Counterintuitive Covid Truths

From my actuarial circle comes this article from a British economist calling it “striking how much Covid confusion still reigns. Some of the informational miasma is deliberate — there’s profit for some in the bewilderment of others — but much of it stems from the fact that epidemics defy our intuition.” Here, are Harford’s “five counterintuitive Covid truths that easily slip beyond our understanding” following by my New Jersey pesepective:

1. If a large share of hospitalised people are vaccinated, that’s a sign of success. It has been common to see headlines noting that a substantial minority of people who have been hospitalised or even killed by Covid have been fully vaccinated. These numbers suggest vaccine failure is alarmingly common. The fallacy only becomes clear at the logical extremes: before vaccines existed, everyone in hospital was unvaccinated; if vaccines were universal, then everybody in hospital would be vaccinated. Neither scenario tells us whether the vaccines work.

So try this. Imagine that 1 per cent of the unvaccinated population will end up in hospital with Covid over a given time period. In a city of a million people, that would be 10,000 hospital stays. Now let’s say that 950,000 people get fully vaccinated, that the vaccine is 95 per cent effective against hospitalisation, and that the vaccine doesn’t reduce transmission (although it does). Here’s the arithmetic: 500 of the 50,000 unvaccinated people end up in hospital. A total of 9,500 of the vaccinated people would be at risk of a hospital visit, but the vaccine saves all but 5 per cent of them. These unlucky 475 still go to hospital. The hospital contains 500 unvaccinated and 475 vaccinated people — almost half and half — which makes it seem as though the vaccine barely works. Yet when 95 per cent of people take a 95 per cent effective vaccine, hospital visits fall from 10,000 to fewer than 1,000.

2. Herd immunity isn’t the end of a pandemic. In the simplest epidemiological models, herd immunity is the moment when so many people are immune — either because of vaccines or prior infection — that the epidemic begins to die away of its own accord. The keyword here is “begins”. An epidemic has momentum, like a train. Herd immunity is the beginning of an uphill gradient, initially very gentle. If the train is moving at top speed as it begins to climb the hill, it will keep travelling for a long way before it stops. The difference between hitting herd immunity during a raging epidemic — yes, I am thinking of the UK — and hitting it through vaccination during a lull could be millions of unnecessary cases.

3. Masks matter, but not for the reason you think. Microbiologist Ravi Gupta has called the end of mask mandates in England “criminal”, while radio presenter Julia Hartley-Brewer has said she will boycott the bookshop Waterstones if they politely suggest wearing masks. What is it about masks that ignites such rhetoric? This is all about the social stakes involved. While you can’t see who’s been vaccinated or who has ignored a ping from the contact tracers, you can see who’s wearing a mask. I think it is considerate to wear a mask, an act that evidence suggests may protect me, probably protects others and certainly reassures them. For most people, wearing a mask is only a minor annoyance, so why not do it? Only our innate tribalism can turn mask-wearing from a simple, promising precaution into the dividing line between the saintly and the damned.

Cabinet ministers have boasted about removing their masks as soon as possible, which feels like boasting about farting in a lift: it might be a relief but it’s a strange thing to advertise. Once one realises this is about signalling tribal loyalty, it makes more sense.

4. Lockdowns also matter less than you think. It is understandable that we have focused so much on lockdowns. The radical social distancing ministers have imposed has been an unprecedented shift in the way we live, but it has saved millions of lives. What we overlook is that much of this social distancing would have happened anyway. Many people “locked down” before lockdowns themselves, out of fear or out of consideration for others, or both. The most famous study of this by economists Austan Goolsbee and Chad Syverson estimated that around 90 per cent of the reduction in consumer traffic was voluntary.

One need not believe the precise number to accept that people have often acted by choice, through fear or altruism. The flip side is also true: a lockdown that isn’t widely supported is neither effective nor tenable. All this matters because it is easy to think that everything revolves around the rules. More important is social solidarity, clear information and prominent people setting a good example. Alas, we’ve had to settle for social solidarity alone.

5. Covid was a near miss. After the disruption to life, love, education and commerce, and after more than four million confirmed deaths around the world — with many more unconfirmed and many still to come — it may seem strange to say so. But this could have been far worse. It could have been as contagious (or more) as the Delta variant from day one. It could have been as deadly as Mers, which has killed a third of the people confirmed to have contracted it. It could have attacked children rather than the very elderly. And it could — like HIV — have defeated efforts to create a vaccine. So while we count the cost, we should also count our blessings — and dramatically strengthen our preparedness for the next pandemic.


