As of today nearly 318,000 cases of COVID-19 have been diagnosed with nearly 14,000 deaths. China’s reports of both new cases and deaths remain unmatched anywhere else in the world. Germany continues to be anomalous as do Italy and South Korea in opposite directions. I cannot distinguish between differences in what these countries are doing in response to the COVID-19 virus and how they’re reporting their results.

I wanted to draw your attention to a couple of articles. The first is a video from Pro Publica from which I’ve sampled the following infographic:

It illustrates nine different scenarios of how the COVID-19 outbreak may unfold with differing assumptions about the speed with which different percentages of the population become infected. IMO there are two significant revelations in these scenarios. The first is that different parts of the country face different risks. The West Coast and New York City are at increased risk not just because they have a lot of cases but also because the resources available there aren’t great enough to handle the load.

The second revelation is that in order for the course of action that’s being taken here and in other places to make any sense you must assume one of the worst case scenarios. More specifically, the only way in which the “shelter in place” directive Gov. Pritzker has ordered in Illinois makes sense is if a) he is panicking; b) he is making his decisions based on information about a state other than Illinois; or c) he thinks one of the worst case scenarios (the three in the lower right quadrant of the grid) is likely.

The second article is this analysis of the available data, originally posted at Medium but now posted at Zero Hedge along with a refutation of the article. You actually need to click through to read the refutation but it’s well worth the effort. If nothing else the entire discussion is significant evidence that the entire outbreak has been heavily politicized.

Finally, lighten up! Here’s a song parody about our present circumstances which I found through, of all people, Janis Ian.

Illinois Gov. Pritzker has issued an order for all Illinoisans to remain home beginning tomorrow, March 21, and continuing until Tuesday April 7. We may go grocery shopping, purchase gas, go to the pharmacy, or to see our physicians. We may engage in outdoor activity like walking, jogging, or hiking so long as we maintain a six foot distance from others. We may also care for family members or other people in another household.

That’s much what my wife and I have been doing all week.

I will admit that I have reservations about the order but I plan to comply with it. I don’t really believe that anything will have changed between now and April 7 other than that a lot more people will be sick and the health care system more overtaxed. I also don’t think that the decision-makers understand the implications of supply chains. “Essential workers” not only means people who work in grocery stores but people who drive the trucks the supply the grocery stores, the workers in the warehouses from which the trucks obtain the supplies, the people who clean or maintain the warehouses, and the office workers who enter the data and file the paper work that keeps it all going.

There’s an article in the Financial Times on a subject that has been noticed—Germany death rate from COVID-19 is much lower than that of other European countries:

According to data from Johns Hopkins University, there were 13,979 coronavirus infections in Germany on Thursday afternoon, more than in any other country except China, Italy, Iran and Spain.

At the same time, Germany had only registered 42 deaths. Neighbouring France, by contrast, reported 9,058 infections and 243 deaths. Spain had 17,395 infections and 803 deaths. The US, the UK, Italy and even South Korea all show case fatality rates significantly higher than Germany. 

The apparent anomaly has sparked debate in Germany and beyond, though experts warn against drawing sweeping conclusions. They argue that the country’s low fatality rate most likely reflects the fact that the outbreak is still at a relatively early stage, and that the age profile of those affected has so far been younger than that in other countries. Younger patients without previous ailments have a much better chance of surviving Covid-19 than elderly patients. 

Another factor that may help explain the variance is the unusually high number of tests being carried out in Germany. According to Lothar Wieler, the president of the Robert Koch Institute, German laboratories are now conducting about 160,000 coronavirus tests every week — more than some European countries have carried out in total since the crisis started. Even South Korea, which is conducting 15,000 tests a day and has been held up by virologists as an example to follow, appears to be testing less than Germany. 

“This is about capacity. The capacity in Germany is very, very significant. We can conduct more than 160,000 tests per week, and that can be increased further,” Prof Wieler told journalists this week. Test capabilities would be boosted not least in part by switching laboratories that specialise in animal health towards coronavirus checks. There was no sign that test kits were running low, Prof Wieler added. 

In the short term at least, mass testing feeds through into a lower fatality rate because it allows authorities to detect cases of Covid-19 even in patients who suffer few or no symptoms, and who have a much better chance of survival. It also means that Germany is likely to have a lower number of undetected cases than countries where testing is less prevalent. Indeed, one notable feature of the coronavirus outbreak in Germany so far is the high number of relatively young patients: according to data from the Robert Koch Institute, more than 80 per cent of all people infected with the coronavirus are younger than 60. 

