debate. that was a result of conservatives refusing to call a spade a spade, and letting trump behave like a buffoon for four years with nary a harsh word from the right. quit insulting menzie, and spend your time targeting the real problem children in the room.
Steven,
Oh no! You did not get to see the fly on VP Pence’s head in real time? This truly portends the impending finale of western civilization.
Steven Kopits wrote: “That you tolerate ad hominem attacks reflects poorly not only on you, but on the profession more broadly.”
Sorry, that argument does not fly. You seem ok with the fact that people like Bruce Hall et al. lie on a regular base. If Prof. Chin wants to prevent that what you call “ad hominem attacks” he only has to kick out some people, people who do not contribute in a positve way to the quality of this blog.
Ulen –
One is certainly entitled to defend like-minded individuals. I don’t always agree with Bruce, and probably disagree more than agree lately. But I do not see from Bruce the ad hominem attacks that flow from pgl and Moses. By and large, I try to eschew that kind of behavior, the primary reason I comment rarely on Econbrowser anymore.
If you take a look, Slugs and Baffs are generally on the opposite side of the argument from me, but the arguments typically revolve around data and analytics, and are rarely personal. I have no problem with lively debate. I am all for smartest guy in the room — but not rudest guy in the room.
And I would note that I have corrected both Bruce and CoRev on this blog before, if I recall correctly.
Ah, PhD from the communists in Berkeley, eh? Still, Harvard undergrad. No small beans there. And it does not make you less influential.
Steven Kopits: Worked for pro-deregulation economists Bob Crandall and Cliff Winston at Brookings, coauthored with Peter Navarro…
Ah, yes, Barkley, the fly. I saw a photo on one of the news networks, I think. All Biblical, isn’t it? Plagues of various sorts.
But with all that, Trump is just 2% behind Biden in the popular vote. Incredible.
Baffs –
Let me once again cover the issues of PR and Maria.
The hurricane directly killed only a small number of people. The much larger number, around 1400, died of other causes well after the hurricane had passed. For example, if someone died of kidney failure six weeks later, could the coroner write “hurricane injury” as cause of death? No, that’s neither reasonable nor necessarily true. Maybe that person would have died anyway.
On the other hand, we know mortality rose in Puerto Rico after the storm. Therefore the matter is one of attribution, not causality. If two people died of heart attacks, did the hurricane cause both, either, or none? We just don’t know. We can, however, attribute a certain number of deaths using an ‘excess mortality’ approach. With this, we don’t know whom the storm killed, only that it contributed to the deaths of some of those who died after the storm.
Now, those who died were mostly either elderly, infirm or a combination of both. (Not dissimilar in many ways to the covid pandemic.) Some proportion of those would have died even in the absence of Maria. By contrast, if Puerto Rico had been populated only by, say, 24 year olds in prime health, excess mortality would have been close to zero.
I’m sorry if that makes you upset, but that’s not a matter of emotion, bias or ideology. It’s simple math. That does not constrain the sympathy I feel for those who died or for their families.
Steven Kopits: If somebody had an underlying condition (diabetes), and could’ve lived for years potentially had they had access to dialysis, but didn’t due to widespread power failures, then in your world, Maria is blameless/no causal link. Wow.
Steven,
I hate to tell you, but there actually once were Communists in the Berkeley econ dept, but they all left in the 50s when loyalt oaths were imposed by the Cal state govt. They went to the U. of Utah to found its econ dept, now probably the most radically leftist in the US. Curiously Utah did not demand loyalty oaths of faculty there back then.
As for Trump only being a few percent behind Biden in the popular vote (a gap that is continuing to widen, I understand, with Biden at > 50%, in contrast with Hillary), as I noted, Biden beat Trump in Prairie du Chien, WI, which Trump took in 2016, meaning Biden will take the White House, which now looks all but certain.
Menzie – Duly noted.
Barkley – It was a bit of a joke. And yes, it looks like Biden will pull it out. But this should not have been close.
Steven,
As you note that yours was a bit of a joke, I note that mine was showing that I am the biggest smartass in the room, if not necessarily the smartest or best informed, :-).
Further, Bruce has a point, even in context.
The US covid numbers have not exploded as they have in Europe. At present, we are increasing cases by 20-25% / week, while the cases have recently been doubling every week in Europe. At the end of a month, of course, Europe would have 8 incremental cases for every one incremental case in the US. So it’s a big difference if the compounding lasts for even a few weeks.
At this point, it does not seem to me that new US covid cases will take off as they have in Europe. Although the growth rate of new cases is increasing, it is increasing relatively slowly and has been since early October. On the the flip side, this may mean that new cases will continue to increase longer in the US.
To Baffs’ point, I think we are learning that epidemics have a large sociological component. which I certainly did not appreciate. I think it likely, or at least plausible, that the major outbreak the US suffered during the summer kept our guard up in October, when the really low numbers in Europe during the summer lulled them into a false sense of security. As a result, failure during one period can lead to success later; and early success may sow the seeds of failure later, because epidemics are occurring in a social context, not merely like a culture in a petri dish.
That seems to be one of the takeaways, to me, interesting from a behavioral point of view.
“Therefore, the fall surge surge may have caught Europe off guard — it came with shocking speed. ”
it should not have caught people off guard, and the speed should not be shocking. we have known for 10 months that this virus spreads in an exponential fashion. at this point, anybody who is shocked by the fast spread has simply been in denial of this virus for 10 months. willful ignorance will not stop the spread, no matter how dumb folks like corev and bruce hall try to play.
20A.EU1
Just some local numbers many people might not take an interest in. But I think it’s an interesting example of things that could be going on in more than one state, especially those where there aren’t mandates, or state run agencies are intentionally undercounting the numbers for window dressing purposes:
https://www.normantranscript.com/news/centers-outbreak-not-fully-shown-in-state-data/article_c4db7f16-1bcb-11eb-80ec-575498421cf2.html
https://tulsaworld.com/news/state-and-regional/govt-and-politics/state-epidemiologists-analysis-demonstrates-success-of-local-mask-ordinances/article_b7df00fa-1a57-11eb-8cdc-db8e04412c3d.html#tracking-source=home-top-story
Rural school districts are taking very small interest in enforcing basic health/science protocols, aside from mandates, so TONS of “asymptomatic” transmission of the virus is going on. I suspect there was a decent share of this during Halloween trick or treating, but since people have more control of opening their door or not, or what is allowed in their own home, I suspect it was less damaging than grade schools transmissions, but I have no objective data to back up that belief on my part. We had 8 deaths on a Sunday, which isn’t a high number generally, but is quite a high number for the Sunday number, as Republican Governor Kevin Stitt’s hand–picked staff has made an intentional habit in Oklahoma of underreporting weekend deaths. Really ALL of the deaths, but they make the extra effort to lower the numbers on weekends.