The data is in — stop the panic and end the total isolation

[Dashinka 24,741]

The data is in — stop the panic and end the total isolation
 

BY DR. SCOTT W. ATLAS, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR —  04/22/20 12:30 PM EDT
 

 

The tragedy of the COVID-19 pandemic appears to be entering the containment phase. Tens of thousands of Americans have died, and Americans are now desperate for sensible policymakers who have the courage to ignore the panic and rely on facts. Leaders must examine accumulated data to see what has actually happened, rather than keep emphasizing hypothetical projections; combine that empirical evidence with fundamental principles of biology established for decades; and then thoughtfully restore the country to function.

Five key facts are being ignored by those calling for continuing the near-total lockdown.

.

.

.

Fact 3: Vital population immunity is prevented by total isolation policies, prolonging the problem.

We know from decades of medical science that infection itself allows people to generate an immune response – antibodies – so that the infection is controlled throughout the population by “herd immunity.” Indeed, that is the main purpose of widespread immunization in other viral diseases — to assist with population immunity. In this virus, we know that medical care is not even necessary for the vast majority of people who are infected. It is so mild that half of infected people are asymptomatic, shown in early data from the Diamond Princess ship, and then in Iceland and Italy. That has been falsely portrayed as a problem requiring mass isolation. In fact, infected people without severe illness are the immediately available vehicle for establishing widespread immunity. By transmitting the virus to others in the low-risk group who then generate antibodies, they block the network of pathways toward the most vulnerable people, ultimately ending the threat. Extending whole-population isolation would directly prevent that widespread immunity from developing.

 

https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/494034-the-data-are-in-stop-the-panic-and-end-the-total-isolation

Edited April 23, 2020 by Dashinka

[OriZ 3,157]

I don't understand...do people who write this stuff think the hospitals in Italy, NYC, etc, were making stuff up?

[Boiler 45,956]

6 minutes ago, OriZ said:

I don't understand...do people who write this stuff think the hospitals in Italy, NYC, etc, were making stuff up?

Seems more people have died in care homes than hospitals. 

[Dashinka 24,741]

9 minutes ago, OriZ said:

I don't understand...do people who write this stuff think the hospitals in Italy, NYC, etc, were making stuff up?

Not really the best comparison.  Italy was certainly over run and we saw all kinds of stories about the lack of ventilators there.  I don’t remember seeing the same stories even in NYC.  The story though does use the available data instead of a questionable predictive model.  It would seem real data for all these data driven governors would be preferred.

[yuna628 9,700]

1 hour ago, OriZ said:

I don't understand...do people who write this stuff think the hospitals in Italy, NYC, etc, were making stuff up?

Pretty much. I've seen and heard it repeated now in various forms enough to see it's an agenda that's spreading.

[Dashinka 24,741]

14 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

Pretty much. I've seen and heard it repeated now in various forms enough to see it's an agenda that's spreading.

It is easy to explain.  Flattening the curve as Drs. Fauci and Birx talk about doesn’t change the area under the curve.

[Boiler 45,956]

Just watching BBC and Pakistan has lifted restrictions for Ramadan.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

21 minutes ago, Dashinka said:

It is easy to explain.  Flattening the curve as Drs. Fauci and Birx talk about doesn’t change the area under the curve.

 

   It lowered the total number of deaths. It also hopefully bought more time to work on more effective treatments, and progress towards a vaccine, both of which would lower fatalities even more going forward. It really accomplished what it was intended to do.   

[Dashinka 24,741]

Just now, Steeleballz said:

 

   It lowered the total number of deaths. It also hopefully bought more time to work on more effective treatments, and progress towards a vaccine, both of which would lower fatalities even more going forward. It really accomplished what it was intended to do.   

It lowered the peak and spread them over a longer period of time.  So I agree it bought more time, and it may have prevented some deaths due to healthcare scarcity, but it is my understanding that pandemics follow a fairly normal distribution, so you can get either a high peak over a shorter period which would cause issues in the health care systems, or a shallower peak over a longer period of time.  The area under the curve essentially remains the same.

[Boiler 45,956]

16 minutes ago, Dashinka said:

It lowered the peak and spread them over a longer period of time.  So I agree it bought more time, and it may have prevented some deaths due to healthcare scarcity, but it is my understanding that pandemics follow a fairly normal distribution, so you can get either a high peak over a shorter period which would cause issues in the health care systems, or a shallower peak over a longer period of time.  The area under the curve essentially remains the same.

It still seems to being sold as some sort of cure. Like respirators.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

6 minutes ago, Dashinka said:

It lowered the peak and spread them over a longer period of time.  So I agree it bought more time, and it may have prevented some deaths due to healthcare scarcity, but it is my understanding that pandemics follow a fairly normal distribution, so you can get either a high peak over a shorter period which would cause issues in the health care systems, or a shallower peak over a longer period of time.  The area under the curve essentially remains the same.

 

  Looking at places like Italy, certainly more than some deaths were prevented by the measures we took. The downward revision of the number of deaths in the models is a testament to how well the social distancing measures worked. The area under the curve is the number of people who contract the virus. That may or may not change, depending on whether or not the virus continues to circulate or whether it disappears. If the virus stays as many have suggested, then yes, the area under the curve remains the same, but the total number of deaths was lowered. 

 

  Again it's not just deaths from lack of health access, but for people who get Covid-19 next year instead of now, probably better chances of recovery. Even comparing now to back in February, the outcome for severe disease was much worse for the first people who got Covid-19. They had no idea how to treat it at all then. They have some idea of how to manage it now, not as good as it needs to be, but hopefully that will improve going forward. 

