The Legal Genealogist is staying home
Those who follow this writer and this blog, and are Facebook friends, know the view from today’s office window.
On any given Friday in the conference season that begins each spring, it’s almost always a photo of an airport, somewhere, where The Legal Genealogist is arriving to or leaving from.
Not today.
The Delaware Genealogical Society spring workshop next weekend: postponed.
The Harford County, Maryland, Family History Day the weekend after: postponed.
The St. Louis Genealogical Society Family History Conference in April: cancelled.
The Sonoma County Genealogical Society spring conference in April: cancelled.
Such are the times in which we live.
The time of coronavirus.
The time of pandemic.
We are not the first generation to face the risk of widespread disease. Our distant ancestors lived through plague. Our more recent forebears struggled with the influenza epidemic of 1918.
We are, however, the first to live through such times with both widespread access to information — and widespread exposure to utter nonsense on social media and even some so-called news outlets.
So we are the first to be told by the scientists and medical professionals that we need to flatten the curve — to reduce the number of new cases popping up all at once that could overwhelm the medical system — to give the greatest number of our citizens the highest chance to make it through this pandemic.1 And, at the same time, we are the first to be told by people whose primary concern is their pocketbook that it’s all overblown, we need to go on about our daily lives, and if we just use elderberry and buy more stocks and bonds everything will be coming up roses.2
You see, the reality is that most people won’t get very sick with this (or any other) virus. Most people will just get a little sick and recover. That’s why you hear the weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth over what the general shutdown is doing to people’s pocketbooks: “Most of us will be just fine — why should we all have to pay the price for this?”
But the reality also is that some percentage of those who get it will get very very sick. They will need high-level medical care include intensive care beds and even ventilators. As long as the raw numbers of people needing intensive care beds and ventilators at the same time is less than or equal to the number of beds and ventilators, everyone has a chance of making it through. The minute the raw numbers of people needing intensive care beds and ventilators at the same time exceed the number of beds and ventilators, people are going to die.
We are seeing that in Italy today. Italian doctors are having to make the decision between putting this very very sick person on a ventilator and putting that very very sick person on a ventilator. Because there aren’t enough ventilators, or beds, or even doctors, to give the same care to every very very sick person.3
And, because of what today is, I vote with the flatten the curve folks. I vote to do whatever is needed — despite the cost to my own interests4 — to reduce the raw numbers coming into the system at any one time so that everyone has the best chance to make it through. So that hard choices don’t have to be made about who gets the bed and the ventilator — and who doesn’t.
I vote to stay home. To cancel nonessential gatherings. To work to reduce community spread of this disease. I am so proud of these societies and our community for rising to the occasion, accepting the financial hit that cancelling or postponing these events incurs, and doing what we all must do — together — to get through this with as little risk to life as possible. I have added my voice to that by waiving a provision in my contract calling for a penalty if things are cancelled with little notice and by absorbing as many nonrefundable costs as I can.
Because this is what’s needed, for all of us, together.
To flatten the curve.
And because of what today is.
Today, you see, is the 71st birthday of my older sister. Someone in one of the highest risk categories. Someone who, by reason of age and underlying medical issues — I am not happy about the genes she got from our German ancestors — is far more likely than others to need that bed and that ventilator if this disease hits. Someone with a family who loves her. Someone who should have many years left to enjoy puzzles and snuggling with a cat and watching critter cams and sunsets.
Someone who deserves as much chance of getting through this pandemic as those with 401Ks and IRAs.
To protect her life, and mine, and yours — to protect the lives of our parents and grandparents — to protect the lives of our children and young adults with compromised immune systems — for the lives of us all… I vote to flatten the curve.
Because today is my older sister’s 71st birthday.
And because I am damned determined to see that she celebrates her 72nd.
Flatten the curve.
Cite/link to this post: Judy G. Russell, “Because of what today is,” The Legal Genealogist (https://www.legalgenealogist.com/blog : posted 13 Mar 2020).
