Tuesday, August 25, 2020

New cases of Covid-19 declining in AZ and FL

There was a lot of press given to the rapid increase in cases of Covid-19 in Southern and Western states in July, but less well reported has been the dramatic decline that has occurred since then in some of those states like Arizona and Florida.  In the week from June 29th to July 5th, the seven day average of new cases was around 3900 and in the week from August 15th to August 21st this average declined to around 430, a drop of almost 90% in just around 7-8 weeks.  In addition, Florida saw their number of new Covid-19 cases drop from 12,000 a day in mid-July (using the 7 day moving average) all the way down to around 4,000 in the latest week, a drop of almost 70% in just 5 to 6 weeks.  

One important thing to note is that in late March states across the US took dramatic steps to reduce the transmission rate to below one new case for every current case (down from perhaps 3 from before the restrictions), but then this transmission rate rose above 1 again once restrictions were loosened.  It didn't turn out to be that difficult for policymakers to lower the transmission rate below 1 again in a lot of states, and the nature of this particular virus is that the number of new cases go down a lot quite quickly once you get the transmission rate below 1.  My rule of thumb in China was that once they implemented their full set of restrictions, the number of new cases there went down by 90% every two weeks, but Arizona has shown us that even more moderate restrictions can reduce the number of new cases by 90% in just 7 to 8 weeks.  If Arizona could keep up their current level of restrictions for another two months the number of new cases could drop below 40 per day, which is enough to deal with through rapid testing and thorough contact tracing by itself.  

That's why I think it's especially important to follow the recommendations of infectious disease expert Michael Osterholm and Minneapolis Federal Reserve President Neel Kashkari and go through a strict 6 week lockdown so we can get the virus under control.  If the restrictions were as strict as China, a 6 week lockdown could reduce the number of new cases by 99.9%, but even more modest restrictions somewhere in between China's efforts and Arizona's efforts could reduce the number of new cases per day by over 95%.  Then it might be possible to have in class learning for our students and resumption of more economic activity, and a 6 week sacrifice would not be asking too much. Clearly this is better than our current approach, which is simply to muddle through until a vaccine arrives, and really does merit serious consideration. 

Monday, August 24, 2020

The Hollowing Out of the Republican Party

Here are the speakers scheduled for the Republican convention.

Monday

SC Sen. Tim Scott

LA Rep. Steve Scalise

Former UN Ambassador Nikki Haley

Donald Trump Jr

Tuesday

First Lady Melania Trump

Sec of State Mike Pompeo

KY Sen. Rand Paul

IA Gov. Kim Reynolds

Eric Trump

Tiffany Trump

Wednesday

VP Mike Pence

Second Lady Karen Pence

TN Sen. Marsha Blackburn

IA Sen. Jodi Ernst

SD Gov. Kristi Noem

Thursday

President Donald J. Trump

HHS Sec Ben Carson

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell

House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy

AR Sen. Tom Cotton

Ivanka Trump

Now this list isn't nearly as bad as the ones making the rounds on the internet, where there is the standard President, VP, First Lady, Second Lady, along with their congressional leaders like Mitch McConnell, and a smattering of prominent Senators and Governors for both sides, but the Democrats had two past presidents, two past presidential candidates, two former first ladies (I'm double counting here), and the Republicans have a lot of Donald Trump's kids speaking (4 of them), so the Democrats do probably have a distinct advantage here. It is notable that George W Bush and Mitt Romney refused to speak, and George HW Bush and John McCain probably would have refused as well if they had survived, so this does represent a bit of a hollowing out of the Republican Party if some of their key leaders aren't supporting them.  

What has really struck me recently, however, is the hollowing out of their class of policy advisors within the Republican Party, where especially in economics, there are so few qualified people around that they have a lot of trouble with the basic functions of governance (see Trump's negotiations over the stimulus package and his highly problematic executive orders). Back when I first started paying attention to politics in the early 1990s, the Republican Party was the party of business and had controlled the presidency for 20 of the past 24 years, so they had a distinct advantage in the number of prominent policy advisors who had direct experience governing and had a long bench of economists from the world of business and academia to provide intellectual support for their policies.

Clinton basically turned this around in 1992, where he brought in a large team of highly talented economic advisors that made it possible to staff the government for 8 years under Clinton and 8 years under Obama.  Plus the economic policy debates have been won by the liberals over this time where Paul Krugman especially has helped convince us that we don't really need more tax cuts for the rich, that Obamacare really does work, and we need more fiscal stimulus in the depths of a deep recession rather than austerity.  Now that the few conservative economic advisors that are left (like Kevin Hassett) are jumping ship, it's the Democrats with the really long list of policy advisors with direct governing experience, and their success in the policy debates have made it so academic economists generally support the Democratic position on issues now too. 

