“In God we trust. All others must provide data.”

Dr. William Schaffner, a preventive medicine specialist at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, quoted by NY Times on 2/2/20 in their report that “Wuhan Coronavirus Looks Increasingly Like a Pandemic, Experts Say”.

Stay calm and carry on is a good mantra for these unsettled times. But it pays to keep an eye on developments with a critical view on the facts so far as they can be ascertained. Here are some interesting statistics and data-driven observations on the impact thus far and in future of 2019-nCoV from the New York Times:

• Fatalities now come to 425 in mainland China as of Tuesday morning according to this latest news, eclipsing Chinese deaths from SARS (349). For a view of its spread throughout Asia, see the Coronavirus Map via the link above.
• For a very enlightening interactive-graphical view graphics see this in-depth report.

Keep in mind that much remains to be determined. For example, it may turn out that 2019-nCoV for better (less fatal) or worse (more infectious) may turn out to be more like 2009 H1N1 Swine flu than SARS.

You, like me, may be curious about the effectiveness of wearing a mask. From this NPR investigation, I surmise that N95 respirators, such as those made by 3M, work best, but only if fitted properly and worn with great discipline in not touching one’s face. In any case during this flu season, we all need to wash our hands with soap and water often (hand sanitizers don’t work nearly so well by my reckoning) and stay home if we get sick.

For what it’s worth, that’s my take for now. You all must make your own judgments. All I suggest is that you not let fear rule—assess the data and adjust your thinking as more accumulates. But best you be conservative on the safe side.

PS. Those of you who fly frequently are well-advised to check out this advice from yesterday’s Wall Street Journal. I am comforted by the statistic of 99.9% particulate removal and thus “the cabin air environment is not conducive to the spread of most infectious diseases” per the CDC. However, as always, it’s best to be careful during times when the flu and/or other viruses run rampant.

Just in time for the super-dry, winter season, when us Minnesotans become terribly itchy if we do not diligently apply moisturizer, the Annals of Improbable Research awarded their 2019 Ig Nobel Peace (ha ha) Prize to researchers who discovered that people enjoy scratching their ankles. While one might get pleasure initially from giving in to an itch elsewhere, the satisfaction soon fades. But ankles do not rankle when it comes to scratching.

For all the details from the team of authors, including the Director of the Miami Itch Center, Gil Yoispovitch (italics mine), click this NIH Public Access posting of The Pleasurability of Scratching an Itch: A Psychophysical and Topographical Assessment.

“Americans are getting fatter…and shorter” said the headline in the Venice Florida Gondolier Sun last month. The fatter bit was easy to swallow (ha ha), but the second part of this news–the lessening heights–caught me short (yeah, another bad pun).

Here are the average body measures for 2016 gleaned by the Gondolier Sun (Bob Mudge) from this just-released survey by the Department of Health & Human Services (HHS):

• Men 5 feet 9 inches, 197.8 pounds, 40.3 inch waist
• Women 5 feet 3.6 inches, 170.5 pounds, 38.7 inch waist

Mudge reported that the average man is four-tenths of an inch shorter than in 2006. At this rate I figure that men will be reduced to the size of a mouse by the year 3716.

Meanwhile, the New York Times (Nicholas Bakalar) noted that men have gained 8 pounds since 2002. Doing my math on weights projected to 3716 I calculate a massive 1170 pounds for these future mouse-sized men. That is dense (as are my projections)!

My frivolous extrapolations notwithstanding, the realities of actual measurements by HHS are harsh. Is it too late for New Year’s resolutions? If not, I am working on increasing my height in 2019.

“People tend to overreport their height and underreport their weight.”

– Cynthia L Ogden, epidemiologist and senior author of HHS’s National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey

As pointed out in this weekend’s Wall Street Journal, this is the burning question for those of us in the northern hemisphere as we enjoy our brightest days of the year. According to The Numbers columnist Jo Craven McGinty, the answers are:

• At least 2 milligrams per square centimeter—about one-fifth the depth of a piece of paper. Although this seems very thin, most people only put on about half that amount, so you’d best apply your sunscreen twice.
• Go for at least an SPF of 50. However, do not sweat it if all you have on hand is SPF 30, or the level 50 costs more than you care to pay—the difference is minor as you can see in the graph I made by fitting the FDA data WSJ provided to a curve (using Design-Expert® software).

It seems to me it would be best to stay out of the sun as much as possible, and, when you do, cover up, but seek the advice of your physician or other qualified health provider, such as a dermatologist.  Be careful out there!

PS. McGinty detailed a study that found a significant advantage to increasing SPF from 50 to 100. It being done via a randomized split on 199 snow skiers bodes well. However, the research was sponsored by a sunscreen maker. An independent, contrary view of 100 SPF pros and cons is laid out here.

Jo Craven McGinty, the Wall Street Journal “Numbers” columnist, provided in the February 3^rd issue the surprising ‘heads-up’ that children understand much less of when spoken to from the left than from the right.  The difference in comprehension stems from a discrepancy in lengths to which speech must travel through the brain.  This had been thought to become moot as nerves develop—the “right-ear-advantage” (REA) becoming clinically insignificant by adulthood.  However, as reported by WSJ, new findings presented by Auburn University researchers in December to the Acoustical Society of America, indicate that even at ages 19 to 28, a challenging communication may be understood at a rate of 40% more when delivered to the right ear.

The Remarkable History of Right-Ear Advantage published in the January 2018 Hearing Review reveals that REA returns with a vengeance at age 60 and beyond.  Perhaps a podcast will be produced to speak on this phenomenon.  If so, I plan to put the sound bud into my right ear.

National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) researchers announced this week that life expectancy for a baby born in 2016 fell 0.1 percent to 78.6 years.  First off, this reduction is so miniscule that it cannot be significant.  It definitely is of no importance per se.  I do, however, concur with those who cite this statistic as a call for alarm by it being driven down by the epidemic of opioid deaths.

The trick to interpreting statistics on life expectancy is to keep in mind it has a mathematical value that changes as an individual gets older.  For example, men like me at age 65 can expect to live to age 84, primarily because we made it through high-mortality childhood and the perils of being a young adult.  Look up your expectancy at this Life Table from the Social Security Administration’s (SSA) Office of the Chief Actuary and give yourself a year or two extra by it being a bit dated (me being optimistic in the continuing advancement of medical care).

If you want to be more precise than the SSA tables, check out the calculators posted here.  One to avoid is the “How Long Have You Got?” calculator, which comes with the caveat that “each time we’ve tested this calculator we are expected to pass away on the same day”.  On the other hand, I think you will like the results from the Easy Surf life-expectancy calculator*.

“It is not death that a man should fear, but he should fear never beginning to live.”

– Marcus Aurelius

* Evidently by the domain “.cc” this comes from someone living in Australia’s Cocos Keeling Islands—a paradise on earth where one might live long and happy as you can see here .

That’s the density of microbial growth—laden with pathogens—in a typical kitchen sponge.  For all the disgusting details, see this Nature report by German (emphasis on “germ”) researchers at the Institute of Applied Microbiology in Geissen.

I came across this while searching internet for advice on what to do about the off-putting sponges laying about the sink in our office, which no one will clean—the tragedy of the commons.  The study says that sanitation by boiling or microwave kills most of the bacteria.  However, because that bad actors are more hardy, the end result over time may be a more sickening microbiome.  The only solution is to replace sponges regularly—at least every week according to this Today show guidance.  They suggest that between times you wash your sponges in hot, soapy water, microwave them for one minute, or put them in the dishwasher.  After reading the Nature report I am tempted to do all three sanitation procedures, or just quit using sponges.