But

However, Prof Kräusslich cautioned that the picture in Germany was likely to change in the weeks and months ahead: “We are still at a relatively early stage in the outbreak in Germany. The overwhelming share of patients became infected only in the last week or two, and we will probably see more severe cases in the future as well as a change in the fatality rate.” 

Presently, the recovery rate in Germany is declining while the death rate is increasing. That support’s the Herr Doktor’s observation. That’s my greatest concern about this outbreak whether in Germany of the United States. Recovery is quite prolonged.

As of today there are more than 260,000 diagnosed cases of COVID-19 and nearly 12,000 deaths. Nearly half of all the reported deaths have been in Italy. By comparison the number of death compared to the number of diagnosed cases in South Korea is much, much lower.

I wanted to take a quick look at something I touched on earlier—South Korea’s “bending the curve”. Consider this graph of diagnosed active cases there (diagnosed cases less deaths and recoveries):

As you can see the total number of active cases has peaked and the number is declining slowly. The number of active cases is just about what it was two weeks ago, having declined from a peak of about 7,000 to about 6,500. The reasons for the decline are primarily fewer new cases and some recoveries. It should be apparent that’s not much of a decline. It could easily be overwhelmed by a correction in the data or by a second wave of new cases. We’ll need to wait and see. What I think should be noted is that most of the people who were sick three weeks ago in South Korea are still sick.

If it is our good fortune to follow the path taken by South Korea, at the rate at which new cases are being diagnosed here the peak is not yet in sight and the time at which we have reached the point at which South Korea is now is unlikely to have been reached before June.

Here in the United States “shelter in place” orders are going out on both coasts and in some places in between. The six counties around San Francisco (San Mateo, Marin, Contra Costa, Alameda, Santa Clara) are included in that. Santa Cruz is under lockdown. San Miguel County in Colorado has imposed a shelter in place order. That is being debated in New York City. The Oak Park suburb of Chicago has imposed a shelter in place order. It is being considered for the state of Illinois.

I think that such measures are mistaken—both overly broad and too late.

In her regular Wall Street Journal column Kimberley Strassel makes my case for me:

The coronavirus has “laid this bare: America was less prepared for a pandemic than countries with a universal health system,” declared Vox. The pandemic has “inflicted new stress on a system already too unequal to function,” wrote Sarah Jones in New York magazine, lecturing on the need to “devolve power from wealthy interests.” “The coronavirus crisis exposes the stupidity of Trump’s healthcare policies,” railed Los Angeles Times columnist Michael Hiltzik. A Morning Consult poll suggests this opportunistic sloganeering is resonating, with 41% of the public more likely to support universal health-care proposals amid this pandemic.

Yet these claims are fantasy. Here’s the lesson of the virus so far: Relying solely on government bureaucracy is insane. To the extent America is weathering this moment, it is in enormous part thanks to the strength, ingenuity and flexibility of our thriving, competitive capitalist players.

Government will save us? How’s that working out for Italy? Even Mr. Biden made this point during the Sunday debate, reminding Mr. Sanders that “you have a single-payer system in Italy. It doesn’t work there.” Italy had 62 cases on Feb. 22; nearly a month later, that number is 41,000. It has recorded more deaths (3,400 plus) than any nation on the planet. Crucial miscommunication in early days between the central government and hospitals resulted in a system that is now overwhelmed and rationing treatment.

The U.S. is working hard to avoid its own worst-case scenario, and the federal and state governments are playing crucial roles in coordinating resources, imposing public-health measures, and keeping the public informed. But the single biggest mistake so far came from the government. The feds maintained exclusive control over early test development—and blew it. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s failure delayed an effective U.S. response, and the private sector is now riding to the rescue.

The “crooks” at drug company Roche had started on their own high-volume test in January, and were finally able to get approval from the Food and Drug Administration. Google is up with a website advising people on symptoms; retailers like Walmart and CVS are converting parking lots for drive-through tests; private labs are standing by to process them.

As for other “moneyed interests,” no fewer than 30 Big Pharma and small biotech firms are racing for treatments and vaccines. Moderna turned around a vaccine batch in just 42 days. Gilead Sciences is already in Phase 3 trials for its remdesivir treatment for Covid-19. Straight off President Trump’s announcement of FDA approval for antimalarial drugs to treat the disease, Bayer announced it would donate three million chloroquine tablets.

Meanwhile, the loathsome “multimillionaires” at Comcast, Verizon and Sprint are guaranteeing to keep Americans online for the next two months, regardless of who can pay. Adobe and Google are making remote-learning tools available to schools, universities and parents. U-Haul is offering free self-storage to college kids. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are suspending foreclosures. The list of corporations voluntarily offering sick leave, pay for contractors and vendors, work-at-home flexibility, and donations to affected communities is enormous—and inspiring, especially given the general financial distress.

