Defenders of our extreme lockdown argue that 1.1 to 2.3 million Americans would die if we lifted the lockdown and relied on achieving natural herd immunity. If you Google “herd immunity” and “COVID-19,” you will find many experts who dismiss herd immunity as a “laughable” and “dangerous” approach. You will also find many experts who say the opposite.
In order for 1.1 to 2.3 million Americans to die from COVID-19 in a herd-immunity scenario, the case death rate would have to be between 0.5% and 1.0%. and the overall death rate (the death rate among the entire population, not just among those who catch the virus) would have to be between 0.35% and 0.7%. Citing these exact percentages, one infectious disease expert dismissed herd immunity as follows:
“The best estimates put the COVID-19 infection fatality rate at around 0.5 to 1 percent. If 70 percent of an entire population gets sick, that means that between 0.35 and 0.7 percent of everyone in a country could die, which is a catastrophic outcome. . . .
“The sad fact is that herd immunity just isn't a solution to our pandemic woes. Yes, it may eventually happen anyway, but hoping that it will save us all is just not realistic. The time to discuss herd immunity is when we have a vaccine developed, and not one second earlier. . . .”
There are four major problems with this argument: (1) The argument assumes that all persons of all ages would be allowed to resume normal life to achieve herd immunity. (2) There is evidence that the case death rate is not 0.5%, much less 1.0%, but that it is between 0.1% and 0.3%. (3) The argument ignores the vast differences in case death rates among age groups. And (4) the argument ignores the very real and enormous human suffering caused by shutting down half the economy and putting tens of millions of people out of work.
Most of the experts who argue against our extreme lockdown do not suggest that everyone should be allowed to resume normal life; rather, they suggest a targeted approach that (1) would allow the non-elderly and the non-medically ill to resume normal life, and (2) would maintain restrictions on the elderly and the medically ill until herd immunity were achieved (either naturally or via vaccine, or a mix of both, whichever came first). Therefore, in a targeted herd-immunity approach, even if we assume a case death rate of 0.5% to 1.0%, at least 19% of the population—i.e., people aged 65 and above and the medically ill—would still be staying home and avoiding human contact as much as possible.
There is evidence that the case death rate is lower than 0.5%, and far lower than the scary rates that government experts initially suggested. A recent study in Los Angeles, which has a population of 4 million, found that 40 times more people had carried the virus then were previously known. This dropped the case death rate in LA from 4.5 percent to between 0.1% and 0.3%. A similar study in Miami-Dade County, one of the most heavily populated counties in the nation, dropped the county's case death rate down to 0.1%.
The idea that a herd-immunity approach would kill between 0.35% and 0.7% of our population is refuted by the COVID-19 numbers from Sweden. Sweden has not imposed a lockdown and has allowed most businesses, and even most schools, to stay open. Sweden has not even required the elderly to remain home. As of this morning, Sweden’s overall COVID-19 death rate, i.e., the percentage of the population that has died from the virus—is 0.02143% (2,192 deaths out of 10.23 million people), nowhere near the 0.35%-0.7% range assumed by lockdown defenders. “Nowhere near” might be an under-statement: 0.02143% is 17 times lower than 0.35%, and 34 times lower than 0.7%.
When lockdown defenders describe their doomsday scenarios for herd immunity, they usually ignore the vast differences in death rates among age groups. In the U.S., according to CDC numbers, at least 78% of our COVID-19 deaths have been among people aged 65 and above, even though this age group is only 17% of our population. This means that only 22% of our COVID-19 deaths have occurred among people aged 64 and below. In New York City, the case death rate among people aged 64 and below with no preexisting health conditions is 0.03%--not 0.3%, but 0.03%, or 10 times lower than 0.3%. In contrast, the case death rate among people aged 65 and above in NYC is 22.28% (8,037 deaths/36,073 cases).
Given NYC’s huge population of 8.4 million, which is larger than that of most states, there is no reason to believe that our national numbers are substantially different from NYC’s numbers when it comes to the case death rate among people aged 64 and below who are not medically ill.
These numbers indicate that if we adopted a targeted herd-immunity approach that maintained restrictions on people aged 65 and above and on the medically ill, the number of COVID-19 deaths would be a small fraction of the 1.1 to 2.3 million deaths suggested by lockdown defenders.
