Browsed by
Category: COVID-19

The Invisible Enemy

The Invisible Enemy

Comments 0 Comment

COVID-19 has been referred to as the “invisible enemy”. It is an adversary to ourselves and mankind. It can attack without notice – unseen. In addition, anyone you come in contact with can inadvertently pass the virus to you – thus becoming an unintended ally of the invisible enemy. We have been told to hide from this enemy. Social distancing measures and masks are designed to protect you.

As the CDC suggests, the main way we can avoid this “invisible enemy” is by shielding ourselves from each other:

  • Everyone 2 and older should wear masks in public.
  • Masks should be worn in addition to staying at least 6 feet apart, especially around people who don’t live with you.
  • Outside your home: Put 6 feet of distance between yourself and people who don’t live in your household.
  • Avoid crowds – Being in crowds like in restaurants, bars, fitness centers, or movie theaters put you at higher risk for COVID-19.

Despite these measures to shield us from the SARS-CoV-2 virus…it can still easily slip by as many people have seen. Unfortunately, millions have become infected and died worldwide.

However, as we have learned to view each other as potential threats, are we the victims of a much more harmful disease? Are we in danger of losing the fabric of our society in an effort to protect ourselves? Do we disregard the value of the simple connections with others – our families, our friends, our neighbors? The casual smiles and laughter as we meet, or just pass by… Is the real “invisible enemy” the ideology which makes us fear each other instead of fighting a virus?

Goals and the Paths Forward

Goals and the Paths Forward

Comments 0 Comment

Most media coverage on COVID and Climate Change have focused on the “crisis”, and much less on solutions. One reason many media outlets have failed to highlight the prescribed paths forward, is because they emphasize top-down constraints to limit human impacts on the world. In the United States, COVID and “Green New Deal” leadership often view people themselves as the problem – rather than the source of solutions. Policy directives are focused on restrictions. Citizens must to everything possible to limit our movements, socially distance, use less energy, lower our collective carbon footprint, and sacrifice to save ourselves and future generations.

However, if we take a step back and look ahead, there are multiple paths forward to achieve the goal of a healthier and greener future.

For Climate Change central policy directives outlined in The Paris Agreement and advocated by the World Economic Forum clearly target a decline of 1.5 degrees centigrade by 2050. Can we use the 1.5 degree change as a goal? Yes…but we should also understand it cannot be effectively measured with any real degree of accuracy. It is a general target, using a model subject to a multitude of variables and inaccuracies. In addition, we have no concrete means to track towards that 1.5 degree target. Instead, we must rely on targeting the underlying variables such as carbon emissions – with the expectation it will lead from “A to B” average temperatures over time. With the complexity of the problem, can we really expect a central governing organization to tell us the best path? -especially since the model forecasts 10-80 years into the future?

History is littered with the debris of top down organizational failures in which governments blindly or naively implement orchestrated social system and economic directives. While imperfect, the invisible hand of our traditional capitalist economic system has helped create the most free and successful society in history. These freedoms also encourage risk taking and innovations which have propelled our civilization forward.

In the US and the world, it seems we are on the precipice of potential redirection and reversion to centralized, planned government led economies. Recently, governments have had the ability to tell us what “non-essential” businesses should close – and who should not go to school or work. Unfortunately, these measures also serve to distort the basic economic system which has made us so strong. While the effortless benefits of a maternalistic government may be attractive to some in the short term, the reliance on an autocratic elite to guide us forward subjects society to gross misalignments of resources and controls.

It is difficult for anyone to predict the future – even with the wealth of information governments and societies can harness today. The COVID models predicting deaths and impacts far exceeding what was realized is just the latest significant example. In many cases, the COVID “cure” was far worse than the disease with prolonged school closures and other drastic measures. Implementing more robust measurement systems, information sharing, and creative solutions could have been much more effective. Looking back, it is clear we did not take the best path through the COVID “crisis”.

There are, and will be, many paths as we take steps forward. We will also discover new paths as we go. Prosperity and innovation will lead the way as humanity solves problems – for ourselves, our families, our communities, our nations, our environment, and our planet.

Challenges and what can we learn from the data.

Challenges and what can we learn from the data.

Comments 0 Comment

With COVID-19 we have had the opportunity to gather and utilize data from a variety of sources to help us understand and fight the “invisible enemy”. In the United States, each jurisdiction has used different approaches to capturing and reporting relevant case statistics to its citizens. Unfortunately, often the data has not been communicated or made available in a widespread or transparent way.

