There is no doubt that this Wuhan Virus is a deadly problem. There is no doubt that lots of people have died from it. There is also no doubt that lots of people have died from other causes (including, in some cases, the steps we have taken to prevent people from dying from this Wuhan Virus). We have crippled our economy, unleashed a new $2 trillion debt, crushed lives, altered society, and, yes, killed people in response to this virus. At some point I think we ought to ask some tough questions.
A study from Stanford suggests that the number of people infected by the virus may be 50 to 80 times the numbers we've been given. Now, hang on a minute. What does that mean? Well, for one it means that far more people have it than we knew which means that the death rate for this disease is far less than we thought. Apparently it is horribly fatal to a particular group of "at risk" people, but not to the general populace.
Could that be true? It sure looks like it. In Boston the CDC did tests at a homeless shelter because of cluster of cases there. Out of the 397 people tested, 146 were positive. Out of the 146 who were positive, not one had symptoms. "See?!" we will cry. "It's nefarious! You can have it and not even know it!!" Yes, but what is the downside of an illness without symptoms? None of them were sick. And this wasn't a fluke. Remember that U.S. aircraft carrier that called for help -- the Theodore Roosevelt? They started testing the entire crew -- 4800 members. They determined that some 60% of the crew tested positive and without symptoms. That means that for the majority of people this thing ranges from a cough to no symptoms at all.
This isn't new thinking. The CDC says that 247,785 people tested positive for the flu this last winter and some 24,000 died from it. That's a 10% death rate. The reason they give us the 0.1% number is because they estimate that 39 million were actually infected, so that would be 0.1%. Same idea. For the vast majority, the flu is unpleasant, but certainly not fatal.
So, what do we know? We know that there is a group of what we call "at-risk people" who can absolutely, positively face a harsh death from this virus. That's bad. But there is a growing stack of evidence that the rest of us are not going to bat an eye over it. And that's good. Oh, but wait. That's not true, is it? Because the vast majority who are not going to suffer from the virus, either by not getting it or by getting such a mild version that it's barely a bad cold, are already suffering from it because of the measures being taken to stop it.
There is another factor in play here. Did you know that fear inhibits the immune system? One of the "at risk" factors for dying from this disease is an inhibited immune system. So in some ways we are actually putting ourselves at greater risk by spreading the fear about the risk we're at and aggravating it by locking everyone down.
Now, you know me. I'm one who prefers a biblical approach. Can I find anything in Scripture on the topic? Well, yes, I can. In the Old Testament God gave instructions regarding lepers. Leprosy was a virulent problem. It was so bad that God instructed the people to "put them out of the camp," so to speak. They were required to stay far away from the uninfected. So the concept of quarantining the sick is biblical. There you have it. But, nowhere do we find the concept of quarantining the healthy in order to prevent them from getting sick.
So what am I thinking? I'm thinking that "punishing the innocent for the guilty" is a bad plan. But let me be clear. I am not thinking, "We must save the economy even if it costs lives." Not on my radar. Here's what I'm thinking. Why don't we do the biblical thing? Why don't we isolate (and I mean actually isolate) the sick and leave the healthy to go about their business? Some may envision a Japanese internment camp scenario. I'm not. I'm thinking of safe places where these people can be isolated from the rest of the population while being cared for until they get better. We should also identify a particular set of "at-risk people" who we can take to another place for their protection, preferably voluntarily. But this concept of locking up everybody doesn't make sense. It obviously doesn't make sense economically, but, as I said, that's not my primary concern. It doesn't make sense based on what we now know about this virus and its mostly almost benign presentation. It doesn't make sense from a practical standpoint where we make it nearly impossible to find solutions because we've blocked resources and personnel in order to be safe from what they are researching. (That comes from someone who works at a lab that could actually have been working on solutions except for the fact that we've been stopped because of social distancing requirements.) Sweden took a different approach. They isolated the sick but intentionally left the healthy alone with a purpose. They call it "herd immunity." They are working on the historical concept that if a population gets a particular disease and survives, that entire population gains immunity to that disease. They believe it's working. I'm thinking that if the vast majority of America is actually safe from any serious results of this thing, then the vast majority of America should be able to go back to their lives. There is also the reality that if people are exposed to this virus and develop antibodies, it will produce an "immunized" society whereas isolating everyone and not developing this immunity will simply enable it to pop up again.
I'm in favor of saving lives. I'm in favor of saving lives at great cost. I'm just not sure we're doing that. I think there is growing scientific evidence that suggests we are not. I think there are more and more reasons to think we are cutting our own throats to avoid what we thought was a killer and turns out to be a "flu" the likes of which we've been dealing with forever. I think we need to ask some tough questions and think this through again.
