[conspire] Numbers racket

[Rick Moen]

Naturally, the guy doubled down.  I shouldn't cross-post his comment 
(which flops around taking bizarre potshots and then belly-flops into
his desired conclusion that everything/everyone should immediately
return to status quo ante, except that old folks and those with medical
vulnerabilities should sequester themselves, while everyone else 
resumes carefree virus community transmission).  So, I won't cross-post
it, but here's my second-level response:



The reason I included a direct link to CDC's study of all flu seasons
from 1976 to 2007 is so you could see CDC's data for yourself:  As I
said, 23,607 was the arithmetic mean of all of those 32 years' actual
flu death counts across the USA.  For the record, the lowest year was
1986 with 3,349 flu deaths.  The highest year was 2003 with 48,614 flu
deaths.

The current flu season is indeed likely to be unusually deadly, for a
number of reasons including a mismatch between the inactivated virus
vaccine and the predominant strains.  In light of that fact, I confess
I'm _utterly_ mystified by your confidence that CDC's current-year
projected number of flu deaths "is more accurate" than CDC's own 32-year
average of real, historical flu-death data.  That conviction of yours,
alone, would seem to require a powerful lot of explaining.

As to whether the NY State Health Department's figures qualify as "hard
data" or not, you'll have to take up your beef with them on that.
Personally, I rather suspect they know exactly what they're talking
about, but you're of course welcome to make up your own mind.

Your notion that CDC has the power to determine local reporting criteria
for COVID-19 deaths merely by declaring policy for related International
Classification of Diseases (ICD) code classifications is... I want to
say, fanciful?  Sorry, that's just not how any of the local authorities
work.

And, um, "negating [my] argument about undercounting"?  I'm sorry, but I
really don't understand how you reached that conclusion unless it
involved pretty much disregarding the process details I mentioned,
notably the key role of the grievous shortage of testing.

No, the models were not wrong.  On the evidence, the new factor is that
social distancing bent the curve, which is what the models suggested was
possible.  And that is why exponential growth abated.  Surely the causal
relationship there is obvious, isn't it?

You are correct that I didn't address your economic advocacy argument.
That was not within the scope of what drew my curiosity and impelled me
to explain why all of this is inherently, fundamentally different from
seasonal flu, contrary to your primary thesis -- i.e., to politely
explain just how badly mistaken that notion was, and some of the reasons
why.  For the rest, as I said, I didn't come to "debate" you or anyone
else.  However, you're perfectly welcome to seek that with someone else,
of course.