Tag Archives: health care

Progressive-Democratic Party Newspeak Dictionary

Posted on by
Reply

Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer (D) has a new entry. While using her authority to line-item veto $21 million she says was allocated for “anti-choice” programs.

Anti-choice: what she vetoed was this:

$10 million for marketing programs about adoption, $2 million in tax credits for adoptive parents, $3 million for a “maternal navigator pilot program,” $1.5 million for pregnancy resource centers and $700,000 for a nonprofit pregnancy center.

She claims her veto was based on the pregnancy crisis centers spread disinformation and withhold other information. These are plainly bogus beefs.

Instead, Whitmer is claiming that giving women options regarding their pregnancies is anti-choice.

A Performance Principle

Posted on by
Reply

Norway, it turns out, did really well as a nation during the recent Wuhan Virus Situation.

Not long ago, the World Health Organization published mortality stats from the past two years, which showed that nearly every country’s excess death count spiked during the pandemic. Norway’s barely moved. The Norwegians had pulled off the closest thing possible to an optimal response to the most vexing problems that Covid-19 presented.

Then what? Norway, rather than rest on its laurels, studied the situation, with particular reference to the nation’s successes and failures—and there were some failures, even as Norway did so well overall. Why was Norway, in the words of the WSJ article’s author, so eager to probe its failures? Norwegian economist Egil Matsen is the second chair of the Norwegian commission that was set up early in the virus situation to plan ahead and then to study in hindsight Norway’s response for future reference. He said,

It reflects a desire to see what we did well—and what we did not do well. I think there is perhaps even an expectation that when something this unusual and serious happens to our country, it should be evaluated and we should try to learn from it in the aftermath.

What a concept. Plan ahead, and then see how well the plan did and did not do in an actual situation. Don’t just kick back in celebration—do that, sure, and rue failure when that occurs—but work to do better. Learn from experience. And one lesson here is that, while a physician chaired this sort of commission, an economist was second chair. Economists are trained to take a much more systems approach, to look at the broader picture, of a problem that has a range of national-level implications; a medical professional is trained to understand only the medical implication.

Responding to a pandemic is nothing if not the classic economics problem of weighing costs and benefits.

Vaccine Efficacy

Posted on by
Reply

An Imperial College of London study of the efficacy of the various Wuhan Virus vaccines, led by Oliver Watson, indicates that around the world, 20 million lives were saved in the first year of the vaccines’ availability. In the US, according to the study, some 1.9 million lives were saved by the vaccines.

Using data from worldometer‘s Coronavirus Web site, that works out to a bit over 2% additional lives saved given a case (not given an actual infection) in the US, which is a good improvement, especially for those 2%. But it’s also only a 2% improvement, and it comes against an already low mortality rate for the virus, other than for those with serious comorbidities and/or who are older than 85-ish.

And the study doesn’t appear to break out lives saved by health or age category, so the improvement could be even less for those who start out largely healthy and not in geezerdom.

That puts the probability of gain down in the region where it’s also useful to consider the probability of deleterious side effects from the vaccines.

Elites are Talking Again

Posted on by
Reply

This time, it’s in the context of the Wuhan Virus and its latest evolution, and the elites are triggered by

The nearly 300 deaths reported daily are again more concentrated among older people, underscoring hazards for the more vulnerable while the overall population appears less at risk.

With oblivious self-importance, Katelyn Jetelina, Assistant Professor Department of Epidemiology, Human Genetics and Environmental Sciences School of Public Health, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston (such a long title…), pronounced that

It’s really up to us to determine where in this repertoire of things that can kill us we want to place SARS-CoV-2[.]

No, it most assuredly is not. While medical expertise constitutes an important input into an individual’s decision-making, the actual risks regarding things that can kill us—the Wuhan Virus in the present case—are unique to each individual. The perception of this risk is unique to each individual. The response to be taken in light of the actual or perceived risk from the Virus are unique to each individual.

The determination of where in this repertoire of things that can kill us we want to place [Wuhan Virus] belongs to the individual, not the elites.

A Couple of Illustrations

Posted on by
Reply

Taken from a Wall Street Journal article otherwise centered on the alleged pitfalls of calling an end to the Wuhan Virus situation. First up:

“We’re in uncharted waters. There’s not a blueprint to say, ‘OK, this is how this politically unfolds, coming out of a pandemic’,” said Cornell Belcher, a Democratic pollster.

Politically unfolds. Not how it unfolds from a health perspective, or from a national benefit perspective, or even from what’s good for a politician’s constituency. No, what matters to the politician is how this unfolds to the benefit of a politician’s personal standing in office or in gaining/retaining office.

And this one, in which the journalism guild is an enthusiastic participant.

For example, some moderate Senate Democrats and most Republicans who voted to end the federal mask mandate last month are now calling on the administration to keep in place Title 42—which is predicated on the idea that the country faces a Covid-19 emergency.

No, Title 42 is a law, long predating the Wuhan Virus situation, that was designed to bar from entry into our nation those wanting to immigrate from nations with their own health emergencies. The press is actively complicit in distorting that law’s invocation as a means of dealing with our own emergency. Title 42 was invoked during the just concluded “emergency” (concluded in fact if not by political recognition) to keep those from nations with major Wuhan Virus outbreaks from coming here and making our own situation worse.

It’s certainly true that some of the invocation was motivated as a means of illegal alien entry control and that some of the invocation was motivated by the existence of our own virus situation. Those, though, were and are secondary to the simple fact that the law is designed, and presently used, to protect us from immigrants and illegal aliens potentially bringing with them disease outbreaks in their countries of origin.