This complete reversal over the last 28 years in the world of government and academic economists really is noteworthy, and if the Republicans want to continue being a viable party, they need to do a better job cultivating the talent that would allow themselves to effectively govern.  Bluster and propaganda can keep you going for a while, but eventually the Republicans need some governing successes, and these have been few and far between for the last two Republican presidents.  This does not seem to be a priority for Republicans right now, but maybe once Trump no longer controls the cult of personality that has become the Republican Party, maybe they can move on and find ways to govern more effectively in the future.

Sunday, August 23, 2020

revive

revive - v.  1. To bring back to life or consciousness; resuscitate.  2. To impart new health, vigor, or spirit to.  3. To restore to use, currency, activity, or notice.  4. To restore to validity or effectiveness of.  5. To renew in the mind; recall.  6. To present (an old play, for example) again. 

American Heritage Dictionary, 4th Edition 

Friday, August 21, 2020

Trump's executive orders are not working

It has been almost two weeks since Trump announced his executive orders creating a new unemployment insurance program and a payroll tax deferment, and neither one seems to be working.  So far, 11 states have been approved to get the new unemployment insurance funding, and only one state, Arizona, is actually distributing the extra benefits right now. That means those people currently on unemployment have gone without the extra $600 a week in benefits since the beginning of the month, and are unlikely to get benefits for weeks in the states that have signed up, while people in states that have not gotten approved yet might have to wait even longer.  Even the states that do set up this new unemployment insurance program and do manage to distribute benefits, the people living there will still get only half of the $600 a week in extra benefits they previously got, since the federal government is only willing to fund an extra $300 a week in benefits under this program. The Trump administration has already had to backtrack by taking away the requirement that states provide an additional $100 a week in extra benefits in order to get the $300 a week from the federal government, but this process is taking so long and so few people are getting benefits that this whole approach to unemployment insurance appears to be more of a publicity stunt and negotiating tactic rather than a legitimate attempt to provide more unemployment benefits to people who need them.   

As far as the Trump's plan to defer payroll taxes, this plan also has become so complex and unwieldy that the US Chamber of Commerce and 30 trade associations wrote a letter to Congress and the Treasury Department declaring the plan to be "unworkable".  The problem is that Trump's executive order does not cut payroll taxes but only defers them, so people who decide not to pay might get stuck with a huge tax bill at the beginning of 2021.  This makes it very difficult to administer the payroll tax system under such uncertainty, and this means that a lot of businesses will decide to keep things the same and decline to defer the payroll taxes altogether.  Just to be clear, this is big business, usually a staunch supporter of Republican plans to reduce their tax bill, declaring a Republican proposal on taxes to be "unworkable" to the point they might refuse to participate.  If they cannot get their business allies on board, and no one actually defers their payroll taxes then this executive order would turn out to be a bust as well.  This executive order was probably a serious attempt to force Congress to cut payroll taxes down the road by letting people defer their taxes now and creating a political crisis for politicians if they do not cut payroll taxes later since otherwise people would have to pay back all the taxes they deferred in one lump sum. Ultimately, this executive order debacle represents just another example of Trump being unprepared to actually govern and makes it even more important to cut a comprehensive bipartisan deal with Congress to ensure we get a stimulus package that actually does work, but it still remains to be seen how quickly that might happen.

Wednesday, August 19, 2020

My Five Rules of Good Nutrition

In general, the study of good nutrition has been subject to a number of missteps and mistakes that make people suspicious of many recommendations coming from the nutrition community.  I do believe the science has gotten better, and that doctors do have a better understanding of what a healthy diet looks like even if there is still a lot left to learn.  I have developed five overarching rules of good nutrition that I learned primarily from doctors and public health researchers like Dr. Andrew Weil, Walter Willett, and Dan Buettner who make a similar series of recommendation on how to live a healthier life through good nutrition.  Overall, they do not recommend a low fat or low carbohydrate diet but instead focus on finding the healthy foods for each type.  Based on that fundamental insight into good nutrition, here are my five rules along with the key evidence in support of each one.

Rule #1 - Avoid processed foods.  A lot of the foods we buy from the store or from fast food restaurants are filled with chemical additives that are dangerous to our health like high fructose corn syrup and hydrogenated oils.  Making your food at home can make it easier to avoid those additives as well as other processed ingredients like added sugar, white rice, and refined flour.  The Nutrition Science Initiative came to a similar conclusion, where they explicitly tested whether a healthy low fat diet or a healthy low carb diet would lead to greater weight loss through a randomized controlled trial, and found that both did approximately equally well and it was the recommendations to avoid processed foods like added sugar and refined flour that were most important in achieving weight loss.  The Nutrition Science Initiative was founded by Gary Taubes, the author and researcher who started the low carb craze, and, to his credit, he explicitly started this research organization in order to make nutrition research much more rigorous by utilizing research methods like randomized controlled trials more extensively.  This key study of theirs basically showed how it is making sure it is the healthy aspect of the diet and not whether it is low fat or low carb that determines its success, which is counter to what their founder Gary Taubes had advocated for many years before that. 