If we assume that 0.03% of all Americans aged 64 and below with no serious preexisting health issues would die from COVID-19 in a targeted herd-immunity approach, that would be right around 98,000 deaths, which would be fewer than the number of Americans who died in the 1957-1958 Asian Flu pandemic (116,000) and in the 1968 Hong Kong Flu pandemic (100,000). And it would be far below the number of Americans who die each year from respiratory diseases, accidents, medical errors, heart disease, and cancer, per CDC reports:
160,000 --- chronic lower respiratory diseases
169,000 –- accidents
250,000 --- medical errors
640,000 --- heart disease
590,000 --- cancer
A case death rate of 0.03% is indeed a very tiny rate. However, there is growing evidence that our case numbers have been vastly under-reported. Why? Because most people who have caught the virus have had no symptoms or only mild symptoms, and therefore did not know they had the virus, were not tested, and have not been included in our case numbers. Anti-body tests around the country are proving that far more people have had the virus than our official numbers indicate. If our case numbers have been markedly under-reported, this would mean that the actual case death rate among the non-medically ill aged 64 and below might be even substantially lower than 0.03%.
Furthermore, reports are surfacing that indicate that some counties and states have been inflating their COVID-19 death numbers by including deaths that were not actually caused by the virus. Just this past week, Pennsylvania was forced to admit that 200 of its reported 1,200 COVID-19 deaths were not caused by COVID-19, and the state reduced its reported number of deaths accordingly.
Finally, lockdown defenders tend to minimize the very real human cost of the massive layoffs and business closings that our lockdown has caused. Approximately 22 million Americans have lost their jobs in the last six weeks because of our lockdown. That is a staggering and devastating number of job losses in such a short period of time. Sudden and unexpected unemployment can cause stress, loss of self-esteem, and depression, not to mention anxiety and fear over the possibility of eviction, foreclosure, repossession, losing your business, being unable to buy enough food, being unable to buy medicine, being unable to buy gas, etc., etc. Already we are seeing reports from across the country about increases in suicide and domestic violence.
Here are some recent articles, published within the last few days, that support the case for ending our destructive lockdown and for reopening our country:
In order for 1.1 to 2.3 million Americans to die from COVID-19 in a herd-immunity scenario, the case death rate would have to be between 0.5% and 1.0%. and the overall death rate (the death rate among the entire population, not just among those who catch the virus) would have to be between 0.35% and 0.7%. Citing these exact percentages, one infectious disease expert dismissed herd immunity as follows:
“The best estimates put the COVID-19 infection fatality rate at around 0.5 to 1 percent. If 70 percent of an entire population gets sick, that means that between 0.35 and 0.7 percent of everyone in a country could die, which is a catastrophic outcome. . . .
“The sad fact is that herd immunity just isn't a solution to our pandemic woes. Yes, it may eventually happen anyway, but hoping that it will save us all is just not realistic. The time to discuss herd immunity is when we have a vaccine developed, and not one second earlier. . . .”
There are four major problems with this argument: (1) The argument assumes that all persons of all ages would be allowed to resume normal life to achieve herd immunity. (2) There is evidence that the case death rate is not 0.5%, much less 1.0%, but that it is between 0.1% and 0.3%. (3) The argument ignores the vast differences in case death rates among age groups. And (4) the argument ignores the very real and enormous human suffering caused by shutting down half the economy and putting tens of millions of people out of work.
Most of the experts who argue against our extreme lockdown do not suggest that everyone should be allowed to resume normal life; rather, they suggest a targeted approach that (1) would allow the non-elderly and the non-medically ill to resume normal life, and (2) would maintain restrictions on the elderly and the medically ill until herd immunity were achieved (either naturally or via vaccine, or a mix of both, whichever came first). Therefore, in a targeted herd-immunity approach, even if we assume a case death rate of 0.5% to 1.0%, at least 19% of the population—i.e., people aged 65 and above and the medically ill—would still be staying home and avoiding human contact as much as possible.
There is evidence that the case death rate is lower than 0.5%, and far lower than the scary rates that government experts initially suggested. A recent study in Los Angeles, which has a population of 4 million, found that 40 times more people had carried the virus then were previously known. This dropped the case death rate in LA from 4.5 percent to between 0.1% and 0.3%. A similar study in Miami-Dade County, one of the most heavily populated counties in the nation, dropped the county's case death rate down to 0.1%.
The idea that a herd-immunity approach would kill between 0.35% and 0.7% of our population is refuted by the COVID-19 numbers from Sweden. Sweden has not imposed a lockdown and has allowed most businesses, and even most schools, to stay open. Sweden has not even required the elderly to remain home. As of this morning, Sweden’s overall COVID-19 death rate, i.e., the percentage of the population that has died from the virus—is 0.02143% (2,192 deaths out of 10.23 million people), nowhere near the 0.35%-0.7% range assumed by lockdown defenders. “Nowhere near” might be an under-statement: 0.02143% is 17 times lower than 0.35%, and 34 times lower than 0.7%.