Despite the shortcomings in the availability of detailed information, there are thousands of people who use and interact with the COVID data on daily basis. Policies have also been implemented based on derivatives of these numbers – such as testing positivity rates. The national media has focused on the top-line big numbers – which raise concern over the severity of the problem, but do little to highlight any underlying opportunities. However, there are solutions waiting to be found within the mountains of case data. We, as a society, should be mining the data to discover means to fight the disease. We don’t need to be held at the mercy of the unknown, unnecessarily. So, what can we learn? The existing data tells us:

  • Children rarely have severe cases of COVID.
  • Older populations are particularly vulnerable
  • COVID is seasonal. It comes in waves.
  • Risk mitigation through mask wearing is extremely difficult
  • Contact tracing is ineffective at scale
  • Simple preventive measures such as sustained Vitamin D levels, exposure to sunlight, and proper ventilation help
  • There are inexpensive treatments options to prevent and mitigate COVID symptoms – some proprietary treatments are not as effective
  • The overall case fatality rate is approximately 1% (99% of people who get COVID, survive)
  • Re-infection rates are near zero – indicating post infection immunity
  • Most COVID fatalities also involve other serious illnesses.
  • The vaccines are effective *The mRNA shots offer varying degrees of protection and also have downstream impacts which are being studied.
  • Based on age and other factors, we can pinpoint individuals at highest risk for severe illness and death – and target efforts to protect them

With all this information at our disposal, are we utilizing the available data to help us make informed decisions about our lives and livelihoods? It seems few medical and political leaders are actually utilizing or analyzing the data, despite “following the science”. Why haven’t we adopted policy decisions using the bedrock of information? Why haven’t we made good data a priority? Is there a reason we should ignore it?

If we look at the COVID “risk mitigation” decisions implemented by our leadership, it seems many actions also serve to shape our society for larger changes – including those needed to fight Climate Change.

However, there is one crucial difference between policy actions for COVID-19 and Climate Change. Despite the obfuscation of COVID-19 data, there is enough tangible information to enable society to call into question ineffective and unnecessary restrictions. Today, many citizens are “waking up” to the reality of COVID controls. We don’t all need to fear and hide from everything and each other. Even with the pervasive media fearmongering, many people now realize the COVID “crisis” is manageable through an informed public response.

Unfortunately, with many Climate Change proposals, entire generations could be subjected to top-down lockdown-esque restrictions without recourse. Nature’s clock turns slowly and it would be decades before any actualized results to validate policy actions could materialize. So, in the absence of any verifiable data to refute ill advised and/or harmful policy directives based on a Climate “Crisis”, we would be beholden to the directives of an elite “informed” minority. The bifurcated society of the “information haves and have nots” would likely lead to withering destruction of the very values which have made us so strong. We need to achieve a cleaner, greener world through prosperity and transparency, not austerity and controls. Identifying, measuring, and following key data points will help guide us to achieve our targeted milestones on the best green path forward.

Not leaving the house safeguards against most vehicle accidents.

Not leaving the house safeguards against most vehicle accidents.

Comments 0 Comment

Life is full of risks. Some are known…many are unknown, or unseen. With COVID-19 the world has been exposed to a new and significant threat to our wellbeing. Climate Change has also been presented as a monumental risk capable of “end of world” catastrophic effects – just around the corner. The “invisible enemies” are all around us and we are now faced with new levels of perceived risk in our societies.

For COVID-19 the risk mitigating guidance has primarily suggested limiting activity – staying home, not socializing, or going to school, or work, or the gym, or out for dinner, or exposing ourselves unnecessarily for any reason. Also, when we do go out, we should defend ourselves and others by shielding our faces and bodies from the unknown enemy.

With Climate Change, we have been told we need to fundamentally change the way our societies use and utilize energy. We need to minimize our footprints and limit activity as we “progress” toward a new “zero-carbon” world. These measures are necessary according to the official guidelines from the scientific elite who have the answers… In the US and much of the world, these narratives have been pushed down through the media and policy leaders for months and years.

By limiting activity, many people have undoubtedly reduced their risk of contracting COVID-19…but at what costs? Are there more pragmatic solutions which would enable society to function without as much disruption? Also, with Climate Change, will we be subjected to similar life altering regulations and restrictions?

