Month: June 2020

Major League Baseball (MLB) just announced that it would play an abbreviated season this year. In 2020 instead of playing its usual 162 games, MLB will be playing a 60 game season. 

(Bear with me here because the following is going to involve math . . . a lot of math . . . but it will be worth it in the end.)

In California there are five MLB teams. Each team will have 30 home games in 2020, instead of the usual 81 home games. For the state of California that means 150 (5×30=150) MLB games total instead of 405 (5×81=405) in the state in 2020.

The average salary for a MLB player is $4.38 million! (This works out to be an average of approximately $27,000 per player per game [$4.38 M/162 games]). What few realize is that the players on the visiting teams pay state taxes on the amount that they earn for each game played in California. For ease of discussion, let’s ignore the salaries of the visiting manager and the coaches, etc., and just look at the MLB players.

Since the salaries of MLB players in 2020 will, for the most part, be prorated on a per game basis, this means that each of the 25 players on the visiting teams earns about $27,000 per game. This translates into $675,000 total for the team per game ($27,000×25=$675,000) in salaries paid to visiting players for each MLB game played in the state of California! Since there will be 255 (5x(81-30) less MLB games played in California this year. That means for visiting MLB teams there will be over $17 million less of earned California income this year. This translates into over $2 million less tax revenue for California for visiting MLB players alone!

Ouch!

The reduction in tax revenue from the 5 MLB teams based in California will be more than for the visiting teams. . . ancillary personal, concessions, parking, etc. This will amount to at least an additional loss of $3M in tax revenue compared to 2019! 

Double ouch!!

Next consider what will happen to tax revenues in California for pro-football if that season is shortened.

Triple ouch!!!

What about pro hockey (NHL) and pro basketball (NBA) . . . A Big Ouchie!

Yesterday I read four different newspaper articles on how bad the present situation is with the coronavirus . . . two in my local newspaper and two in the Wall Street Journal.

 “Virus Spread Accelerates  Across U.S.”

“Colleges Spend Millions to Keep Campuses Safe”

“As Virus Surges, No Need for New State Shutdown”

“CDC: 24 Million in U.S. Possibly Infected”

To me, two things were amazing in this compilation of these four articles:

First: Nowhere was the temporal relation between the recent protests, riots, and civil unrest mentioned or even considered as a potential reason for the recent “surge” in infections. Now, granted I am not sure if the protests, etc. are the only cause of the consequent increase in infections, but, come on, at least mention it as a possibility! I have yet to see a protest/civil unrest picture in a newspaper where all of the protesters had face masks . . . worn properly. At this point just about everyone is aware that shouting increases the viral load coming from a person’s mouth, and in just about all of the riots/civil disturbances there are multiple loudmouths with open mouths . . . very likely shouting . . . although I suppose that it is possible that these “protesters” have widely open mouths without any sound coming out! (If you believe this, I have a bridge I want to sell you!)

The other interesting observation is that the recent increases in Covid cases are predominately in young people, and, oh yeah, almost all of the protesters/rioters were mainly young people. Coincidence ? Possibly, but possibly a lot more than serendipity. 

Personally, I would think that the fact that infections are now in predominately younger people is a good thing, as opposed to infections in older folks. However, it seems that one of the present coronavirus commandments is, “Do not print anything that could possibly be interpreted as a positive thing.”

Second: it is a mere coincidence that a lot of the recent “surge” is in those states that share a border with Mexico. . . . California, Arizona, Texas, for example. Again is this just coincidence, or is the increase related to infected individuals seeping north across the border? At present, Mexico is getting slammed by the virus. Here in California, Tijuana is just across the border from Chula Vista. The hospitals in Chula Vista are getting inundated with Covid cases, by far the largest numbers in San Diego County. Likewise further east, the hospital in El Centro, Ca. is constantly transferring Covid patients to hospitals in Los Angeles, San Diego, and Las Vegas. El Centro is on the U.S. side, just across the border from Mexicali (Mexico). Does anyone actually believe that the surge of Covid in Mexico is unrelated to a similar surge on the U.S. side of the border.

Since, I cannot read anymore about the “worsening situation,” if anyone in the press mentions the protests or Mexico, as causes for the the recent increase in cases, let me know.

In this part 2 there are a lot of common sense (CS) recommendations.

Hand sanitizing is emphasized both by frequent hand-washing and readily available hand sanitizers. (CS) As best I can tell nobody disagrees with this in either Canada or in the U.S.A.