When lockdown defenders describe their doomsday scenarios for herd immunity, they usually ignore the vast differences in death rates among age groups. In the U.S., according to CDC numbers, at least 78% of our COVID-19 deaths have been among people aged 65 and above, even though this age group is only 17% of our population. This means that only 22% of our COVID-19 deaths have occurred among people aged 64 and below. In New York City, the case death rate among people aged 64 and below with no preexisting health conditions is 0.03%--not 0.3%, but 0.03%, or 10 times lower than 0.3%. In contrast, the case death rate among people aged 65 and above in NYC is 22.28% (8,037 deaths/36,073 cases).
Given NYC’s huge population of 8.4 million, which is larger than that of most states, there is no reason to believe that our national numbers are substantially different from NYC’s numbers when it comes to the case death rate among people aged 64 and below who are not medically ill.
These numbers indicate that if we adopted a targeted herd-immunity approach that maintained restrictions on people aged 65 and above and on the medically ill, the number of COVID-19 deaths would be a small fraction of the 1.1 to 2.3 million deaths suggested by lockdown defenders.
If we assume that 0.03% of all Americans aged 64 and below with no serious preexisting health issues would die from COVID-19 in a targeted herd-immunity approach, that would be right around 98,000 deaths, which would be fewer than the number of Americans who died in the 1957-1958 Asian Flu pandemic (116,000) and in the 1968 Hong Kong Flu pandemic (100,000). And it would be far below the number of Americans who die each year from respiratory diseases, accidents, medical errors, heart disease, and cancer, per CDC reports:
160,000 --- chronic lower respiratory diseases
169,000 –- accidents
250,000 --- medical errors
640,000 --- heart disease
590,000 --- cancer
A case death rate of 0.03% is indeed a very tiny rate. However, there is growing evidence that our case numbers have been vastly under-reported. Why? Because most people who have caught the virus have had no symptoms or only mild symptoms, and therefore did not know they had the virus, were not tested, and have not been included in our case numbers. Anti-body tests around the country are proving that far more people have had the virus than our official numbers indicate. If our case numbers have been markedly under-reported, this would mean that the actual case death rate among the non-medically ill aged 64 and below might be even substantially lower than 0.03%.
Furthermore, reports are surfacing that indicate that some counties and states have been inflating their COVID-19 death numbers by including deaths that were not actually caused by the virus. Just this past week, Pennsylvania was forced to admit that 200 of its reported 1,200 COVID-19 deaths were not caused by COVID-19, and the state reduced its reported number of deaths accordingly.
Finally, lockdown defenders tend to minimize the very real human cost of the massive layoffs and business closings that our lockdown has caused. Approximately 22 million Americans have lost their jobs in the last six weeks because of our lockdown. That is a staggering and devastating number of job losses in such a short period of time. Sudden and unexpected unemployment can cause stress, loss of self-esteem, and depression, not to mention anxiety and fear over the possibility of eviction, foreclosure, repossession, losing your business, being unable to buy enough food, being unable to buy medicine, being unable to buy gas, etc., etc. Already we are seeing reports from across the country about increases in suicide and domestic violence.
Here are some recent articles, published within the last few days, that support the case for ending our destructive lockdown and for reopening our country:
University of Miami says COVID infections in Miami-Dade could be 20x higher than official stats
Over 200,000 residents may have already contracted by the disease.
justthenews.com
The data is in — stop the panic and end the total isolation
Americans are now desperate for sensible policymakers who have the courage to ignore the panic and rely on facts.
thehill.com
We Didn't ‘Flatten The Curve,’ We Flattened The U.S. Health Care System
Across the country, hospitals shut down 'non-essential' procedures in preparation for a surge of coronavirus patients that never appeared.
thefederalist.com
What Explains the Difference Between Estimated COVID-19 Fatality Rates in New York and California?
Are the California numbers wildly off, or is New York different in important ways?
reason.com
According to CDC Data, It’s Not COVID-19 Coronavirus That Is Causing All the Severe Lung Deaths - LewRockwell
Examine the maps below. They show the States where COVID-19 cases occur which correlates with where tuberculosis of the lungs is prevalent. Either of two conclusions can be made from these maps: 1) Either people living in these States have weak immunity and therefore are likely to develop...
www.lewrockwell.com
Loving The Lockdown: The Left Is Taking Pleasure From The Economic Crash
Democrats’ coronavirus lust is an extension of their craving for power
issuesinsights.com