Most of us don’t think twice before leaving the house to go to work, or run errands. This is despite the risks. By the very act of leaving a shelter or being active, we are putting ourselves at greater risk… but that is also life. Life happens everywhere – outside, in the sun, at schools, at work, at the gym, at restaurants, at bars and nightclubs, at the movies and concerts, at dinner tables, around people… everywhere. By insulating ourselves against the unknown virus, what are we giving up? By limiting are fossil fuel use are we really preventing a climate catastrophe? At what immediate cost? Are there other less disruptive solutions? Is it really a “crisis”? Are these drastic trade-offs necessary?

Many studies have shown our physical health and wellbeing as humans is integrated with our emotional and psychological health. Even the basic foundation of aging is determined by our health and wellbeing as much as any chronological constructs. People need sunshine. People need to work…and to play. Children need school and real interactions with other kids. We need to laugh. We need to socialize.

As the top down fear-mongering crisis narratives of COVID-19 and Climate Change continue to play out through the focused efforts of the centralized media machines…we need to take a step back, step outside, look around, and realize life is a risk. That is living. There will always be trade-offs. We are all in this together. We, as societies, have a much better chance to discover innovative solutions and change with world through decentralized prosperity, optimism, and creativity – not through centralized top-down austerity, fear, and controls.

The Magic of Discovery

The Magic of Discovery

Comments 0 Comment

Throughout human civilization we have discovered new worlds, new inventions, and new medical breakthroughs by chance. They are called “miracles” or “surprise discoveries”…and they happen all the time. Just two days ago, scientists surprisingly discovered life 900 meters below an Antarctic ice shelf:

“To their astonishment, they discovered a hidden ecosystem of sponges and other unidentified aquatic life forms living on the underside of a large boulder in the freezing, pitch-black depths.

It is the first time that immobile organisms such as these have ever been observed beneath the Antarctic ice shelf and their presence has left scientists scratching their heads.

“There’s all sorts of reasons they shouldn’t be there,” said researcher Huw Griffiths.”

https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/news/343926/scientists-make-surprise-antarctic-life-discovery

Discovery is often a messy process. It can’t all be planned. Frequently, we find something different than we originally intended.

As COVID hit and the world was scrambling for answers, many doctors and scientists were told not to observe and not to experiment, but to obey and follow top down guidelines – almost universally? Why?

Doctors were penalized for advocating for evidence-based solutions. Narratives and ideas diverging from the singular voice of the World Health Organization were actively censored on social media. Scientists and our societies as a whole have been discouraged from solutions based on observations and data. We have been told the empirical evidence of age related immunity, and rare asymptomatic transmission is suspect or wrong. We all need to follow the “expert” guidelines regarding school closures, restrictions, and masks. The ineffective “lockdown” strategy should be followed at the costs of the economic and psychological damages – without question. Why?

It is clear there is a new paradigm which emerged with the COVID pandemic and is permeating throughout our society. We must blindly follow the centralized authoritative constructs of our medical and political leadership without questioning the reasons. Why?

If we, as a society, expect a centralized planned economy and centralized planned solution provider to excel beyond the capacity of a free and innovative society based on our founding principles, we surely have some more dark days ahead of us. The problems of tomorrow, including climate change, will be solved through prosperity: through creative and innovative solutions and chance discoveries and not through the dictates of a centralized neo-socialist oligarchy. We need faith in ourselves and each other. Miracles do happen. Society will solve problems and move forward. We just can’t expect it all to be planned.

COVID – Media, and Anchoring Bias

COVID – Media, and Anchoring Bias

Comments 0 Comment

In January 2020, when COVID first emerged as an unknown virus in Wuhan, I distinctly remember voicing my concerns to a friend who was planning to travel to Southeast Asia a few weeks later. At the time, there were only a handful of cases reported outside Wuhan. However, I had seen videos of police welding doors shut, citizens falling to the ground, livestock being culled, makeshift hospitals constructed to support tens of thousands of patients, and reported case numbers growing exponentially – daily, on the John’s Hopkins worldwide COVID-19 dashboard. I had developed an idea and image of what the virus was…and understood it was capable of becoming the monstrous pandemic we had only seen in disaster movies.

Despite the rapid growth, severity, and seemingly unstoppable spread beyond the initial ground zero in Wuhan, the World Health Organization (WHO) seemed to downplay the scope and severity of the outbreak – declining to call COVID-19 a pandemic until months later.

“The WHO chief has walked a tightrope, trying to lead the global health-care response, keep communication channels open with China and avoid unnecessary panic.”

