10-08-2020, 04:08 PM
Will note one of the signatories:
He's known for the Santa Clara antibody study.
Ad homoinims aside, I don't think what they are advocating is entirely unreasonable, though I have some nits to pick:
Very few places are in a true lockdown. There are, of course, restrictions on certain high-risk activities, but I can freely walk around my neighborhood, participate in small gatherings, and take part in most of the activities that I used to take part in. So we are debating about whether certain activities are allowable or not. Much of what they are advocating (for example, restaurants) are allowed with certain restrictions. I happen to agree with them on in person schooling.
Where I disagree is the idea that:
1) You can reliably protect vulnerable populations. I mean, the President of the United States was a vulnerable person, essentially no expense was spared in protecting him, and he nonetheless caught COVID-19 and required hospitalization. If one could truly segregate vulnerable people from younger, healthy people, that's great, but evidence to date is that we cannot do that effectively, and the more young, healthy people who are infected, the greater the risk of inadvertent infection of vulnerable populations.
2) We don't actually know that we can reach herd immunity. Herd immunity is predicated on the idea that getting sick confers long-lasting immunity. We know that re-infections are very rare (a handful of documented re-infections worldwide), but we have no idea how long that protection lasts. If it lasts for a long time, then yes, we will reach herd immunity. If immunity wains over the course of a year, then the virus will become endemic, periodically re-infecting people and becoming endemic.
3) Formal restrictions on activity are only part of the story. Just because people can do certain activities, doesn't mean that they will. They don't argue this, but I do think that there is an underlying assumption that things would go back to normal, but for government restrictions, when in fact things would go back to normal, but for the pandemic, and, in fact, the quickest way for everything to be shut down is for there to be a large spike in cases and deaths.
BC
Quote:Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, professor at Stanford University Medical School, a physician, epidemiologist, health economist, and public health policy expert focusing on infectious diseases and vulnerable populations.
He's known for the Santa Clara antibody study.
Ad homoinims aside, I don't think what they are advocating is entirely unreasonable, though I have some nits to pick:
Quote:Current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health.
Very few places are in a true lockdown. There are, of course, restrictions on certain high-risk activities, but I can freely walk around my neighborhood, participate in small gatherings, and take part in most of the activities that I used to take part in. So we are debating about whether certain activities are allowable or not. Much of what they are advocating (for example, restaurants) are allowed with certain restrictions. I happen to agree with them on in person schooling.
Where I disagree is the idea that:
1) You can reliably protect vulnerable populations. I mean, the President of the United States was a vulnerable person, essentially no expense was spared in protecting him, and he nonetheless caught COVID-19 and required hospitalization. If one could truly segregate vulnerable people from younger, healthy people, that's great, but evidence to date is that we cannot do that effectively, and the more young, healthy people who are infected, the greater the risk of inadvertent infection of vulnerable populations.
2) We don't actually know that we can reach herd immunity. Herd immunity is predicated on the idea that getting sick confers long-lasting immunity. We know that re-infections are very rare (a handful of documented re-infections worldwide), but we have no idea how long that protection lasts. If it lasts for a long time, then yes, we will reach herd immunity. If immunity wains over the course of a year, then the virus will become endemic, periodically re-infecting people and becoming endemic.
3) Formal restrictions on activity are only part of the story. Just because people can do certain activities, doesn't mean that they will. They don't argue this, but I do think that there is an underlying assumption that things would go back to normal, but for government restrictions, when in fact things would go back to normal, but for the pandemic, and, in fact, the quickest way for everything to be shut down is for there to be a large spike in cases and deaths.
BC