This one may be completely off the mark because it is based only on my observation of a tiny sample size. So take it for the non-scientific musings of someone trying to draw connections in a very strange world (I really need a statistician to help me with these!).
Watching Facebook posts over the past week, I’ve discovered an alarming trend of the use of data relating to COVID cases and COVID fatalities. I have noticed that my more left-leaning friends have been focused on number of cases and number of potential deaths, whereas the more right-leaning people who I follow (or more rightxwing comments on others’ posts) tend to focus on the number who have recovered and how the projected death counts are less than other pandemics. I follow one person who daily posts a running count of the number of people who have recovered…I’m not sure where that data comes from, because it would seem to be totally uncountable given the number of non-symptom cases.
The reasons for this seem pretty obvious to me. Just as everything else in life, COVID has become the football of never ending game of politics that we cannot escape for a moment. Those who are questioning administrative handling of this crisis (of which, I’m sure it’s no surprise, I count myself) focus on the death counts as a preventable tragedy, the inevitable cost of ignoring the recommendations of science and believing that spin and bluster could change this reality as it has changed so many others. Death counts (and projected death counts), particularly out of context, are stark and real and persuasive. I am moved by these counts, though if I were to pick away at them a bit, I’m certain I would learn more than the simple number provides, (for example, given the targeted demographics, how many of these people would have died from other causes in this time frame?). But the number is the argument, put in simple digital form.
On the other hand, those that tout the number of recovered are making an equally political statement. It is an offshoot of the pandemic-denier stance (which surprisingly remains despite all evidence). Using these numbers, one asserts that COVID is not deadly to most persons who contract it, a fact that is undeniable. Therefore, measures taken should be minimal because the contraction of the disease is not a death sentence in most cases. There is also an implied assertion that Administrative actions were correct because people are recovering. This is a variation of the “nothing to see here” argument. To be frank, I don’t know what these numbers mean either, since huge numbers of cases are never diagnosed.
These approaches violate both my first and second rules of data.
Greg’s First Rule of Data: Data is neither good nor bad, it just is. These are projections based on a certain level of reliability, whether this is good or bad is completely human projection.
Greg’s Second Rule of Data: No data point has meaning unless it is compared with another data point. I cannot draw any information about myself from isolated data points, without disaggregation and comparison.
It is sad, however, that the numbers have been politicized. Using recovery to health to support the actions of the current insanity appears callous, ignoring the real cost to individuals and communities. Likewise to use death statistics in a pandemic for political gain seems equally cold-blooded.
Years from now these numbers will be more accurate and will be placed in a greater context, but that will be long after current political figures have left the scene. Until then let us remember two things wherever we stand on the political spectrum. 1. COVID is a serious virus from which most healthy people recover; it is not an automatic death sentence for most. 2. The cost to individuals, families, and communities will be catastrophic, and none of that is politics. It is hurt, and it is up to us to jump in with the help and care when we can.
Stay safe, stay strong.
Today’s playlist: https://open.spotify.com/playlist/7b2NbQRgcBFVh2oeNpP7DL?si=GZ-ZwSJeRJC1gktDUZHYMg