False complacency

Now that all of the states are relaxing restrictions, and the daily rate of new reported infections has trended down nationally, the zeitgeist seems to be relief and a feeling that this is all getting behind us. Sorry to be a downer, but we aren't there yet. The national top line is driven mostly by the success of New York, New Jersey and Southern New England in wrestling down the worst outbreak. These states kept restrictions in place longer and have been very careful and measured in relaxing them. We've learned over time about the most important measures -- avoiding crowded indoor spaces, masks, keeping distance. Here's what Connecticut's epidemic looks like so far.


The continuing decline is in spite of increased testing. The positivity rate has been going down which is very important, as have the number of people hospitalized, which is the hardest indicator of success. Now that the prevalence is low, we have the capacity to trace and tests contacts of new cases and contain any mini-outbreaks that might occur. That makes careful, measured re-opening possible.

A friend reports that his friend in Carolina says people aren't taking this seriously. They're gathering in large groups, not wearing masks, and generally ignoring it. Here's what the South Carolina epidemic looks like.


You can ignore the little downtick at the end, that's because of limited reporting on the weekend. Yes, they're doing more testing, but the increase in the incidence rate is considerably larger than the increase in testing. Let's have a look at Arizona.


Remember how the warm weather was supposed to put an end to this? Arizona has been having record heat. Florida has been cooking the books -- the death rate from unspecified pneumonia has mysteriously spiked -- but here's what their incidence rate looks like.


Yes, they're testing more but again, not by nearly enough to account for this. They're now back above their previous high point back in April. Texas:


Again, ignore the little downtick at the end, that's Sunday. There are more states I could show you but the point is, the epidemic is waning in some places and waxing in others. As a result, the national incidence rate has been essentially flat for the past month -- they're cancelling each other out.  Will there also be new cases linked to the recent mass demonstrations? Probably. The good news is they're out of doors, most people are wearing masks an in many cases they're keeping their distance. But sure, there has to be some transmission. So the question is, will people in those states whose (Republican, as it happens) governors removed restrictions before the epidemic was really under control end up thinking it was worth it for the draft beers and haircuts? We'll see.

Note: Moral evaluation of protests is not a scientific question. People can agree about the relevant science and have various opinions about what is justifiable or appropriate. This is a point I find I continually need to repeat. I like to refer to the formulation of Jurgen Habermas, the "three worlds" of verifiable validity claims. The first is the realm of inter-subjective reality, which includes two sub-categories, that which we immediately apprehend -- what we witness and experience -- and the realm of what we can deduce from indirect evidence, including the practice of science. The second realm is the realm of values and moral judgments. Scientists, generally, have no greater or lesser claim to validity in this world than do other people, nor if they are well behaved do they claim to. The third world is what we personally like or dislike, enjoy or find aversive. That is what it is. Habermas maps these onto the Platonic ideals The True, The Good, and The Beautiful.  Scientists do not undermine their claims to first world expertise by asserting a moral judgment that you happen to disagree with, nor will other scientists necessarily agree with them or disagree with you. In order to engage in rational discourse, you must recognize such category errors and refrain from making them.