Face masks ? 

Non-medical and medical face masks are not required or recommended for children returning to school. They point out that several European countries have had children successfully return to school without face masks.

Furthermore, there is a lack of evidence that wearing a face mask prevents SARS-CoV-2 transmission in children.

And finally, it is impractical for a child to wear a mask properly for the duration of the school day! (CS)

They do point out that some parents and children may choose to wear masks. This is a personal choice and should not be discouraged. (CS)

Physical distancing- this was so right on the money, that a copied the entire paragraph as follows:

“The objective of physical distancing is to reduce the likelihood of contact that may lead to transmission and has been a widely used strategy during the pandemic. However, strict physical distancing should not be emphasized to children in the school setting as it is not practical and could cause significant psychological harm. Close interaction, such as playing and socializing is central to child development and should not be discouraged.”

Smaller class sizes and spacing of desks in classrooms is be encouraged.

Large gatherings/assemblies should be cancelled for the immediate future.

With regard to outdoor activities, such as recess, physical distancing should not be required, and children should perform hand hygiene prior to sports activities/outdoor play/playground use.” (I wholeheartedly agree with that one)

Cohorting (keeping groups of children together for most of the day)

To the extent possible, cohorting classes could be considered for the younger age groups and for children with medical and/or behaviour complexities.

There are many more topics discussed, such as . . . environmental cleaning, ventilation, mitigation of risk for those at higher risk, protection of risk for staff and high risk families, children with medical or behavioral complexities, etc.

What I take away from this position paper is the following:

Get kids back to school now. Full time school . . . not some hybrid, or some other cockamamie model.

Let kids be kids . . . with lunch, playground recess, and after school activities just as before . . . Just wash your hands a lot!

If you have further interest in this topic, or perhaps if you are likely to go to an NHL game in the future, here is the entire piece.

6/24/20

For those of you who have never been to a National Hockey League game, “O Canada” is the name of Canada’s national anthem. (FYI: At NHL games, they play both our National Anthem and ‘O Canada’ irrespective of where the game is being played.)

Okay, so what could possibly be a segue between all that is going on these days in the U.S. and ‘O Canada’. . . after all it isn’t even hockey season. 

A recurring line in that song is:

“O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.”

Here I asked myself, who is standing guard for our children these days. Are they going back to school? When? How? . . . Who knows? Who’s in charge? In Canada, they know, as last week SickKids.org published it’s recommendations that were developed by experts from SickKids and Unity Health Toronto, with input from scientists at the University of Toronto and SickKids’ Family Advisory Network. . . . It’s titled:
“Covid-19, Recommendations for School Reopening”

(This was the most well thought out, and the most rational plan for school reopening that I have seen. It is over nine pages long, and has over a page of references. The recommendations include important topics such as screening, hand hygiene, physical distancing, use of non-medical masks, and more.)

The stated goal was to balance direct infection and transmission of Covid with the harms of school closures on the physical and mental health of children.

Worldwide, children account for 5-10% of SARS Co V-2 (Covid-19) infections, and deaths in children are rare. In Canada the incidence in those 0-19 years old is 6.9%, and there have been zero deaths, up to 6/15/20.

This paper starts out right at the beginning clearly stating that the impetus to the reopening of schools is to optimize the health and welfare of children. It is not about jobs and the economy. Health measures that were taken months ago to “flatten the curve” may have been necessary at the time, but “these measures have had significant adverse health and welfare consequences for children with an adverse impact on children’s behavioral and mental health.”

The authors emphasize that children rely on structure and schedules for stability, and this supports the need for a daily school model.

To start with this position paper argues against on-site temperature taking as fever occurs in only about 50% of the cases. They also advise against the screening of the students by school staff, as both of these require lines of children, and take a lot of time – time that can better be used elsewhere. If students are sick, they should stay home, and parents and caregivers should be responsible for deciding if a child is sick.

“Virtual learning or other forms of structured learning should be put in place for children who are required to stay home because they are sick or in isolation due to SARS-CoV-2 infection or exposure.”

So far what you have heard “practical” and common sense advice.

Part 2 will go over many more of their common sense (CS) recommendations.

Stay tuned!

My kind of town, Chicago is

My kind of town, Chicago is

My kind of people, too

People who smile at you

And each time I roam, Chicago is

Calling me home, Chicago is

Why I just grin like a clown

It’s my kind of town

This is the first verse of the Sinatra song from 1965. 