SOURCES
- See, e.g., the excellent explanation here: Tomas Pueyo, “Coronavirus: Why You Must Act Now,” posted 10 Mar 2020 (https://medium.com/ : accessed 13 Mar 2020). Or the explanation here: Eliza Barclay and Dylan Scott, “How canceled events and self-quarantines save lives, in one chart,” posted 10 Mar 2020, Vox.com (https://www.vox.com/ : accessed 13 Mar 2020). ↩
- Seriously? Elderberry? What in the world are people smoking anyway? ↩
- See Yascha Mounk, “The Extraordinary Decisions Facing Italian Doctors,” posted 11 Mar 2020, The Atlantic (https://www.theatlantic.com/ : accessed 13 Mar 2020). ↩
- Every penny of income I have right now comes from the speaking gigs that are being cancelled. And every penny of assets that I have towards the retirement I just began is tied up in those same 401Ks and IRAs that the pocketbook crowd wants us to protect over lives. My economic skin absolutely is in this game. ↩
Well said, as usual, Judy. Our ancestors often didn’t have the understanding of science to protect themselves from diseases. We do.
Thank you so much for this well-reasoned insight. It helps validate the decision we made earlier in the week to cancel all of our in-person client meetings and shift to phone instead. Why? This was a decision made out of love because nearly all of our clients are over 60. What if we are carriers without realizing it? I would not be okay spreading it to someone I love when it could have been prevented, or clogging the system so those same people I love can’t access healthcare.
Today is my birthday, too. I am 70, just a year behind your sister. Wish her a Happy Birthday from me, a loyal reader of your entertaining and informative blog.
I will, and a very happy birthday to you as well — here’s to many more!
Apparently concerned that people won’t pay attention to the graph above, an epidemiologist created this graphic instead: https://twitter.com/amdar1ing/status/1237880129575157760
Posted on Facebook yesterday! 🙂
Your post touched my heart. I, too, have someone I want to reach his next birthday, so I support and appreciate you and all others who are sacrificing to help make that happen. Hopefully, in just a short time, the danger will be reduced and things will be back to normal for all of us.
Very well said, Judy.
I agree with your message 100% – but your chart (curve, figure, call-it-what-you-like) is doing a very poor job of illustrating your point:
• The vertical axis is showing “# of cases”. So it includes both survivors AND victims. Because we are in the middle of a developing “statistic” the only data available (reported) on the ratio of survivors to victims is assumed to be just one number for all situations.
Which brings us to:
• The type of curve it shows is called a “Bell” curve and is recognized, as applying to the occurrence of most naturally occurring events over time (or distance, or some other linear measure). It starts out small, rises to a peak, and then tails off. It’s shape is determined by the location of the “middle” (or peak) of the curve and the width of the variation from this middle – the standard deviation.
In the two curves shown; one (red) has a higher middle and a narrower width, while the other (blue) has a lower middle and a higher width. When you have used statistics for some time you get a feel for these curves and I’d lay good odds that the area under both curves is close to the same – and since that area is “# of cases” x Time” AND the ratio of survivors to victims is the same for both curves. Then the illustration shows there is NO advantage to slowing down the rate of infection because it doesn’t change the all important ratio of survivors vs, victims.
As I said in the beginning none of this has any impact on your words, which I completely agree with. It is simply unfortunate that you chose to include the wrong illustration! If I had not spent a good portion of a working lifetime using statistics similar to these I probably wouldn’t have been worried; but if I was bamboozled by the apparent anomaly, there must be some others, – I hope?
Not likely. Statistical analysis is the least common skill in the population (this part of it included), with the likely exception of that least common of attributes, common sense. The notion is clear, however: spread the numbers over more time. If the graphic helps the non-statisticians understand that, then good enough.
It is my understanding of the bell curve graphic that the whole point is not to overwhelm the hospitals/medical systems, but spread the risk over a longer time. This will enable the medical system to handle both Covid-19 patients AND patients with other illnesses. #flatteningthecurve.
You got it: the whole point is that we can’t prevent people from getting the virus — what we want to do is prevent them from all getting the virus at the same time.
Hi again, I realize now that I failed to properly explain my problem with the figure as it was shown:
(Another case of being to close to the wood to realize there were trees, I’m afraid.)
When the virus is simply free to run it’s course through a population (i.e., the Red curve) it does so at it’s maximum transmission rate (essentially the time it takes between the start of an infection through till the time ALL the potential victims return to the community (or have died and been disposed of) and because it can’t find any further vulnerable people.