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-02-27/coronoavirus-why-the-who-won-t-call-covid-19-a-pandemic

As is often the case, the lack of clarity and misinformation from the source can cause us to develop a worst case scenario understanding of the situation. China was not forthcoming with information or data, at best. As a result, each data point, each article from the press, each speech from our leadership, and every first hand account gained heightened attention as we constructed the image of the “invisible enemy” in our minds.

So, with the dearth of information and data clarity, we (as a society) developed an anchoring bias with COVID-19, with our primary lens through the media. The areas impacted early became a focal point for our foundational understanding. Over a year later and through two massive waves of COVID cases, New York City stands apart as one of the hardest hit areas. With the horrific fatalities rates of nursing home residents, the city as a whole suffered worse than any jurisdiction in the US. Over 35% of all deaths in New York City involved COVID-19 in 2020. That is more than three times the average of other states and jurisdictions around the country. For comparison, California and Florida saw around 10% of deaths involve COVID-19 as one of the causes of death in 2020. Given 12 percent of all US newsroom employees live in New York City, much of the media had a front row seat to the worst of the worst.

With such a huge impact to New York City at such a critical time for the country, it isn’t surprising the media developed an understanding that was shaped by personal experience and direct exposure as much as the objective science and situations in other jurisdictions. It seems apparent climate, population density, and other environmental factors play a critical role in the transmission and severity of COVID-19. Many suburban or rural communities have seen a much smaller impact and government mandates, restrictions, and media reporting should reflect the reality for localities whenever possible. Top-down fearmongering has been, and will continue to be, an unproductive way to overcome this invisible adversary.

Are masks working?

Are masks working?

Comments 0 Comment

As COVID-19 has grown into a global pandemic, one of the most obvious visual impacts has been the predominance of masks in public settings. In most western societies the prevalence of masks has gone from near-zero to ubiquitous. Masks now provide a clear signal of virtue of concern for the health and safety of ourselves and others. “I am not only protecting myself…I am protecting you from me.” But beyond the clear signal of projecting virtue, are masks really helping much?

As the world’s leading voice for science during the pandemic, maybe we should look to The World Health Organization (WHO) for answers.

WHO has been studying respiratory viruses for decades:

At the beginning of 1963 a system for collecting and distributing laboratory and epidemiological information on virus diseases was organized by the World Health Organization… By the end of 1973, 106 laboratories in 45 countries were participating in the scheme.

https://apps.who.int/iris/

As of 1973, the number of coronavirus cases reported from these laboratories was very small (<10 cases) per year. However, they were on the radar as respiratory viruses that needed observation. Before 2003, two human coronaviruses were known to cause mild illness, such as common cold. However, with the emergence of SARS, coronaviruses, their origins, and transmission were studied in much more detail.

As a result, with over 50 years of respiratory virus research, and many studies of related coronaviruses as a foundation, the World Health Organization (WHO) was very well positioned to understand the scope, nature, transmission vectors, and the potential impact of COVID-19 as it emerged. (The full SARS-Cov2-genome was identified, sequenced, and underwent testing by mid-January 2020. Diagnostic detection study. )

On March 30th, 2020, a couple months after the widespread outbreak began, the WHO update stated:

  • WHO officials do not recommend mask wearing for healthy members of the general population.
  • Masks should be worn by those with the disease or those in close contact with those infected.

In June 2020, they updated their guidance, and now almost a year later, government mask mandates for the public are widespread… Why?

The chaotic environment of initial panic was obviously a contributing factor. When the “unknown virus” first emerged out of Wuhan and spread across the world, everyone was looking to protect themselves and loved ones. Our scientific, medical, and government leaders sought to shield us from the “unknown” and invisible enemy which was rapidly becoming a threat for everyone.

There were urgent government purchases of personal protective equipment (PPE). In California, Governor Newsom purchased about $1B of PPE from a Chinese company during a peak of the concern. (Many public details of the purchase have remained scarce. However, nearly $500 million worth of N95 masks were purchased for $3.30 each… considerably more than the average retail price per unit at Home Depot today.)

Obviously, during the initial panic we can assume the urgency of the situation required swift and decisive action – and the expediency outweighed the economic concerns. Ventilators, masks, and other PPE were in high demand. However, given the lack of a realized mask (or toilet paper) shortage, many prior responses and decisions made in the heat of the moment can now be seen as a clear overreaction. Did we…and do we need all those masks?

