Gov. Murphy playing too fast and loose with ‘science’
In the immortal words of Scooby-Doo: Ruh-roh.
As in, “Ruhroh, this R number metric Gov. Phil Murphy is using to make decisions - you know, his ol’ ‘data determines dates’ routine - is very clearly flawed.”
So here’s the deal: On Monday, the R number dropped to .98, down from a whopping 1.49 last week.
OK, so what do those numbers mean? The R number measures how many people a single coronavirus patient will infect. If it’s below 1 - as in less than one person is getting infected from every positive case - that means we are well on our way to ditching the disease. If it’s over 1, look out, as that means cases could start to multiply.
This R number is used by scientists for all manner of contagious disease. Measles, chickenpox, polio … these have R numbers (technically, the “basic reproduction number,” or “R naught”) of 5, 6, 7. Meaning, during an outbreak, one person with measles would infect five or six others. You can see how that could get out of hand quickly.
Ebola, on the other end of the spectrum, “only” has an R number of about 1.5, mostly due to the fact it kills people dead before they have a chance to pass it on.
But coronavirus? During the height of the pandemic, the R number was in the 5-6 range. Then we had the lockdown, the closings, the everything, and we knocked the number all the way down.
Until last week, when it spiked. And as it spiked, Murphy started with the restrictions again, limiting indoor gatherings to 25 people (while still insisting schools open, which is still registering a giant “DOES NOT COMPUTE” in my brain).
But the problem here? It’s multifaceted.
For the coronavirus, the big problem is superspreader events. One guy in an elevator, one woman in a subway, etc. One person infecting 10, 20, 30 or more. According to numerous studies, this is how the virus spreads far and wide. So already, you see the problem with the R number. A hundred people could have COVID, but 95 of them don’t spread it further, while the other 5 spread it far.
Second problem with the R number? It’s science, but it’s guesswork. In short: A lot of assumptions are baked into the equation. First, you need to know how fast the virus spreads. And … and golly, I can’t explain it, mostly because I don’t completely understand it. But I’m not the only one: The number can be “easily misrepresented, misinterpreted and misapplied,” as written in the academic journal Emerging Infectious Disease last year.
Additionally, the “number” is not fixed. Put in slightly different numbers to start in the equation - as in, my “how fast the virus spreads is a little different than your how fast the virus spreads” and the resulting R number will be different.
And then there’s the most obvious issue: There is no way the number should’ve gone from 1.49 to .98 in a week. That’s defies common sense. Based on what I can grasp of how the R number is calculated, when there’s small numbers of cases, the number can fluctuate wildly. Have thousands of cases, the number evens out.
Clearly, we are in a (thank goodness) “small number of cases” situation right now, so it’s obvious as a smack in the face the rise last week in the R number can be chalked up to a handful of cases that spiked due to whatever reason.
Murphy made a mistake in lowering the indoor gathering rule. That’s basically what I’m trying to say.
What I really need is Velma to explain all this.
But what I can explain is this: We have done a very good job of beating back this disease. We can’t get complacent. And equally as important, Murphy can’t be wily-nillying anymore when it comes to making decisions. They have to be based in hard and concrete numbers, not best guesses right now. If he loses people like me - people who want him to err on the side of caution - he’s going to lose everybody. And if he loses everybody, this could be a long winter.