I was born in Chicago and lived on the west side of the city in a neighborhood, called Austin. It was never clear to me whether that part of town was named after the high school of the same name, in the same neighborhood, or vice-versa. Back in 2009 I returned to my old neighborhood and got out of the car to take a picture of where I had lived on Washington Blvd. Truth be known, just being in my old neighborhood at Washington and Central scared the sh** out of me! Much before that, after high school, while I was in college I drove a cab all around Austin, and so I am familiar with all of the streets in that neighborhood.

When I just read about the horrible, mayhem-filled Father’s Day weekend in Chicago’s Austin neighborhood, I was saddened as I could identify with many of the streets where these senseless murders took place. 

Chicago has many a bloody weekend, but Father’s Day weekend in the Windy City was especially bloody, with 102 shootings, including 14 fatalities, according to the Chicago Sun Times. Five children were among the dead—the youngest victim was 3.

Two boys, 15 and 16, were walking in an alley at 12:18 a.m. in the 4700 block of West Superior Street – both were shot! I remember that Superior Street is between Huron and Chicago Ave., and 4700 – that’s one block east of Cicero Ave.!
My old neighborhood . . . my kind of town ?

A 13-year-old girl was killed and two other teens were wounded Saturday night in Austin on the West Side . . . my old neighborhood! The girl was inside a home about 8:30 p.m. in the 1000 block of North LeClaire Avenue when the shots were fired, and she was struck in the neck, police said. She was taken to Stroger Hospital, where she was pronounced dead. I know where LeClaire Ave. is. My old neighborhood . . .  my kind of town ?

A 3-year-old boy was fatally wounded about two hours earlier when someone opened fire at his father while they were driving in Austin at 600 north Central . . . very close to where I grew up! My old neighborhood . . . my kind of town?

I no longer plan on going back to the city of Chicago in the near future, and certainly not into the Austin neighborhood, as it is no longer my kind of town!

BTW: I wonder if BLM had any sort of protest or even a neighborhood gathering in the Austin area in the days following the “Father’s Day Massacre”?

The pundits are all opining on the latest stats concerning the coronavirus, etcetera. At this point, the best that I can tell is . . . no one really knows anything for sure! Everyday there are various updates on various stats for various parts of the country as well as various parts of a state, as well as various parts of a county, as well as various parts of a city, etc . . . next, I wouldn’t be surprised if the incidence of coronavirus cases was broken down by street! 

But, none of these stats really tell us the real story, as anyone can dissect these stats and come up with conclusions that suit their individual purpose. Sometimes I wonder if the reporting of these stats are meant to be purposely confusing!

Here in San Diego, I am convinced that it is the goal of the local “newspaper” to paint as bleak a scenario as possible, whatever the statistics !
Why ? I have my thoughts on this also, but let’s go back to the statistics issue.

What do we actually know for sure . . . not what does Dr. Fauci say, but what do we know for sure?

For sure we know that the number of tests for the virus have gone up dramatically. However, what we do not know is who are getting these tests. Are those with symptoms of some sort getting most of these tests? Are those who are uber afraid getting repeatedly tested because they are continuing to turn up negative? Are any children getting tested? Are those in nursing homes getting randomly tested?

We do know that the virus affects children much differently than it does adults. Is that because children have little if any predisposing conditions? Is it because the coronaviruses (in general, not Covid-19) are a common cause of the common cold, which children get a lot?

We know for sure that in California a very significant percent of the cases are in L.A.County. Why is that ? . . . No, se! 

We also know that a high percent of the cases in San Diego County are in the South Bay. Why is that? . . . no se,tambien.

We can track the death rates and the number of positive cases on a daily basis. The death rate, although there are minor ups and downs, is remaining fairly steady, while the  number of cases is going up. 

To me logically, this can only mean a few things:

-Could it be that the virus is now less deadly?  … Although anything is possible, this is extremely unlikely, as people are still dying.

-Could it be that with the increased testing an increased number of asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic individuals are now being picked up. Why, however did these individuals get tested? Probably, either because they had some sort of symptoms,(e.g. runny nose, ear ache, etc.) not related to covid at all, or they were identified by some sort of contact tracing. These sorts of individuals have the virus (+test), but are not going to die, and so will not contribute to the death rate.

So with the cases up and the deaths not up, this could be reported in one of two ways …either “number of cases has increased” or “death toll not increasing.” The way that a newspaper would report this would depend on whether it wanted to sell more papers! Guess which way the newspaper in San Diego will report this 90% of the time?!