Rule #2 - Eat good fats, not bad fats.  Again, the emphasis here is not on a low fat diet, but finding and consuming more of the good fats like olive oil, nuts, avocados, and fish oil while avoiding fats like partially or fully hydrogenated oils, butter or dairy fat, and other saturated fats that comes from red meat.  This is a key part of the Mediterranean diet, which has been shown in a rigorous randomized controlled trial in Spain to reduce the mortality rate of those who are at risk of heart disease and strokes.  In this study, half the participants were asked to participate in a low fat diet and half were given extra amounts of either olive oil or nuts to add to their diet, and the study was forced to end early because the group getting olive oil and nuts did so much better.

Rule #3 - Eat good protein, not bad protein.  This recommendation highlights that plant based protein (like legumes, whole grains, and nuts) is generally better than animal based protein (especially red meat), though including fish in your diet can be a healthy option as well.  My favorite research on this issue comes from a long term study of Seventh Day Adventists, whose religion promotes various features of a healthy diet, and has a relatively high proportion of their members adopt an exclusively vegetarian or vegan diet.  This research has shown that consuming less meat has lowered the health risks coming from high blood pressure, obesity, and diabetes, and that Seventh Day Adventists do live substantially longer than the rest of the population.  

Rule #4 - Eat good carbs, not bad carbs.  This rule suggests that carbs are ok to eat if done right, but you want to eat whole grains and avoid refined sugar and refined flour.  Eating refined carbs and sugars causes insulin to spike, which means they are high on the glycemic index, and if people can steer themselves towards food with a low glycemic index, like whole grains, then you can get the calories you need without risking the insulin resistance that can lead to diabetes.  The evidence I find particularly persuasive on this point is the graph I have in my own research linking high fructose corn syrup to obesity, where I show how higher levels of Coke consumption have a large negative impact on life expectancy.  In the graph, the US has the highest levels of Coke consumption in the OECD, and also has a life expectancy 4 to 6 years lower than countries that consume the least amount of Coke. 

Rule #5 - Eat more fruits and vegetables.  Eating more fruits and vegetables has been one of the stalwarts of nutrition advice for a long time, and this one generally holds to be true.  Fruits and vegetables contain a large number of important micronutrients that can be valuable for your health, and in a large long term study of the eating habits of nurses and how that might affect their health, eating more fruits and vegetables has been linked to less cardiovascular disease, lower weight, and less diabetes.  

In some ways, these recommendations are simple and a little repetitive, but I think they provide a useful guide about how to approach building a healthy diet.  The goal is not to become overly restrictive, but to find a balanced way to get the nutrients you need without causing any major health problems when you get them.  I find that a Mediterranean, vegetarian, or vegan diet can all be quite healthy and help people adhere to the recommendations presented here, and leave it up to the individual what diet is best for them.  Diet is important, and doctors have gotten a lot wrong in the past, but the higher quality of research done in recent years has led to a better understanding of good nutrition, and provided a stronger empirical foundation for the recommendations that are made.  Following a healthy diet can help people avoid health problems that might arise in the future and live a longer life overall.   

Tuesday, August 18, 2020

The 100th Anniversary of the Ratification of the 19th Amendment

Today is the 100th anniversary of the ratification of the 19th Amendment to the US Constitution that granted women the right to vote.  If you want to learn more about the final vote in Tennessee that ensured its ratification, where one young 24 year old legislator got a letter from his mother and switched his vote in favor of passage at the last minute, you can hear that story as reported by NPR.  If you want to read a series of essays about women's equality, including one on that key vote in Tennessee, you can find that story over at Brookings.  Today is truly a day to celebrate since women had to wait far too long to gain the rights that the American Revolution was fought to protect for white men, and the Civil War was fought to provide for black men.

Monday, August 17, 2020

The US needs more international students not less

Clearly, Covid-19 and Trump's impediments to legal immigration have caused the number of international students likely to study in the US to decline substantially for next year.  The US brings in large numbers of students from China (about 370,000) and India (about 200,000) and this always seemed like a double win for the US since it brings in more revenue for our own system of universities and also expands our soft power in countries that will become major foreign powers later on this century. 

I always thought the US had an enormous surplus of highly talented students who wanted to become professors, so it would be easy to expand the supply of slots in colleges and universities in the US simply by hiring more professors and enrolling more undergraduates.  I also thought there was a nearly limitless supply of students from around the world who wanted to study in the US, where a lot international students came here for college even though they had to pay full out of state tuition with little access to financial aid. 

Since there was a large demand for a college education around the world, and the US had the ability to greatly expand supply, then simply reducing the impediments to studying in the US would create great new academic jobs in the US and improve the quality of education for hundreds of thousands of students around the world.  Alas, Trump seems to want to make this process even more difficult, just at a time when universities in the US are struggling, making the financial impact on the US even more harmful.  Instead of trying to limit the number of international students, the US should be taking steps to make it even easier, not only for students from China and India, but for other developing countries around the globe, not only because it benefits the US but also because it provides benefits for the other countries as well.  Missing out on this win-win situation for everyone should be avoided as much as possible, and hopefully the damage from Trump's policies curbing legal immigration can be quickly reversed.