In the United States, if we look at states with and without high levels of mask use, it is clear there is no apparent justification for widespread mask mandates. The North Dakota and South Dakota article is one example. Florida has had no statewide mask mandate and has seen a lower infection rate than most other states which have mandates.

In addition, most mask mandates provide limited guidance as to the type of face covering. More often than not, people are not required to have face protection to any particular standard (such an N95). Also, many masks are designed for single use, but reused. It often appears masks are “just for show”. Here are the existing CDC guidelines for comparisons sake.

To use an exaggerated example: If you had allergies, would you install a fence keep pollen from your neighbors’ trees out of your yard? Or your trees’ pollen from theirs? As more research comes out, it will likely be apparent effectively containing a virus is a very complex and perhaps a futile exercise at many levels. Virus particles are incredibly small and can pass through many masks with ease. Even N95 masks only reduce a portion of the particulate matter. Duration of exposure in indoor vs. outdoor environments and ventilation are also critical factors in transmission.

This article is not intended to advocate for the non-use of masks, but rather suggest that questioning mask mandates should be encouraged. We need more studies and greater confidence in mandates and lockdowns which affect us all. None of us have all the answers, and those claiming they do likely have other reasons for saying so. As citizens, we have a right, and duty to question the effectiveness of mask mandates, lockdowns, and other COVID restrictions.

Here are some recent studies and guidelines on mask effectiveness for further reading:

The Wasteful Pursuit of Zero Risk

The Wasteful Pursuit of Zero Risk

Comments 0 Comment

The headline of this article actually references a Forbes magazine subject line from April 30, 1990. I remember the column resonated with me. The basic principle was life is full of risks and the incremental cost of trying to attain zero risk is not only wasteful, but can also be harmful. As with the fundamental economic calculation, there is a cost associated with the benefit of achieving decreasing incremental risk. Sometimes those costs are direct, but more often than not, they are indirect – and often unforeseen.

As the world seeks to mitigate the risks of COVID, we also need to understand we will never achieve zero risk – and it should not be our goal. It is an unattainable mirage of absolute certainty which is distorted by the realities of nature and the world we live in. Also, risks can add value, and not just in terms of mitigating costs. Challenges and risks are often needed to teach us, and serve to preserve our inherent strength as move forward as a people – and as a society.

In the past few years there seems to be an abundance of efforts to protect ourselves, our children, and others from many “negative” external risks and even challenging words and discourse. Recently, “Cancel Culture” has gone so far as to try to limit acceptable debate, and essentially ban free speech on popular platforms such as Twitter and Facebook. In March of 2020, The World Health Organization even sought to control the acceptable discussions surrounding any external ideas or alternative views regarding COVID drugs and treatments. However, by isolating and insulating ourselves from dissimilar views and ideas, are we actually weakening ourselves and our natural defenses? How many good ideas and valid concerns were ignored or disregarded in an effort to provide a sterile platform for discussion?

Maybe having a uniform sterile platform isn’t always the best option? As a related medical example, aggressive hygiene controls and antibiotics have proven themselves as an indispensable lifeline and have prevented millions of deaths over the years. However, ultra-sanitary environments and widespread prevalence of these powerful antibiotics have undoubtedly been overused in many circumstances and may actually be doing more harm than good. While well intentioned, the pursuit of zero risk may actually concurrently weakening our bodies’ natural immune systems and increasing the virulence of bacteria and pathogens.

A recent study from Finland suggests, exposing children to less sterile environments actually boosts their natural immune system:

“A high level of hygiene, an urban lifestyle and an insufficient contact with nature reduce diversity in the organ system’s microbes. Homogeneity in microbes increases the risk of disorders in the immune system, such as atopy, diabetes, the coeliac disease and allergies.

Dozens comparative studies have previously found that children who live in rural areas and are in contact with nature have a lower probability of catching an illness resulting from disorders in the immune system.”

A forest-based yard improved the immune system of daycare children in only a month

The COVID-19 vaccines are an incredible tool to prevent infections – especially in vulnerable populations. Through the industrious work of thousands of medical/science professionals, and policy advocates, we have developed amazing miracle drugs to combat COVID in record time. And, just as with antibiotic use and prevalence, we should be mindful that our body’s natural immune system has been built through millions of years of evolution to fight off pathogens and protect ourselves and others – and we as a society should not be dependent on vaccines to fight EVERY ailment.

