Rigby5
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #81
ONLY herd immunity has ever ended any entrenched epidemic.
Lock downs can not, have not, and ever will end any epidemic.
By stretching the time of any epidemic, locks downs always result in larger numbers of deaths.
Here are the experts.
Listen to them.
Lockdowns can work, however they only have a real chance if the disease is so virulent that there are minimal asymptomatic or mild symptom cases.
You would have to add in a real serious mortality rate, i.e. 5%-10% to really force people to isolate, and the disease needs to be only contagious when a person is truly symptomatic.
In that scenario a lockdown and isolation of anyone in contact with known cases is the only way to stop a true decimation of the population.
Coronavirus Cases: 7,991,998
Deaths: 219,695
How many has the lockdown killed?
A good question. you would have to quantify somehow the increase in other deaths due to avoidance of doctors, and the increase in suicides due to the increased isolation.
On the other hand you would also have to "credit" the lockdowns with decreases in automobile related deaths, and of workplace deaths.
No, the increase in deaths due to the lock down comes from the fact the epidemic has been continued much longer than it would normally.
The way to figure an epidemic is by its monthly death toll, which is about 30,000 for covid-19.
So if you aggressively apply deliberate herd immunity in the first month, and it takes a month to wipe it out, then you have 60,000 deaths and it is gone.
If instead you flatten the curve for a years, that caused 360,000 deaths, with no end in sight.
So clearly lock downs kill potentially an infinite number of people, way more than an optimal herd immunity.
I would think you would have had many more deaths in the first month or two if you didn't isolate vulnerable populations, as in a limited directed lockdown.
We won't know for sure until it is all over, but we may look at Sweden as an example to check out.
A deliberate herd immunity strategy always tries to isolate the vulnerable.
That is the whole point.
With herd immunity you are shooting for a 6 week time frame, so then isolating the vulnerable is practical.
With lock downs, they last for years, if not indefinitely, so then isolating the vulnerable becomes impossible.
Sweden did not go for herd immunity.
They did not deliberately infect those under 38, and did not protect the elderly.
I don't think you would find any government that would consider "deliberately" infecting anyone, as this thing does have a small but real mortality rate for those under 65 with certain conditions, some of which people might not be aware of.
NO government would intentionally infect their citizens (except China). With the inclusion of therapeutics and early detection in those of age and underlying conditions they too now have exceed 98% survival rates.
At this point it is pointless to lockdown further. Protect the older and vulnerable populations and open this sucker up.
The damage occurring to the healthy persons now far exceeds the potential damage to our economy and able bodied people. The Cure has become worse than the disease.
Since those under 38 have essentially no risk from covid-19 infection, far more than necessary would likely volunteer. They want to end the lock down, and would be more than willing. I would gladly volunteer, even though I am way too old to do it without risk.
But I agree it is much easier to protect just the vulnerable than it is to try to lock down everyone.
At this point it would serve no purpose to intentionally infect anyone.. Open up the economy and monitor. This virus is fully capable of infecting the populace without help.
I disagree.
By deliberate infection we can select volunteers only for those under 38 who are not at risk, and then we also know exactly who and when to quarantine for 12 days.
If we allow this to be random, it would be much harder to protect the vulnerable and there would be some needless deaths,