[Dashinka 24,741]

5 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  Looking at places like Italy, certainly more than some deaths were prevented by the measures we took. The downward revision of the number of deaths in the models is a testament to how well the social distancing measures worked. The area under the curve is the number of people who contract the virus. That may or may not change, depending on whether or not the virus continues to circulate or whether it disappears. If the virus stays as many have suggested, then yes, the area under the curve remains the same, but the total number of deaths was lowered. 

 

  Again it's not just deaths from lack of health access, but for people who get Covid-19 next year instead of now, probably better chances of recovery. Even comparing now to back in February, the outcome for severe disease was much worse for the first people who got Covid-19. They had no idea how to treat it at all then. They have some idea of how to manage it now, not as good as it needs to be, but hopefully that will improve going forward. 

Italy is a bad comparison because their medical system was completely overrun.  I don’t think we saw any of that even in NYC.  Yes, we have discussed this many times, the biggest issue with this virus was the unknowns, healthcare professionals had to figure out how to treat this, and we did not want to see stories regarding lack of ventilators like we saw in Italy.  The feds mobilized pretty quickly with additional beds using field hospitals and hospital ships, and we now know that much of that capacity ended up not being used which of course is a good thing.  The point of the OP piece is that we know so much more now, there is so much more real data to use for decision making, but it does not look like it is being used.

[Boiler 45,956]

15 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  Looking at places like Italy, certainly more than some deaths were prevented by the measures we took. The downward revision of the number of deaths in the models is a testament to how well the social distancing measures worked. The area under the curve is the number of people who contract the virus. That may or may not change, depending on whether or not the virus continues to circulate or whether it disappears. If the virus stays as many have suggested, then yes, the area under the curve remains the same, but the total number of deaths was lowered. 

 

  Again it's not just deaths from lack of health access, but for people who get Covid-19 next year instead of now, probably better chances of recovery. Even comparing now to back in February, the outcome for severe disease was much worse for the first people who got Covid-19. They had no idea how to treat it at all then. They have some idea of how to manage it now, not as good as it needs to be, but hopefully that will improve going forward. 

You would need to assume that both groups had an equal health standing to make such an assertion, there simply is not the data.

4 minutes ago, Dashinka said:

Italy is a bad comparison because their medical system was completely overrun.  I don’t think we saw any of that even in NYC.  Yes, we have discussed this many times, the biggest issue with this virus was the unknowns, healthcare professionals had to figure out how to treat this, and we did not want to see stories regarding lack of ventilators like we saw in Italy.  The feds mobilized pretty quickly with additional beds using field hospitals and hospital ships, and we now know that much of that capacity ended up not being used which of course is a good thing.  The point of the OP piece is that we know so much more now, there is so much more real data to use for decision making, but it does not look like it is being used.

Look at the figures from Belgium, they have admitted that to do any sort of comparison you would need to halve their numbers.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

1 hour ago, Dashinka said:

Italy is a bad comparison because their medical system was completely overrun.  I don’t think we saw any of that even in NYC.  Yes, we have discussed this many times, the biggest issue with this virus was the unknowns, healthcare professionals had to figure out how to treat this, and we did not want to see stories regarding lack of ventilators like we saw in Italy.  The feds mobilized pretty quickly with additional beds using field hospitals and hospital ships, and we now know that much of that capacity ended up not being used which of course is a good thing.  The point of the OP piece is that we know so much more now, there is so much more real data to use for decision making, but it does not look like it is being used.

 

   It is being used. We are opening up half the state on Monday. Mainly group things staying closed, businesses at half staff (but can do 2 shifts), elective medical and dental returns. Masks and social distancing remain as guidelines, and at risk groups are still encouraged to stay home. Some of it is personal responsibility now, and the understanding is also that if things get worse restrictions go back in place. We are operating with the assumption that the virus is more manageable going forward. If it continues, more restrictions will be lifted. If it get's worse they may be brought back.

 

  The irony of the article is if there was any panic, it seems to be coming from the people who want everything back to normal immediately regardless of consequence. Locally, I don't get the protests about lifting restrictions when we are 1 week away from restrictions being lifted. All that group did was put themselves at risk.  

Edited April 23, 2020 by Steeleballz

[Dashinka 24,741]

8 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   It is being used. We are opening up half the state on Monday. Mainly group things staying closed, businesses at half staff (but can do 2 shifts), elective medical and dental returns. Masks and social distancing remain as guidelines, and at risk groups are still encouraged to stay home. Some of it is personal responsibility now, and the understanding is also that if things get worse restrictions go back in place. We are operating with the assumption that the virus is more manageable going forward. If it continues, more restrictions will be lifted. If it get's worse they may be brought back.

 

  The irony of the article is if there was any panic, it seems to be coming from the people who want everything back to normal immediately regardless of consequence. Locally, I don't get the protests about lifting restrictions when we are 1 week away from restrictions being lifted. All that group did was put themselves at risk.  

You have not heard of the panic coming from the media?  I am happy your state is starting to reopen, we are looking at an extension here.  I suppose our governor wants to see more businesses fail, and more unemployed first.  It is interesting the governor of GA is being lambasted for deigning to reduce restrictions and allow for reopening.  That being said, based on the learnings regarding the mortality rate, maybe we should be getting back to normal faster than we think.

Edited April 23, 2020 by Dashinka