Isolation Report, Week #53

[You could also read the most recent report, or even start at the beginning.]

It’s been one year and two days since my personal pandemic began: I count it as having started on the Thursday when I got the message “don’t bother coming in to work; we’re sending everyone home for the foreseeable future.” That was March 12th of last year.  People all over have been “celebrating” this mark; Colbert has dubbed it his “quaranniversay.” At this time, perhaps it would be instructive to look back to our very first isolation report and see how well my thoughts have held up over the year.

• Numbers are flying around right now, and you don’t always know whether you can trust them, but by some estimates as many of 70% of the entire population (worldwide) will get it, and of those who contract it maybe 20% will have severe reactions and perhaps 2% will die.

This is a tough one.  First of all, most reported numbers don’t bother to distinguish between “getting it” and “severe reactions”; secondly, reported numbers likely don’t represent total cases; and finally, the death tolls have varied widely among different countries.  The first thing that should tell us is that how a country reacted to the pandemic really makes a huge difference.  The death tolls we’re seeing are really less about how fatal this disease is and how well equipped our healthcare systems were (or weren’t, in many cases).  But, taking the latest stats from Worldometer, worldwide infection rate has been about 1.5%, and death rate has been 0.03%.  On the other hand, the US infection rate has been closer to 9%, and the death rate more like 0.2%.  That’s a massive difference: only about a dozen countries are higher, and they’re all in Europe.  Many nations which are supposedly less “advanced” than us Western countries are beating the snot out of us in terms of responding to this virus.

So, overall, the rates didn’t live up to the boogeyman numbers that were being spouted, but then again, even at these rates it’s been pretty awful.  So let’s call that one a wash.

• But even on Monday when Christy tried to go to Costco, the toilet paper was all gone.  At this point we won’t even go out there any more: you have to wait in line to get in, apparently.

Oh, the naïvete.  Waiting in line to buy groceries is now just an everyday thing.

• Now, on the one hand, I find this somewhat silly.  It’s a cold, people.  ...  On the other hand, I do understand what the health care people are saying.  There are basically two scenarios here:  In the first one, everyone gets the virus all at once, the number of serious cases spikes insanely, and the health care system is overwhelmed.  With insufficient resources, some people could die not because the virus killed them, but because they couldn’t get the care they needed to weather the sickness.

This is an interesting one.  Was I too dismissive of the danger of overwhelming our healthcare system?  Perhaps.  On the other hand, going back to those breakdowns by country, the death tolls in places like India (~0.01%) and South Korea (~0.003%, a full order of magnitude less than the global numbers) seem to prove that, with the proper response, it really could have been comparable to any other cold or flu.  Even if those nations are radically underreporting to make themselves look better, they still come out way ahead of the US, where an intense lack of leadership, and an unwillingness to infringe on people’s “rights” even so far as to say people must wear masks caused the ultimate situation to be far worse than I ever imagined it would get.

On the other hand, is it possible that less draconian recommendations might have met with less resistance, and therefore would have been, in the end, more effective?  I think it’s possible, but it’s really hard to hypothesize.  We also have zero concept of how many lives were lost by ancillary causes: how many people committed suicide due to isolation? how many lost sleep, depressed their immune system, and ended up getting some completely different fatal disease?  These are unanswerable questions.  My final gut feeling is that if our leaders and health experts had been suggesting even looser restrictions, we probably would have ended up coming out even worse.  But, then again, if there had been looser restrictions, but those restrictions had been messaged with consistency and lived by example by the people actually in charge of the country?  That could have made a real difference.  But we had what we had, so speculation is pointless.

• I’m struck by what Trevor Noah said on The Daily Show one night this past week: COVID-19 has killed somewhere in the ballpark of 5,000 people in the past 3 months, worldwide.  In the U.S., just one country in the world, 3,000 people die in car accidents every day.

Okay, first thing to note is that either I misheard Trevor, or he himself was confused: 3,000 deaths per day is not what we have in the US; that’s closer to a worldwide figure (in fact, according to the WHO, it’s a bit low).  But I think my point was still valid, if a bit over-hyped, for all that—at the time.  So, let’s compare how good COVID turned out to be at killing us vs automobiles.  Worldwide, cars take out around 1.35 million of us per year.  COVID, over the course of the past year, has hit about 2.66 million.  COVID wins, beating out automobiles by about 2 to 1.  So I guess my point didn’t stand the test of time: we really should have been more worried about this virus than about going to work in the morning.  In the US, as always, it’s much worse: traffic deaths have been trending downwards from around 40k per year since 2007; COVID deaths broke half a million a month or so ago.  Overall, looking at the numbers, you were over 15x as likely to die from COVID in 2020 as you were to die in a car wreck in 2019.  So ... yeah.  I biffed that one, for sure.

• Colbert aired a single show with no audience (as did Wait Wait Don’t Tell Me), but that’s it (at least for Colbert; not sure if WWDTM will continue, albeit audience-less).  The Daily Show said at first they would continue to do shows sans audience, but they too gave it up late on Friday.  And here’s where I worry that we’re going too far.

But, dammit, I’m going to stand by this one.  Both Colbert and Noah (as well as many other folks like Jimmy Fallon and Seth Meyers) did come back, eventually, and I think it’s made all the difference.  That first month or so, without any trusted source for news of what was going on in the world, was what was really isolating for me.  Once those guys came back, the whole sorry sad situation got a lot more bearable.  Nowadays, while I really hope things get back to normal at some point, I’m doing okay.  This is survivable.  It’s not been to much to ask after all, I suppose.

• Because, at the end of the day (or more likely month, in this case), it will be difficult for us to quantify how many lives our choices have saved.  But I worry that the fundamental changes to our way of life will be all too apparent.

Okay, first let us all laugh at the dumb innocence of “more likely month” ... oh, how little I suspected that I would still be writing these crazy-ass isolation reports twelve months later.  Beyond that, I do think it’s impossible for us to quantify how many lives we saved by telling people to sing “Happy Birthday” while washing their hands, or not to touch their face (which I still maintain is essentially unachievable).  I think it’s impossible to quantify how many lives we saved by telling people to wear masks.  But, then again, it’s also impossible to guess how many lives we lost because of people refusing to do these things.  About the only thing I do feel confident in stating is that we could have done better ... because many other countries did.

I do still worry about the fundamental changes to our way of life.  Not in a “I refuse to do these things” sort of way, because I recognize that the things were, in the end, necessary, at least to some extent: those countries where they were more successful at containing the virus were often those places where they really did lock down the populace and force people to comply with the rules.  But more in a wistful, “I’m sad for what we lost” sort of way.  Will I be returning to the office at my company any time soon?  No.  My company no longer has an office: the lease expired over the course of the year, and it didn’t make sense to renew it.  So the working from home is the new normal.  Of course, I’m lucky: there are many businesses that will never recover.  Will we ever go to movie theaters as we once did?  What about museums?  Will in-person learning ever really be the standard way to do it again, or will it just be a fringe thing that only diehard students attempt?  Will we ever sit down in restaurants on a regular basis again, or will all food places just keep on delivering, because all the ones that don’t have fallen by the wayside?  I have no answers for these questions.  Perhaps we’ll know in the coming months.  Perhaps we will only truly understand the extent of the changes in the coming years.  I’ve no doubt that some history class somewhere will be studying this period in our lives as some sort of turning point ... I just don’t know exactly what we’re turning towards.

Well, that about wraps it up for my serious lookback on a year of isolation reports.  Next week, I’m going to attempt to look back on a lighter side, as I try to figure out—and report!—all the television I’ve watched over the past year.  Spoiler alert: it’s a lot.