Perhaps, President Trump wasn’t so far off when he suggested that perhaps we should be doing less testing! (Could less testing lead to less hysteria?)

Currently we are in the midst of two overlapping crises (yes, this is the plural of “crisis”) . . . the George Floyd residual protests, riots, BLM, etc., and reopening after the Covid-19 lockdowns.

Obviously each of these issues has multiple facets. Is there anything that could prove to be helpful as our country attempts to move on? 

I think there is. Follow me on this.

First: Can we agree that, in general, the education of school children in many parts of the country, especially in the major cities is woeful. Forgetting charter schools and private schools for the time being, can we agree that poorer, predominately black and Hispanic children, are, in general, coming out of  our el-hi public schools having learned less than those children coming out of schools in the more affluent and typically white areas. (The reasons for this are multiple, and this piece is not about “why” this is the case.) Also I think that it is reasonable to assume that poorer children suffered the most as far as their education during the school shutdowns. (Again a variety of different reasons for this.)

Second: Granted in the beginning of this Covid-19 pandemic, the closing of schools was not unreasonable as no one knew much about the coronavirus and children. However, at this time much much more is known about covid-19 and school children, as there has now been extensive experience through the world on sending children back to school. 

First of all some facts – Covid in children is not the same as Covid in adults.

According to the most recent CDC data, children 5 to 14 years of age account for less than 0.15 percent of all COVID cases in the United States. An international review of 78 studies found that “deaths remain extremely rare in children from Covid.

Denmark, Austria, Norway, Finland, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand and most other countries that have reopened classrooms haven’t had outbreaks in schools or day-care centers. (One exception apparently was in a high school in Israel,) Furthermore, European authorities said the absence of any notable clusters of infection in reopened elementary schools so far suggested that children aren’t significant spreaders of the new coronavirus in society.

Note that in the above list of countries that have been making progress, the US  is nowhere to be seen. Here it seems that Dr. Fauci and the CDC have both been virtually useless. 

Last Wednesday, Anthony S. Fauci said on CNN that some schools may have “no problem” reopening in the fall but added that he hesitated “to make any broad statements about whether it is or is not quote ‘safe’ for kids to come back to school” since it would depend on the viral activity in an area . . . a worthless tap-dance!

The CDC came out with its “School Decision Tool.” Helpful?? Not so much!

 National Education Association rightly calls CDC’s “School Decision Tool” a “watered down,” “flimsy flowchart.”

So when I look at the overlapping Venn-diagram of “those hurt the most by the Covid school shutdowns” and “those who would benefit the most by sending children back to school now,” the overlap is poor mostly non-white children. Why isn’t BLM advocating the starting up of schools a.s.a.p. ? Err . . could it be opposition from their Democratic bedfellows, the teacher’s unions?

Do newspaper readers tend to read the entire article or just the headline ? I would venture to say that most read more than just the headline, but I seriously doubt whether those that write in the newspapers think that the populace reads much more than that first line.

In today’s paper there was yet another story on the “coronavirus pandemic page.” What I found interesting was that the first line is not what the gist of the article actually says.

The first line reads:

“The county health department announced 120 more Covid-19 cases and three additional deaths as the local novel coronavirus pandemic continued to grow steadily throughout the region.”  (Additional deaths!, Continues to grow! – OMG, this sounds bad!)

However, when the entire article is read, as opposed to the doom and gloom of that first line, the news is actually pretty good. (“there was no significant spike in overall numbers” . . . that sounds good! ; “hospitalizations ticked down a bit” . . . that sounds good! ; “intensive care activity remained flat” . . . not great, but certainly not a bad thing!) 

And the good news continued in this same article: the post election test rate for the county remained steady at 3% of tests performed, the overall hospital occupancy rate remained steady at 65%, well below the critical 80% that would trigger action. 

There are an average of over 5,000 tests performed daily. All told 237,000 Covid tests have been performed on San Diego County residents. It seems to me that it is no surprise that with all of tests being done, more positives are showing up, and with hospitalizations down a bit, logic dictates that these tests are picking up asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic cases. 

Indeed, isn’t this good news?

The three individuals who died were 80, 92, and 68 years old, all with underlying medical conditions. I feel bad for everyone who has died, but 80 years and 92 years are above the average life expectancy. 

So far the median age of those that have died is 78, meaning that half of those who have died have been older than 78. These are both encouraging stats for those of us in the general population especially when the percent of those deaths that have been in nursing homes is spelled out.