Postscript
Now this is interesting. I just came across this. According to government -- the Department of Health & Human Services -- "isolation" is defined as separating sick people with a contagious disease from people who are not sick, and "quarantine" is defined as separating and restricting the movements of people who were exposed to a contagious disease to see if they become sick. In both cases, the ones separated are the infected or exposed. Why, then, have we isolated and quarantined those who are not sick or exposed? Is this even legal?
10 comments:
I think there are a lot of tough questions that have been unanswered in this situation, some of the answers aren't available yet, some are but might be inconvenient.
I think your final point is very important. What we are experiencing is definitely not quarantine or isolation as those terms have been historically used. While I think that the "overreaction" was probably necessary to shock people into realizing the potentially seriousness of the situation, it's becoming clearer that the flaws in the models and the nature of the disease have changed how we should respond going forward. We need to focus on protecting the high risk people, while getting the low risk back to their lives and livelihoods.
Like much of life this isn't so much about a right or wrong decision, but (like most things) it's a balance of risk/reward.
This is a good read Stan, we do need to ask some tough questions over this crisis. I work for a well known Massage clinic as a massage therapist. I see on average 5-6 members a day 5 days a week. I have been exposed to flu, colds in the past 3 months excluding Mar, so I am referencing from Dec to Mid March. I am pretty sure based on symptoms and non symptoms that I have been around the virus. No I have not been tested due to the fact I have no symptoms. I live in LA county which has a "high" exposure rate and death rate. I am not aware of anyone in my little world to get the virus. There have been people that I know that have been sick but tested negative. I am so confused about this whole pandemic thing. I am very willing to go back to work and take my chances but because they tell me I need to keep a safe distance from others because I could infect them unknowingly...yikes! of course I don't want to be responsible for that. I think isolation for the sick people would
be the ticket, just like you wrote. Is that selfish I wonder. I want to follow the laws of the state but is it more damaging in the long run of staying at home? Time will tell...thanks for this thought provoking post.
I don’t think that making a decision that you want to support yourself by doing your job is necessarily selfish.
Now doing your job without precautions or while actively having symptoms is probably selfish, but balancing mitigation of risk with supporting yourself and your family (not to mention the larger economy) doesn’t appear selfish at all.
I think we needed something to open our eyes to the lack of concern we have for respecting other people's health. My wife used to do demos at Costco, and one of her nearly daily complaints was people openly coughing and sneezing without regard for those around them. It may even be a tool to help reform our sick leave rules. Too many people knowingly go to work sick because they can't afford to not work, and take the time to rest and heal, causing them to worsen their condition and spread their illness.
I agree, some sort of compromise between full lockdown and how it used to be needs to be there proper response. The sick and at risk should be isolated and quarantined. Let everyone else live normally. I've heard of the herd immunity thing and thought we were hurting ourselves with this isolation.
"I'm thinking that "punishing the innocent for the guilty" is a bad plan."
Yet, in other areas we see the innocent punished or restricted because of the actions of a small minority of the guilty. Gun control is the obvious example.
"I am not thinking, "We must save the economy even if it costs lives.""
In theory that sounds great, but in reality saving the economy might/will cost lives, while our current course of shutting down the economy has/might/will also cost lives. Whether it's the 6 suicides in my church family, or the famines of "Biblical proportions" being forecast for various parts of the world, it seems reasonable to conclude that either course will most likely cost lives.
I'm pretty sure I understand what you are saying, and I agree with the sentiment, but I'm pretty sure we're past the stage where no lives will be lost.
Well, in truth, since Adam there has never been a stage where no lives will be lost.
Good point
Apparently, based on the CDC site as of today, 828000 cases with 46000 deaths. That's almost half the death rate of the flu. Sure, it spreads faster than the flu, but you're less likely to die from Covid than flu. If the numbers of unreported cases stays equal, that's almost .05% of Covid contractors die from it.
I keep hearing that the virus might have been around longer than suspected which potentially also lowers the death rate. Of course not counting people who didn’t die from Wuhan, would be a good place to start.
thanks Craig for you comment to mine. Hey David, totally get what your wife is saying about people coughing and sneezing. I had a gentleman come in for a massage that coughed throughout the whole session. Prior to getting on the table he said don't mind my cough its not covid. At the time I didn't have enough information and realized later he couldn't have possibly been tested since testing wasn't available here at the time. I was hesitant but still performed the session and then sanitized everything like crazy afterwards. I believe if and when these types of businesses come back in our service industry there will be some extreme measures to be implemented. Excellent wake up call to be more careful of other people and protecting each other when we might be sick. Will be interesting to see the protocals when I resume work.
Post a Comment