COVID 2022 – Who Is Being Tested? A Trick Question

While COVID remains in the news, it has receded to a second or third tier issue (or lower) for most Americans. This is not overly surprising since there are some much more exciting issues and problems that America is flailing itself over at the moment. Besides we are all tied of COVID. Not because of long-haul consequences from being infected by COVID but by the unrelenting COVID coverage that doesn’t provide sufficient new or novel information day after day. It is Like being at the South Pole during winter and listening to the daily weather forecast of the temperature to be cold and the sky dark and expecting to be surprised or overly attentive. Let’s face it, COVID is so 2020-2021!

Yes, we still get the Public Service Announcements about getting vaccinated, and reports there are increasing infection outbreaks here and there, and that someone(s) of ‘note’ tested positive for COVID. But this sense of COVID malaise represents missed opportunities to recognize some intriguing facets of COVID that have, are, and continue to produce consequences that have gone mostly unnoticed and under-appreciated. Does not seeing some of the implications constitute a measure of Intelligence? A measurement of this type would be an inverse relationship, not the usual more is better type of relationship. In not recognizing something one’s rating of Intelligence would drop not increase.

It seems only fair to warn you that taking this test risks exposing if that inverse relationship might impact your score. Of course, that score is relative to the entire population; so, you may fare worse than you would want but still be above average compared to the population overall. If 80% of the public does very badly and you do above average, you can take comfort in not being in the bottom half. We could grade on the ‘curve’, but wouldn’t that be a little bit condescending?

Time to take the plunge and take the test, or to stop and avoid the risk of taking the test.

Question 1: You are told that you have been exposed to the Corona virus at some place you were together with a group of people. Does it matter if you have been vaccinated or not?

Question 2: You test positive for COVID, are you more or less likely to transmit it to your family; or does it make no different?

Question 3: How do outcomes differ between these groups: A. Vaccinated Uninfected, B. Unvaccinated Uninfected, C. Naturally Infected?

Question 4: What different, if anything, would happen to three communities of 10,000 people each, who are in each of the three groups above A, B, & C?

Question 5: Would it be wrong to use the differences between these groups not to their advantage but to someone else’s? What if it was done unknowingly? What if knowingly?

Answer to Question 1: Yes. You are less likely to be infected from the exposure and you are less likely to transmit it to someone else even if you do. The extent of this reduction will depend upon your developed and retained immunity level.

Answer to Question 2: Being infected obviously is required to be able to transmit it; and as Question 1’s answer indicates the likelihood of transmission will vary based on your specific immunity level.

Answer to Question 3: Group A – Vaccinated Uninfected have a greater aggregate protection against infection, they become less ill if infected, they are less likely to require hospitalization, and fewer die per-capita with equivalent age-groups in other populations.

Group B – Unvaccinated Uninfected will have the greatest aggregate chance of being infected, becoming more ill if infected, most likely to be hospitalized, and have the highest per-capita deaths compared to equivalent age-groups in other populations.

Group C – Naturally Infected while being a more complex group, it provides a useful reference point. This group gives a kind of “stake-in-the-ground” against which to anchor an understanding of how each group differs from the other two. It also provides a reference point that could be used judge other population groups besides A and B. Those in this group will be less prone to a re-infection than Group C but more than Group A. This group will be more ill then C and less and A, more likely to require hospitalization than C and less than A, and more will die per-capita than A but less than C.

Answer to Question 4: There would be more alive in A, then in C, and the least in B after the virus ran through the communities. There would be more hospitalization costs and impacts for B, than for C, and lowest for A. Reoccurrences of infections would be greatest for B, then C, and then A.

Answer to Question 5: Off-hand I would argue that it is not right to take advantage of any group at their expense. But if these groups choose the group that they are in then taking advantage of that pre-existing condition become more nebulous. Would it be ok for a politician to take advantage of their choice and use it to garner their support for the politician’s own election bid or political party? Even here, I find it immoral as it doesn’t serve any disadvantaged group’s self-interest, and thus it is what we would expect from politicians. To the extent that the differential impacts are not understood by almost anyone, the actions which benefit from the differential outcomes might be viewed as just the consequences of “shit happens” in life. I however don’t think that is an adequate excuse for the series of missteps, mistakes, misjudgments, and malignant attitudes which have had to occur in total to just let “shit happen”. We at least owe it to ourselves and everyone else to make it clear what the consequences of not just the individuals’ decisions are but also the decisions of others who are perhaps acting for themselves or irresponsible with respect to others.

We have a huge problem in America. It is our politicians, which means it is our political parties; and that means that it is us. Those we choose to represent and lead us, are either very poor representatives or they do not know how to be effective and beneficial leaders. Most likely they are both.