  1. The trick here is getting reliable data. Throughout this pandemic different groups have been demonized – first those who don’t wash their hands, then anyone who does not social distance (except if it is at a government sanctioned protest – regardless of size), then those who don’t wear masks, and now those who have not gotten vaccinated. Were Governor Murphy to understand Harford’s first point he would not need to insist that almost everyone who contracts covid these days is unvaccinated without providing any reliable backup data. Admitting that a substantial minority of new covid cases are among the vaccinated does not belie his blind allegiance to vaccines.
  2. Herd immunity still confuses me and I couldn’t catch Harford’s train of thought here.
  3. My preferred covd-avoidance technique is social distancing, which incidentally I have been practicing for years and gotten quite good at if I do say so myself, but if neither masks nor vaccines turn out to have been as effective as advertised then a heavy reliance on them would dupe people into happily gathering in packed stadiums.
  4. Responses to past pandemics appear not to have included quarantining healthy individuals (there was even pushback when the suggestion was made) which leads to my final point:
  5. It is generally referred to as the “Spanish Flu of 1918”. Because of all the mixed messaging will this wind in the history books of 2121 being called the “Chinese Flu of 2020-??”?

5 responses to this post.

  1. Posted by geo8rge on August 22, 2021 at 5:08 pm

    The article talks about vaccination, but what they really mean is an mRNA vaccine of Western origin. The Asiatic vaccines, Russian and Chinese are not considered vaccines at all. Why are Asiatic vaccines banned?

    In particular the Chinese are using an inactivated virus vaccine, which is the type used in all vaccines until last year. A weird situation is developing in Europe where some jurisdictions accept Asiatic vaccines and others don’t.

    This rejection of the Asiatic vaccines makes the mRNA vaccines seem like a scam.

    Youtube channel ‘trial site news has lots of covid news in addition to other medical topics. For example, mRNA pioneer Robert Malone discusses his being censored, and even implies it was orchestrated by fed gov.

    Dr. Robert Malone Talks Censorship | Interview


    • Posted by geo8rge on August 23, 2021 at 10:32 am

      Wikipedia list of covid vaccines approved somewhere:

      Why is it the US only recognizes vaccines from ‘White’ countries.

      Wouldn’t the optimal risk reduction strategy be to accept the universal average safety and efficacy by making all the vaccines available and not just a few Western mRNA vaccines?


    • Posted by Rex the Wonder Dog!🐶🐶🐶🐾🐾🐾 on August 23, 2021 at 12:28 pm

      What Twitter and YouTube are doing is censorship. Straight up censorship, on behalf of a viewpoint that aligns with a political party, the Dims in this case. But as a private company they are entitled to do that. BUT this is also why we have anti-trust laws, so once a company gets this big and they dominate the market they are in, they can be busted up into smaller companies. Standard Oil was busted up in 1909-1910 from the one mammoth company to 39 smaller companies. Sadly those 39 smaller companies have over the last century all merged back to form 5 mammoth companies today, an oligarchy, through merger. So basically today we are close to what Standard Oil was a century ago. This obviously harms the poor, middle class and all consumers. YouTube and Twitter should be busted up. They should also lose their Section 230 immunity as they are now “publishers” of the content on their website by virtue of their censorship, which is nothing more than editorial management. I don’t understand why no one has brought suit under this theory.


  2. Posted by Stephen Douglas on August 23, 2021 at 3:55 pm

    Probably the same reason the feds have never hauled the public unions and elected politicians into court on a RICO action.


    • Posted by Rex the Wonder Dog!🐶🐶🐶🐾🐾🐾 on August 26, 2021 at 6:18 pm

      Probably the same reason the feds have never hauled the public unions and elected politicians into court on a RICO action.
      Don’t need the “feds” for a Civil RICO action Monkey Boi, an affected taxpayer/group could do it themselves as a private action (private as in non-government). Many muni’s have been sued under Civil RICO, including (surprisingly) law enforcement agencies … As for a criminal action, just because the Fed’s have NOT filed doesn’t mean they can’t. 😺🐾😺
      “A federal judge ruled Monday that the Los Angeles Police Department can be sued as a racketeering enterprise [⏩aka Civil RICO⏪] by people who claim their civil rights were violated by Rampart Division officers.

      The ruling, which legal experts called unprecedented, also opened the door to an injunction that would forbid officers from engaging in evidence planting and perjury.”


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: