Wilfredo Lee/AP Photo
Unsanitized-062220
Governors like Florida’s Ron DeSantis are seeing a spike in new cases, but not yet a spike in coronavirus deaths.
First Response
The weekend produced the same out-of-control case counts in the South and Southwest. The case increases cannot be explained by increased testing alone; on Friday one-quarter of Arizona tests were found positive, up from around 8 percent on Memorial Day, when the rise began. Florida had a record single-day case count on Friday, and about a quarter of Alabama’s total cases have come in the last week. Nationwide, on Saturday the U.S. registered the highest case numbers since May 1.
Take a look at the death counts, however, which have definitively slowed. Sunday we saw only 297 deaths, very low even when accounting for a slow reporting day. The seven-day rolling average is under 600 and headed down in a fairly linear fashion.
All the caveats about how positive tests are incomplete, how deaths are probably incomplete, etc., apply. But the trends are clear enough: case counts are rising, rapidly in some spots, and deaths are dropping. Deaths aren’t even rising all that much in states where cases are flying.
Now, this is perfectly consistent. Deaths are a lagging indicator: you catch the coronavirus, you get sick, for some that sickness progressively worsens, and then you die. But cases started to rise in these states as much as four weeks ago. The lag should have caught up to the extent that we’d at least see some rise in deaths. Yet we have not. And though I’m uncomfortable making any kind of prediction when it comes to this virus, falling deaths could or even should continue even as cases go up. Here’s why.
Read all of our Unsanitized reports
There is some indication that positive tests are clustering around younger people. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis said the median age for new cases was 37, and in Texas, Greg Abbott said a majority of new cases were from people under 30. Trust but verify, but it’s somewhat logical to believe that younger people are more restless and careless with social distancing measures.
We know that the COVID-19 mortality rate rises so much for older people and those who are immunocompromised. People at most risk certainly recognize those risks more than they did in, say, March, and are more likely to isolate and act accordingly. Even a small shift to younger carriers will translate into a lower overall mortality rate.
While I don’t have much trust in Southern governors to respond to rising cases by mandating mask use or locking down parts of their states, they do have the ability to learn from the most egregious mistakes. Andrew Cuomo put sick people who tested positive back in nursing homes. I doubt we will see that replicated.
And we know a lot more about this disease from a medical standpoint than we did in March. There are more treatments that seem to work. Dexamethasone appears to reduce death in seriously ill patients. An osteoporosis drug is showing some promise. We know that intubation is not necessary in all patients with low oxygen levels. Doctors have been wrestling with this thing for three months and they’ve found a couple things that work, not well, but let’s say better. That could be pushing down mortality rates slightly as well.
None of this is to say that coronavirus is a benign disease. There’s clear evidence that its symptoms can linger in people for months, that it can cause severe lung scarring, and that even young people can die from it. But we’re talking about rates of death here. Tom Frieden, former director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, agrees that those death rates are likely to be lower.
The parallel threat of rising cases has always been that the hospital system gets overwhelmed. Hospitalizations are rising in several states, and without lockdowns, it’s hard to see how the spread will be diminished enough to prevent that from spiraling. DeSantis says he has enough beds, but exponential increases could change that calculation.
Experts abroad should be alarmed at the blitheness of U.S. officials as the virus spreads. We’re kind of witnessing a version of the herd immunity approach that other countries considered and then rapidly aborted. If the virus mutates into something deadlier, all bets are off. But for now, I’d expect deaths to plateau rather than spike.
I Have a Book
As I’ve mentioned, my new book, Monopolized: Life in the Age of Corporate Power, comes out next month. I was happy to go on Hill.TV’s Rising with Krystal Ball and Saagar Enjeti to have my first interview about the book. Consider it a sneak preview. Here’s the interview.
You can also read reviews from Kirkus, BookPage, and Publishers Weekly. And you can pre-order here.
Speaking of monopoly, I point out today at the main site that this growing bipartisan movement to take away Big Tech’s legal immunity for what they publish is tempered by the fact that Big Tech managed to get the same immunity installed into the update to NAFTA, which will make it very hard to get rid of it.
Where the Money's At
The New York Times published something last week that I think is getting misinterpreted. It’s based on a study from Raj Chetty and others, noting that the largest declines in spending during the pandemic come from upper-income earners, which is harming the poorer people who rely on that spending. In isolation it seemed like a reinforcement of trickle-down economics. But nowhere in the piece does it mention that the pandemic has created this reality.
The types of events most likely to be closed due to social distancing are leisure activities frequented disproportionately by wealthier people: sporting events, concerts, clubs, large gatherings. If the bulk of spending is going to necessities, then of course wealthier people aren’t spending as much. That’s a coronavirus effect, not a recession effect. Even the fact that richer people, generally, can work from home impacts this, because the restaurants and retail that caters to commuters and business people have taken a huge hit. And this lower spending translates into cash-hoarding; the richest people in America have gotten a lot richer in 2020.
On the flip side, a Times piece today notes that federal aid has stalled any rise in poverty, because the simple fact of giving people money makes them less poor. This is not particularly revelatory, but it does highlight the temporary nature of that relief. The one-time checks are gone and boosted unemployment ends in five weeks. And talks on any extension have been moved to the end of July, right when the unemployment boost runs out. The CARES Act’s temporary nature has created a cliff for the poor, and a money cannon for the wealthy that has protected them from any pain.
Anyone who says we should pause on extending this aid is a moral monster. But the aid should have been tied to economic conditions from the start. Congress shouldn’t turn the fate of the poor into a hostage-taking situation.
Days Without a Bailout Oversight Chair
87.
Today I Learned
- American Airlines going back to the bond markets for another $3.5 billion for unspecified “general corporate purposes.” (CNBC)
- The Hawaii success story owes much to contact tracing. (Politico)
- Contact tracing is not going so well in New York City. (New York Times)
- Numerous transfers of coronavirus patients between off-book immigration prisons. (The Intercept)
- We need to discuss wholesale changes to our food production system after this is over. (Lawyers Guns and Money)
- Golf and tennis pros tested positive in recent days. I expect sports to be the last thing to come back. (Hartford Courant; Washington Post)
- The summer without rodeos. (New York Times)
