Once more, on the plague

My two very recent posts on the surge of coronavirus cases in Utah have received considerable pushback, as I pretty much expected they would:

“We’re headed for an upsurge in deaths, and there’s no valid reason for it”

“If you’re not taking this seriously, you’re wrong.”

The second of the two has come especially under fire.

I assiduously try to avoid politics on the Sabbath.  But I do not see the coronavirus pandemic as solely or even primarily a political issue, so I’m going to address the criticisms of my two blog entries now rather than waiting for Monday.

First of all, I have been accused of trying to deprive others of their right to choose, and of endorsing statism and leftism.  This is nonsense.  Neither of my posts had a thing to say, one way or the other, about government-imposed lockdowns or mandatory face masks or anything of the sort.  Both were exhortations to take COVID-19 seriously, and to make wise, prudent, and civic-minded — which is to say caring and loving — choices.

Second, a minor point:  Some have attacked me for the positions expressed in the second post, when they should have noticed (I thought that I had made it perfectly clear) that I was quoting Dr. Sam LeFevre, a reader of this blog, who works at the Utah Department of Health and serves on the state’s coronavirus task force.

Third, some unusually careful readers of that second entry have responded that the links that it provides do not fully support some of the things that it says.  In that light, and without waiting to ask his permission (since he had earlier given me what I regard as something of a general blank check to do this), I share three of his replies:

I have access to pay-for-subscription epidemiological journals. I did not share those links. To view those articles without the subscription is quite expensive. From those, I draw my conclusions, not from AARP. But I thought it useful to share AARP’s free information. Sorry for the confusion. I can however, share the more definitive links if you would like. The abstracts are free and might be interesting.

Here are some that talk about mechanisms where the full article is free:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih…
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih…
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih…
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih…
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih…

These are still emerging discoveries. As more case investigations become available, better numbers will become available.

***

Ryan, here and on Dr P’s previous post on the topic here has challenged some of my statements. And rightly so. Science works best with challenges.

To Ryan’s earlier challenges, directly to me, I responded that much of my opinions are formed through pay-for-subscription epidemiological journal articles that I have access to, but for those who do not have a subscription, are quite expensive to read. To quote Dr P recently, “I know things.” Because of the pay-for-subscription status of those articles, including articles that are so new, they are in pre-print and not available to link to, I do not provide those links. I do sometimes provide links to PubMed that is the free search engine to the National Library of Medicine.

The numbers I cited for the potential neurological involvement are really early numbers. As more data becomes available, we may find the number to be an over-estimate, or an under-estimate, or spot-on. I don’t yet know which.

I will here also admit that I am a poor excuse (as FK and g have pointed out) for a scientist (I believe, and no true scientist should). I am at best perhaps a modestly decent data modeler. And I am definitely not a pathologist (although I do know a few that I can talk to).

Asking you all to keep that confession in mind, I think more interesting than the early numbers is the mechanism. A free summary of the mechanism and the potential sequelae neurologic COVID infection can be found here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.go…

This (possibly fake news) AP article from late May is among those that first got me interested in the neurological involvement of COVID infections: https://apnews.com/32771c83…

And then there is this (definitely fake news) The Hill article: https://thehill.com/opinion…

I almost never pay attention to Medscape (because I have access to the source information) but this link provide a nice public review and links to the actual source information:https://www.medscape.com/vi…

Anyway, I apologize Ryan. I did not intend to start another firestorm. I appreciate that Ryan is among the deniers. I wish Ryan the very best enjoyment of his freedom, for as long as it lasts.

***

In further reading comments, I’ll also mention a couple of things that those of us who routinely read scientific literature are aware of:
(1) A single article rarely gives the complete story. They also rarely restate the obvious. Publication is expensive per inch.
(2) Authors routinely recommend further study (read as more grant funding please).
(3) Readers are expected to be able to connect the dots.

I don’t expect that we’ve reached the end of the discussion.  If anybody wants to follow it further, I predict that the conversation will continue in the comments following the second blog entry (“If you’re not taking this seriously, you’re wrong.”) and, perhaps, in any that follow this one.