Re: Covid19
I am one of the more vulnerable, I'm not promoting his viewpoint, don't know who he is or the validity of the studies he references, was sent a link to this, just posting it for thought and comments.
Forrest Leichtberg
So many posts about how it’s not time to begin the gradual process of reopening the economy. My perspective from consulting with various medical professionals each day is the following:
- Keeping the lockdowns in place to save lives sounds great, until the fact is recognized that the virus isn’t going anywhere no matter how long things are locked down, and that the virus is going to spread to the majority of people regardless. That’s the factual life-cycle of a pandemic like this. Locking down doesn’t stop the spread, it only delays and slows it so that hospital overload is prevented. I don’t like or want the virus to spread, but reality must be accepted or else we’re living in a fantasy.
- Stanford just came out with a groundbreaking anti-body study conducted in Santa Clara County estimating that 50 to 85 times more people have acquired the virus than previously thought, thus reducing the fatality rate to more like 0.1% - 0.2%. LA County officials will be releasing their own anti-body study results next week and have already shared that a similar story will be told from it. Also, German scientists ran a study in a city called Gangelt and found similar findings. These are some of the only if not the only major anti-body studies that have been conducted thus far, and they all point to the same ballpark mortality rate of right around 0.1%. If their results continue to be replicated and shown true in the coming weeks and months, then the politicians who advocated for mass shutdowns will have potentially sabotaged their chances of being elected and re-elected. Yes, this is a friendly warning to the Democratic Party to be cautious about sabotaging their own chances in the upcoming elections.
- When lockdowns are lifted, it will lead to additional pandemic waves because no herd immunity will have been developed. By the way, the medical professionals and doctors I’ve consulted with have never known of any virus in history where the antibodies didn’t protect against reinfection.
- What about hospital capacity? California is at around 10% hospital capacity. Most of the country isn’t even close to capacity.
- But what about hotspots like NYC? There are hotspots like NYC that need to lock down in order to prevent hospital overload. But that doesn’t mean that the rest of the country needs to be locked down in order to avoid overload.
- What about waiting for a vaccine? No safe vaccine has ever been created for a Coronavirus, which were first discovered in the 1930s. Besides, if a vaccine were created in two years it would be historic timing. Some vaccines can take five years, ten years, or are never successfully created. Therefore, it’s not realistic to lock down until a vaccine is created. To think we can safely lockdown long enough for a vaccine to come around is just science fiction.
- And how about a treatment? There is no known treatment. It took us ten years to create a treatment for HIV. Again, to think we can lock down for long enough to come up with a solid treatment is just science fiction.
- Because of the above, the idea that locking down “buys time” for vaccines, treatments, hospital capacity, etc. sounds like a great story but is just science fiction.
- Reinfection is highly unlikely for the vast majority of people, and the exceptions of those who are reinfected are highly likely to have far less severe cases due to the anti-bodies in their bloodstream. Again, the medical professionals I’ve consulted with have never known of any virus in history where the antibodies didn’t protect against reinfection.
- “But the virus is mutating!” All viruses mutate. They mutate not twice, not four times or eight times... but thousands of times, and most of those mutations do not survive. And this particular virus has been shown to be very stable in its mutations, making these “mutations” fairly inconsequential.
- It is true that anti-body immunity will only last for some time until it goes away — probably at least two years. However, there is still no reasonable argument against herd immunity, not because there is not a better alternative but because THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE. This virus will spread through the population, end of story and no ifs, ands, or buts. I don’t want it to, nobody does. But it’s just the lifecycle of these kinds of viruses. A vaccine is not coming any time soon. A treatment neither. Lockdowns can’t happen for years on end. This virus is going to spread no matter what.
- Thus, the only option is to sequester the vulnerable and allow the non-vulnerable to go back into the world so the world is once again made safe for the vulnerable because the rest of the population will have developed herd immunity. The longer the healthy and non-vulnerable are locked away, the longer the world will remain a dangerous place for vulnerable populations.
- In the long run locking everyone down may cause more death than if we were to have the vulnerable self-isolate and allow the non-vulnerable to continue normality. Lockdowns prevent non-vulnerable populations from developing herd immunity, and as a result the world will be dangerous for a longer period of time for vulnerable populations, and will be dangerous for them until herd immunity in the non-vulnerable population is achieved. The longer there is no herd immunity in the non-vulnerable populations (thus prolonging the pandemic), the more time this virus will have to spread to vulnerable populations.
- Thus, the sooner we can allow non-vulnerable populations to return to normality while having the vulnerable self-isolate, the less deaths there will be because we will have shortened the life-span of the pandemic and mostly only exposed the populations who would not succumb to it, until sufficient herd immunity is achieved — essentially ending the pandemic so the world becomes safe for vulnerable populations again.
- The above suggested approach is not really out of the box anymore. This is, in fact, in alignment with the approach that the United States is beginning to take with the task force’s reopening guidelines: sequestering vulnerable populations while beginning to open things up again for non-vulnerable populations.
- Lockdowns and economic ruin costs lives, too — and not just for the immune-compromised. I recall a major study at a prominent university from decades ago showing that for every 1% of additional unemployment, there are 40,000 deaths associated with it within five years, in America alone. With a larger population today than back then, let’s say 50,000 per 1% in the following example: say there’s 20% unemployment (there’s more at this point) times 50,000, theoretically equals one million deaths in America alone due to the 20% unemployment increase according to that study. The UN has already predicted that hundreds of thousands of children will die this year due to the economic fallout. Therefore, which has the potential to be more dangerous — the virus or the lockdowns, if lockdowns are in place for too long?
- This has become too political, left vs. right. The facts are the facts, and Democrats need to be cautious about the current road they are on lest they be annihilated come the upcoming election. If the mass anti-body tests end up showing a mortality rate that is far lower than expected (like Stanford’s recent Santa Clary County study, LA County’s study, and the study in Germany), the Republicans will use the Democrats’ advocacy for continued mass lockdowns as the political weapon that will destroy the Democrats’ chances. By advocating for continued mass lockdowns beyond what is legitimately necessary to prevent hospital overload, the Democratic Party may be sabotaging itself — so be careful.
All of the above is why I’m for reopening the country everywhere except where healthcare overload is a legitimate concern, and while still having vulnerable populations self-isolate. And politically speaking, I’m a Democrat, but to be fair I’m convinced that our party has found itself on the wrong side of the road.
Lastly — for those who may question or criticize me for speaking out about my views (which, ironically, would almost only include those who disagree with my perspective and would be because they disagree): I am a citizen of this country, and I am exercising my right to advocate for what I believe is both the right and accurate approach, as I should. If the citizens of our country were to all stay silent, we wouldn’t have a country.
“Of the People, by the People, and for the People.”
P.S. By all means, feel free to disagree — but only respectful responses are allowed in the comments section, the rest will be ignored and immediately deleted.
The older I get the faster I was Brian Clare
Likes: 
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by guido
Bookmarks