I’ll try to return to this in my status report but the reality is that at this point no country (other than reports from China of which I remain skeptical) has actually “bent the curve” appreciably. South Korea may have but it’s not bending particularly rapidly and it may succumb to additional waves of the virus. We just don’t know. What we do now is that it isn’t just us. The United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, and Spain all are seeing cases and deaths skyrocketing, just as we are.

In an op-ed at the Wall Street Journal Arthus Herman urges the United States to become the “medicine chest of the world”, analogous to FDR’s “arsenal of democracy”:

y invoking the Defense Production Act, the administration can clear away bureaucratic impediments to an effective pandemic response. Just as FDR’s administration temporarily set aside antitrust standards so companies could band together to produce everything from aircraft parts to tanks and synthetic fuels, the Trump administration can encourage companies to pool their patents and intellectual property to increase production of key drugs and technologies.

Bringing together companies like Walgreens, Walmart and Google to streamline the Covid-19 testing process was a good first step toward making America safer and more secure against the growing pandemic. But there is much more the U.S. can do to mobilize its health-industrial and manufacturing base. It’s absurd that Italy must rely on China for emergency supplies of ventilators when America is home to major ventilator manufacturers like Vyaire, ResMed and Allied Healthcare Products. The Trump administration should work out a timeline with these medical-device makers to produce all the ventilators the world needs right here in the U.S. The same is true for respirators, swabs and other types of protective gear crucial to preventing a global health-care catastrophe.

Washington should also clear the way for the American pharmaceutical industry to develop and deploy therapies for Covid-19 until antiviral drugs, and ultimately a vaccine, are in place. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals of Tarrytown, N.Y., which developed a drug last year to combat Ebola, announced Tuesday it has made progress in the hunt for a Covid-19 treatment. Swift action by the Food and Drug Administration has already streamlined the approval process so that what might normally take two to three years will now happen in a matter of weeks.

The government’s first missions must be to keep Americans safe and to secure the U.S. economy as the mainspring of the global order. A Washington-led mobilization of the health-industrial and manufacturing base can also boost economic growth, just as the mobilization of the defense-industrial base did during World War II. “We won because we smothered the enemy in an avalanche of production, the like of which he had never seen, nor dreamed possible,” said Lt. Gen. William “Big Bill” Knudsen of the American war effort. Knudsen had been president of General Motors before Roosevelt asked him to direct the War Department’s production and procurement efforts.

I think that’s a much taller order than he may realize and, indeed, he may be trying to close the barn door after the horses have already bolted. In 1940 the U. S. did not import munitions. Indeed, the Congress enacted the Export Control Act to limit U. S. exports to other countries, particularly Japan.

The situation is nearly the opposite with respect to pharmaceuticals. Consider world exports here and world imports here. We import far more than we export and in all likelihood the primary impediment to our importing more are federal law and regulations.

And that only considers exports by dollar value not tonnage. I can’t prove it but I suspect that you will find U. S. exports dominated by relatively few high value pharmaceutical exports. If you’re looking for a “medicine chest of the world” that would probably be India which exports far more pharmaceuticals than it imports.

Could U. S. companies, which include most of the largest biomedical companies in the world, beef up domestic production to encourage exports? Probably but that would take more than relaxing a few regulations. It would require a major overhaul in management attitudes in those countries. And don’t expect German, French, Israeli, Chinese, and Indian pharmaceutical companies to stand still while that’s going on.

This isn’t the 1940s. We have competition from every major economy in the world.

You may find this guide to emergency powers at the Wall Street Journal by David B. Rivkin Jr. and Charles Stimson helpful:

Some state officials, such as New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, have urged the White House to take charge. But this isn’t a task for Washington alone. While the federal government has limited and enumerated constitutional authority, states possess a plenary “police power” and have primary responsibility for protecting public health.

States may also take more drastic measures, such as requiring citizens to be tested or vaccinated, even against their will. In Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905), the Supreme Court considered a challenge to a state law requiring everyone to be vaccinated against smallpox. Henning Jacobson refused vaccination and was convicted. The court upheld the law and Jacobson’s conviction.

“The Constitution,” Justice John Marshall Harlanwrote for a 7-2 majority, “does not import an absolute right in each person to be, at all times and in all circumstances, wholly freed from restraint.” Instead, “a community has the right to protect itself against an epidemic.” Its members “may at times, under the pressure of great dangers, be subjected to such restraint, to be enforced by reasonable regulations, as the safety of the general public may demand.”