So why the ominous first line?

In truth shouldn’t a better first line be:

“Good news – with testing more asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic Covid cases are being picked up, while hospitalizations are creeping down.”

In March Congressman Devin Nunes (R,CA) said the following, “Look, the schools were just canceled out here in California, which is way overkill. It’s possible kids could have went back to school in two weeks to four weeks, but they just canceled the rest of the schools.”

Our governor’s response:

“I don’t want to give him much air,” Newsom said during a remote appearance on The View. “I’ve not sourced him for advice on pretty much any issue . . . “

Looking through a  retro-spectroscope, what Nunes’s advice back in March had been followed? Would there have been more Covid infections in California? Yes, probably, but Covid is entirely different in children. Only rarely do get significant symptoms, and the mortality rate in kids is as near to zero as one can get.

But! . . . We wouldn’t be in the mess that we are in now about children going back to school, err . . . or of not going back to school, or when? . . . or how? . . . or where? . . . or how many days a week? . . . etcetera!

The latest info about the plans for the upcoming school year are  . . . the best way to answer that is a visual. Imagine a group of frenzied people with electric-shocked looking hair, hands raised above their heads, running aimlessly in circles, screaming!!

Does that image exude confidence that they will come up with a workable plan? What is the governor’s plan? Perhaps now he could seek the counsel of Devin Nunes!?

Shame on me for being so harsh with those who are going to make these education decisions! However, when I look at some of the their names, I get weak. One has a hybrid last name (Konigar-Macklin), and I have strong doubts, in general, about the thought processes of those who have hybrid last names.( Maybe a topic for another day.) Another person involved as a county schools spokeswoman has a first name of “Music” . . . you can’t make this stuff up!  OMG!

I wonder if “hyphenated-last-name” and Music will be asking Congressman Nunes for advice? Duh!

At this point it seems that we definitely know that the mortality rate of Covid  is much higher in nursing homes. This is true not only in the U.S, but also in Europe. What I haven’t been able to find is how many nursing home residents have this virus, but are asymptomatic. In the real, non-nursing home world, as the number of people being tested goes up, the number of asymptomatic people who have this infection is also going up. (As I mentioned in a letter to the editor months ago, the best way to get a handle on the overall status of Covid in a designated community would be to randomly test for infections in that community. That would be the only way to detect the actual percent of asymptomatic individuals in a community.) 

In a more practical sense for those of us not in a nursing home, “what is our individual risk with Covid-19?“ How many asymptomatic Covid-19 people are out there? Is that number of any practical importance? “Yes,” that number is very important especially when we are talking about the man on the street and the “panic-scale” which seems to be driving a lot of decisions that have already been made as well as those that are continuing to be made.

Here we need a detour – a definition detour. We need to understand the difference between two terms that turn out to be of critical importance in terms of the “panic-scale.”

CFR = Case Fatality Rate. The number of deaths (fatalities) among those who are known to be infected by the virus. To help our understanding, let’s say person ‘A’ feels ill, goes to the doctor, gets tested, and is found to have the virus. If there are 100 of ‘A’ and 2 die, the CFR is 2%. If there are 1000 ‘A’ and 4 die, the CFR is 0.4% (At present the accepted CFR across the board for Covid-19 is 0.4% . . . 4 deaths per 1000 people with a known Covid infection.)

To me, 0.4% is pretty damn good odds! 

And the odds are even better when one looks at CFR for specific younger age groups as follows:

>65 years;  CFR=1.3% ( 13 deaths per 1000 people infected.) -[not as great the older one gets, but still good odds]

50-65 years;  CFR=0.2% ( 2 deaths per 1000 people infected.) – [very good odds]

<50 years;  CFR=0.05% (0.5 deaths per 1000 people infected!) – [outstanding odds]

What these numbers say, in essence, is that for all those < 65 years old, the odds of beating this virus (surviving), are better than very good.

So why the panic ?

The other term is IFR.
IFR = Infected Fatality Rate. The number of deaths among all who have the virus, including those who are asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic, and under ordinary circumstances would never get tested. Some recent studies have suggested that perhaps up to 35% of infections are asymptomatic. If this is indeed the situation, then the IFR drops to 0.2-0.3% (2-3 deaths per 1000 people in the general population.) Even better odds, when compared to a CFR  of 0.4%!

So I ask . . . “Why the panic?”