— from Tom Eversole —
We humans crave certainty, however nature, disease and health don’t work that way. CDC recommendations change with new information, and medicos work from the best information they have at the time. Long term, it is not helpful to frame safety guidance changes for political advantage. Short term it can mobilize a conservative (as in: when in doubt, retain the status quo type conservative) base.
Such tactics, previously reserved for third word, authoritarian states, are now a staple in US politics. Negotiating with a pandemic viral pathogen is an impotent approach, and you cannot fool RNA with lies. This virus will continue to infect human hosts until it encounters 60 – 80% immunity acquired through surviving the disease or via successful vaccination. The natural path to that end includes reducing the planet’s population through disease, starvation, wars, etc. to reach a new, sustainable equilibrium or homeostasis. Humans can choose how to reach the planet’s new status quo: either humanely or through death, loss and destruction.
Perhaps there is a rational opportunity for the US to select a new social, health and economic path forward, if it is brought to its knees as Europe was following the first two world wars. That may be what it takes to break the stranglehold of our current win/lose economic and health systems, yet I hope we can find a more humane way to reach a sustainable solution. In a democracy, how do we get safely to that end?
**If it wouldn’t cause you financial distress to take out a modestly-priced, voluntary subscription (HERE), you’d be doing a real service. If it would, then no worries, we’re happy to share with you.**
Yes Tom, a fairly selective naturally occurring virus. Natural selection regulating global population – mother natures way of balancing the planet.
The metaphorical four horsemen are upon us. Pestilence > Famine > War > Death. Fetishes and tokens, negotiations and prayers, gold and silver won’t protect those selected.
April 29 WHO recommends the Swedish Model = herd immunity.
Spot on!
If life (and death) were only that simple: https://www.healthline.com/health-news/heres-what-happened-in-sweden-and-you-cant-compare-it-to-u-s#Sweden-not-untouched-by-COVID-19
And On Monday, the World Health Organization blasted the idea of “herd immunity” for the coronavirus. https://www.businessinsider.com/herd-immunity-few-people-have-had-the-coronavirus-who-2020-5
Thank you, Tom, for a reasoned, reasonable commentary.
As for using Sweden as a model, I beg to differ using pesky little things called data. With a case fatality rate hovering around 12%, Sweden’s is not one to emulate. I choose Vietnam, a nation of 97 M with 376 cases and zero (0) deaths. Aside from having a very solid public health system that is evidence based, mask use there is an astounding 99.7%. Yes, you read that correctly. It’s not rocket science, but science nonetheless.
But don’t trust me; take a few minutes playing with the real data.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/?fbclid=IwAR1-E5GaYphNC6dRLS6_6NS5kzPmPs2eU1diEILrZIMwhElliGoCN3OVOB4#countries
If one doubted the viability for the US of the Swedish approach to this pandemic, all one needs to see is this past weekend’s news reports from resort areas back east. Hordes of people ignoring the social distancing rules. Some claiming that they “didn’t feel” that the virus would affect them; others counting on “God” to take care of them. The Swedes are far more rational and responsible.
Donna,
In my opinion, the data do not yet exist to compare the success or failure of the Swedish model because the virus has been artificially suppressed by draconian quarantine measures in many countries, and each of these is in a different phase of viral transmission. In order to achieve an apples vs. apples comparison, we have to see at what level the case fatality rate asymptotes once countries are in a comparable phase of openness. In addition, one must control for different underlying co-morbidities in the underlying populations. Many physicians have speculated that a partial explanation for excess US deaths is the prevalence of obesity and diabetes in the US population.
All quibbling aside, the point Tom raises, whether the necessary reduction of global population pressure in order to achieve homeostasis can be achieved by other than the FourHorsemen, is a very interesting ethical and economic debate .