States also have the power, beyond criminal law enforcement, to make quarantine and isolation effective. If presented with widespread noncompliance, governors may call National Guard units to put their orders into force, to safeguard state property and infrastructure, and to maintain the peace. In some states, individuals who violate emergency orders can be detained without charge and held in isolation.

Federal leadership is crucial. Washington has wider access to data about the virus, its migration and trends. It is prudent for states to follow federal guidance on matters like quarantine and travel restrictions. But because Washington lacks states’ police power, compulsion is not always an option. The Constitution forbids federal officials from coercing the states or commandeering state resources or civilian personnel. While Washington may withhold some federal funds from states that refuse to follow federal law, it may do so only in ways that are tailored to advance the federal interests at stake and don’t amount to a “gun to the head,” as Chief Justice John Roberts put it in the 2012 ObamaCare case.

The federal government has the authority to order regional or nationwide containment and quarantine measures. The Public Health Service Act enables the surgeon general, with the approval of the secretary of health and human services, “to make and enforce such regulations as . . . are necessary to prevent the introduction, transmission, or spread of communicable diseases.” President Trump listed the Covid-19 virus for this purpose in January. The act authorizes the federal government to apprehend, detain and conditionally release individuals to prevent the spread of infection, and to detain anyone who enters from a foreign country or who would spread the disease across state borders.

The act can be read to allow for the general quarantine of all people from a particular state or states, including those who are asymptomatic or even have tested negative. But an attempt to do so would certainly result in litigation. Congress should promptly enact a statute that would affirm federal authority to impose a general quarantine if necessary.

To enforce such measures, the president can deploy civilian and military resources. He could federalize the National Guard over the governor’s objection. The Constitution allows Congress to authorize the use of the militia as well as regular armed forces for a variety of purposes, including suppression of insurrections, defense against invasions, and execution of laws.

Congress has placed significant constraints on the domestic use of the U.S. military. The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 generally prohibits the use of U.S. armed forces for “performing domestic law enforcement activities” and features criminal penalties for noncompliance. But lawmakers have enacted important exceptions that allow the use, in certain specified circumstances, of the military to enforce federal laws. One is the Insurrection Act, originally dating to 1807, which allows the president to use the military when dealing with domestic rebellions. Widespread noncompliance with federal quarantines and travel bans promulgated under the Public Health Service Act may qualify as an insurrection.

I agree that the lack of a president with the temperamental equipment to calm the populace and instill confidence is a serious deficit. I’m not as concerned about leadership from the top down. Our system just isn’t constructed that way. I think that a lack of followership is probably more serious than a lack of leadership.

A question I would pose for the mayors of “sanctuary cities” is do you really want to turn your records over to the federal government? The retort that we can trust the federal government to act only to take measures to promote containment of COVID-19 and not to pursue other federal interests, including the enforcement of the Immigration and Naturalization Act, rings hollow.

For me there are some things best done by the federal government, there are some things that are best done by the federal government relaxing its hands on the reins, there are some things for which states are indispensable, and there are many things for which empowering the private sector is by far the best, fastest, and most effective strategy.

The American Kennel Club’s Museum of the Dog has placed a virtual tour (PDF) of their exhibit honoring sled dogs and dogsledding online.

I think that the editors of the Wall Street Journal are casting with far too wide a net in these remarks:

Another sign of the age: Chicagoland Congressman Dan Lipinski, one of the Democratic Party’s final antiabortion holdouts, lost a primary election Tuesday by two points, or about 2,500 votes. The traditional working-class Democrats who once chose Mr. Lipinski—and his father before him—used to be a keystone in the party’s base.

But the left today tolerates no dissent on abortion. National progressives, including AOC and Bernie Sanders, piled in to defeat Mr. Lipinski. Officially, the Democratic Party’s apparatus supports its incumbents, but few bigwigs have gone out of their way to help Mr. Lipinski. Two years ago his fellow Illinois Congressman Luis Gutierrez called him “a dinosaur” and a holdover from the party of 1980, who should be “a relic in some museum.”

The problem with drawing such sweeping conclusions is that in Illinois at least primary election turnout fell just short of a record-breaking low—around 25%. That might be true of the Democratic Party or it might not. What we can conclude is that pro-abortion activists were more highly motivated to brave COVID-19 and go out in vote than the white ethnic working class voters that formed Dan Lipinski’s base.

I wrote at least one post opposing Dan Lipinski more than 15 years ago when he first took office on grounds of nepotism. I have no particular fondness for him even now. I just think you should avoid drawing any conclusions about Democrats in Chicago based on a low showing in one Congressional district.