Since the illustration is obviously showing “number of Victims / period” against a run of Time periods then, the area under the curve represents the Total number of “Potential Victims” (i.e., people WITHOUT natural immunity – including those who didn’t survive). This is, by definition, (close to) the MAXIMUM number of potential victims of the virus.
As I mentioned earlier the area under the Red curve looks to be about the same as that under the Blue curve. This would be unfortunate because it means that the same total number of people are going to get infected – and presumably the same percentage of those victims are going to die. It was this obvious error that didn’t make any sense to me, particularly when I read Judy’s excellent explanation. Being cold blooded, if the end result is going to be that the same number of people get sick and the same number of them are going to die, what is the point of the “protective measures.”
Obviously this must mean there is something wrong with the illustration – – – I hope. Certainly the peak of the “With Protective Measures” curve should be later (Isolation is being used as a means to slow down the rate of infection in the General Population), however the whole curve also has to be lowered because the “Healthcare System” should be helping more of Infected and suspected patients to survive (or what is is for?).
We are told that the Isolation & Healthcare operations are slowing down the Infection rate to what the current “Healthcare System” is capable of. From this there is also an inference that with unlimited Isolation & Healthcare capability we would be able to “make harmless” the virus on the same timescale as the “Without Protective Measures” Red Curve but again it must have a lower peak level because there would be more survivors. This “implication” seems unlikely (just my guess) so it may be that there are still some factors unrecognized at the moment.
A simple explanation as to why the illustration is looking wrong could be that originally it was two separate curves and they had been combined onto the same pair of axis by some editor not familiar with the rules of statistics. Two curves on the same axis means they are directly comparable. However to compare curves on separate axis (charts) you MUST know the actual Scale of the “# of cases” and the “Time since first case” axis for each curve!!
Amen. People tend to put on their blinders – what they see around them is the status of the world to them. But this situation doesn’t fit into their paradigm. It’s time to look at the big picture. This time it is about everyone’s well being. Flatten the curve.
Well said Judy, as usual. I was registered to see you in Tacoma but I have cancelled and I expect it will be cancelled soon. I appreciate all your postings.
Tacoma-Pierce has just cancelled, and I applaud them for doing so. It’s so so hard to walk away from something you’ve spent a year or more planning, but it sure says a lot for the care they’re taking for their members and attendees.
Thank you! Beautiful….
This is perfect for people who don’t understand the importance of flattening the curve, and for people who are trying to persuade friends and relations as to why this matters.
I’m spreading this as far as my very limited voice can reach. If even a few can get the point, and understand the importance, your piece matters!
As genealogists, we can also appreciate that much of the advice for how to flatten the curve comes out of historical research not that different from what we would do if we wanted to understand the impact of prior pandemics/epidemics on our ancestors.
An example I have seen is this 2007 Journal of the American Medical Association article (https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/208354) that studied the effect of nonpharmaceutical measures on the 1918-20 Spanish Flu epidemic as used by the 43 of the 66 largest U.S. cities for which they could get complete archival material. Some of their footnotes go to sources of the type we would like to use. Unfortunately because of linkrot their complete bibilography is now only available via the Internet Archive, at https://web.archive.org/web/20070820175223/http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dq/pdf/flu_bib.pdf.
In the small set of their 1,100+ sources that I sampled, most of the state reports and city reports appear to be available either on Google Books or at “The American Influenza Epidemic of 1918-1919: A Digital Encyclopedia”, http://www.influenzaarchive.org/, a joint effort of the University of Michigan Center for the History of Medicine (original material) and Michigan Publishing, University of Michigan Library (archival material).
As a Post Script to my earlier comments about the confusion causing “illustration” (in the apparent form of the results of a statistical model of the prediction of the course of the “Covir-19” pandemic:
Yesterday, on a television program about the progress of the Pandemic, I saw the same illustration being displayed EXCEPT that the amplitude of the Blue curve had been dramatically dropped to well below the currently available care level line.
Or to put it another way, someone has corrected the error which I was complaining about!! Unfortunately this exposes a down side because makes it very clear that it IS ONLY an illustration, NOT the result of a real statistical model taking real facts into account – but simply an illustration of the hopes and wishes of the originator.
As usual just because its on the Internet DOESN’T automatically make it TRUE.
I confess to understanding only a little of what you’ve been diligently trying to explain … but I adore the fact that we’re geeky enough to be trying to get a handle on statistics in the middle of a pandemic.