Question the Data

This Wuhan Coronavirus or Covid-19 has numbers that reminds me of the video of the BP oil leaking into the ocean that was on television everyday. As people kept seeing the BP oil leak into the ocean, people got more and more fearful of what was going to happen to the Gulf Coast. There was legislation passed to compensate businesses for their losses due to the BP oil leak and the damage from it. What ended up happening? It became a money grab by a bunch of crooks claiming that they lost their businesses due to the BP oil spill and come to find out, a lot of these people were just out and out stealing money. Do you even remember the effect of the BP oil spill? The truth is that it did not have the effect that the television news and the doomsayers said it would. A lesson for today no less.

So, here we are with this Coronavirus. The massive legislation has already passed and supposedly will be passed out to worthy businesses and people. However, I am sure that there will be all kinds of abuse by unscrupulous bad actors. There always is in situations like this. I suspect that the truth will turn out the same as the BP oil spill. It will not be as bad as the modelers, the health experts and the doomsayers on television tells us everyday.

Let me point out something to think critically about. According to Wikipedia, the U.S. death rate in 2018 was 8.7%. Also, according to the Johns Hopkins Coronavirus map (equivalent of yesterday's BP oil spill video) that changes by the minute, the U.S. has a death rate of 2.55% as of this minute. (4/3/20: 1:26 pm) However, when you look at the death rate for Italy, Spain and other countries hard hit by this Coronavirus, you will see a death rate around 10 - 11%. We keep hearing from the medical experts that most of the people dying in all countries have "underlying health conditions." So, this begs the question..."What percentage of the people dying are 100% related to Coronavirus and only Coronavirus?" These medical experts keep repeating the phrase "underlying health conditions." Therefore, an easy conclusion would be that of the 2.55% U.S. death rate, then a large portion of those are related to "underlying health conditions." Further critical thinking would say that a much smaller percentage is actually 100% related to Coronavirus, probably 10% - 20% of the 2.55% figure. An inescapable conclusion then is that the death rate in the U.S. to Coronavirus is primarily related to those people with underlying health conditions (80% - 90%). If we were to see the age breakdown instead of just one number (all deaths), we would see more deaths at older ages. Some of these numbers have leaked out of Italy, but for some reason are not being shared here in the U.S.

This all brings me back to that 8.7% U.S. death rate. If underlying health conditions are a major contributor to that 2.55% death rate, then this means that it is probably safe to say that our U.S. death rate will climb to around that same Italy and other countries. The death rate in the U.S. would be 2.55% plus 8.7% on the low side, or 11.22%. Assuming the modelers worst case scenario on the high side would be adding the 8.7% and the 10 - 11% (Italy figure) for a total of 18.7 - 19.7% U.S. death rate. However, would this really be accurate? I for one do not think so. Let me explain why.

You have to assume that these people with underlying health conditions are actually part of that normal 8.7% death rate, but things got sped up a little due to the Coronavirus. These modelers (garbage in and garbage out) are predicting doom and gloom to cover their rear ends. They will always err on the side of worst case scenario, then when it doesn't materialize, they will all breathe a sigh of relief. My financial plans are worthless if the data going into them is wrong. The same is true for these modelers and their protections. It is garbage in, garbage out.

This all begs a host of questions.

• Why are we shutting down our economy based on these health experts, if the reality is that the majority of the deaths are people with underlying health conditions? 
• Further, if people with underlying health conditions are most of the 2.55% figure, then even if we assume a worst case scenario figure of 10 - 11% (Italy like) of people who get the disease, then how much higher will this really be above our normal 8.7% U.S. death rate? I believe these figures bleed over each other and will never get to 18.7 - 19.7% death rate of people who contract the Coronavirus. That's not going to happen, because of the efforts we have already taken.
• Why are we relying on these behind-the-scenes "modelers" in the first place? We need to question everything and be skeptical of data models.
• If the actual death rate of Coronavirus is a small percentage of 2.55%, then this is easily measurable. The risk for healthy people is a range of 0.255 - .051% (10 - 20% of the 2.55% figure). This is the quantifiable risk - 0.255% - 0.51% to healthy people. It is more dangerous to drive your car than this figure.
• Even assuming the worst case scenario, if the U.S. death rate jumped to 10% (Italy figure), then that would still mean that the majority of deaths would still be attributed to those "underlying health conditions." Therefore,  assuming 10 - 20% of that 10% death rate would mean that the effect of Coronavirus killing people would be 1 - 2%. Eureka! We are killing the economy for a 1 - 2% risk to healthy people. Seriously? This is stupid.

Here is the real problem. The hospitals are woefully unprepared. We are buying time during the month of April to ramp up the health care system. I think the President is going to side with the American people and get us back to work in May. Let's pray for a good outcome better than the one we have right now. The actual death rate numbers do not and will not justify killing the economy for a 1 - 2% risk of healthy people. As Americans, we take risks all the time. We can afford this risk. Let people with underlying health conditions adjust their lives to the risk, but put the rest of the healthy people back to work. Sooner, rather than later.