There needs to be a natural balance with risks as we move forward. Is it wise to close businesses and schools in the pursuit of zero risk until we are all vaccinated? At what cost? Will it stop at COVID? Or will we just need another two weeks to flatten the next curve?

Truth, COVID, and Climate Change

Truth, COVID, and Climate Change

Comments 0 Comment

As an American citizen it seems odd to defiantly defend our cherished freedoms of liberty, free speech, and freedom of the press during one of the most difficult periods in our nation’s history. Our Constitution was made for these trying times and our God-given rights safeguard our nation. However, we are currently facing an “invisible enemy” which seemed to sprout up from nowhere. We should realize the seeds of this war were planted many years ago and we blindly trusted our institutions to protect and defend us from the unseen and unknown. As we uncover root causes for the COVID crisis, and seek answers to Climate Change, we need to recognize there may be some unpleasant truths unearthed in the process.

The good news is America (and the world) has been through much worse – and will emerge from the COVID and Climate Change “crisis” stronger than ever. As we look to each other and our future, the Truth should guide us as an indispensable keystone for the pillars of freedom. We need to embrace the Truth and recognize our own limitations and shortcomings in foresight and understanding. The Truth demands debate and discourse. However, it’s strength resides in the ability to withstand the counterbalancing forces against it. Our individual liberties protect, and are protected by, the Truth.

Unfortunately, citizens around the world have been bombarded with a fear-inducing COVID and Climate Change media onslaught which seems more like propaganda. Is there a standard narrative being pushed down? We should recognize we are being tested, and seek refuge in the Truth by sharing our thoughts and challenges with each other. More than ever, we need to rely on ourselves, our families, our friends, our faith – and the goodness of fellow citizens of the world. We are all in this together.

A Tale of Two States: North Dakota and South Dakota

A Tale of Two States: North Dakota and South Dakota

Comments 0 Comment

When attempting to determine the effectiveness of responses to issues or the results of experiments, using a simple A-B test often yields straightforward answers to more complex problems. If we have two similar samples, a binary “Do X for sample A, and do Y for sample B” can be an easy way to see which intervention is more effective.

With COVID-19, government policy mandates have been unprecedented. As with most other countries around the world, the United States seen dramatic examples of top-down restrictions designed to protect citizens from the invisible virus – and each state has had different approaches. But have these interventions been successful? Have they saved lives? How many? Or destroyed livelihoods? Has the cure been worse than the disease?

Although the answers to these questions remain largely undetermined and are difficult to discern with a high degree of confidence, we can look at relatively similar sample populations which had substantially different policy interventions and examine the results. For this example, let’s compare COVID’s recent impact in North Dakota vs. South Dakota:

Both states share similar climate profiles, population size and densities, and overall demographics. While different in some respects, the core similarities of each state provide us with a unique opportunity to isolate policy interventions as the most significant underlying variable with the most recent wave of COVID infections.

North Dakota’s Government Response: While initially advocating for a limited government response, on November 13th, 2020 Governor Burgum signed an executive order for:

1) Mask mandates (all indoor and public settings – 30 days)
2) Bars/Restaurants 50% capacity, 150 persons. Curfew 10pm to 4am.
3) Banquets, Halls, events 25% of capacity.

These orders were eased somewhat and extended until mid-January.

South Dakota’s Government Response: Governor Noem has advocated or public advisories, protecting vulnerable populations, and championing individual liberties and awareness.

So, what were the results?

The results have been nearly identical from a practical standpoint. In isolation, it would appear North Dakota’s government interventions led to a direct reduction in COVID cases. However, the timing of the downturn in cases also happened almost exactly at the same time in South Dakota (without the restrictions).

Below are the COVID case and fatality trends for each state:

source: worldometers.info

source: data.cdc.gov

Note: The CDC cause of death data is updated on a slightly delayed basis based on the medical record reporting. As a result, the weekly death totals will likely rise to a normalized trendline for recent weeks. However, the directional trends related to cause (COVID vs. non-COVID) should remain the same.

Digging deeper into the numbers it appears the relatively small variances in cases per population, and overall case fatality rates could be largely driven by demographic differences as seen in the census numbers below:

https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/ND

https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/SD

So…Do government mask mandates and restrictions work? Given the available data, a case could be made either way. However, it is clear the results (restrictions vs. no restrictions) are similar enough to warrant a much closer look. It appears mother nature is firmly in control – despite our best efforts to mitigate the impacts through mask mandates and school/business closures and restrictions.