The statistics cited in this are cherry picked, and therefore questionable. Fatality rates are closer to 0.5%, and the current death toll for COVID in the US is a few times higher than the numbers the article quotes.
I actually think the lockdowns should have been handled in a way that was more careful to preserve education and the economy.
I wish there were balanced discussions of this topic online, but I haven’t seen any.
I remember when the US had an independent press, and congress had an apolitical research wing. Either of those would have saved 100,000’s this year.
Americans are suffering from the costs of a deadly pandemic.
Countries that have managed the pandemic have avoided a lockdown. Countries that haven't, have been forced into it either through government mandate or otherwise, because people who can afford to, will not expose themselves to risks if it means getting a disease and then dying because your hospitals are full since you've done nothing to manage the pandemic.
So, this is the recommendation, last sentence of the article:
“If leaders really cared about people, the clearly rational and ethical thing to do would be to fully end the unsupportable government mandates. Continuing pandemic mandates is not just destroying people’s lives and livelihoods. It is killing people.”
But...what shall we do about the deadly, novel airborne pathogen?
How about actively sanitizing areas, and only quarantining the vulnerable, while only shutting down controlled areas with evidence of the virus? Is that not safe enough for these numbers? The real question is: why is this "safe" side shoving down their "solution" down everyone else's throat? At what point does coercion becoming a solution? "DO AS I SAY OR ELSE", is really the problem here, and not the virus. People are surviving, and are building antibodies, this is not an apocalyptical virus that we have to completely shutdown and obey.
> (...) and only quarantining the vulnerable, (...)
Because the epidemic spreads by infecting everyone, and the more widespread it becomes the more saturated health services will be and the more likely is that the more vulnerable elements of society will be affected.
And the odds that you are infected drop radically from almost certain to highly unlikely if everyone around you just acts responsibly and just follows basic precautions such as wearing a mask, washing their hands, practice social distancing, and whenever possible practice social isolation.
Think about it for a second. What do you think is the attack vector of, say, nursing homes? Do you believe it's the senior citizens who are already confind there, or everyone else who they are in contact with?
> not from a virus with an “infection fatality rate” of 0.15-0.2% across all age groups, and 0.03 to 0.04% in those under 70 years old. (This means, 99.96% of nearly everyone who gets the virus lives.)
Not if the statistics in this article are to be believed.
If you don’t believe the statistics, argue about that. Otherwise your argument is baseless.
These "statistics" are not credible. More than 0.1% of all Americans (340k) have already died of COVID-19. If the IFR were 0.15-0.2%, more than half of the population would have been infected already and the spread would be pretty much over. Instead, seroprevalence shows that about 20% of Americans have been infected, meaning we have 600k or so deaths to go in the absence of controls.
As for "99.96% of nearly everyone who gets the virus lives" this is weaseling even given their low IFR estimates. It deliberately excludes those most likely to die! This doesn't look like good faith. An article about the harms of isolation doesn't have to, and shouldn't, minimize the facts in this way.
What a heap of 'sky is falling' FUD. "American Institute for Economic Research" ? == a 'non-partisan' 'free-market think tank'.
Wikipedia: "AIER issued a statement in October 2020 called the "Great Barrington Declaration" that argued for a herd immunity strategy to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic.[13] It was roundly condemned by public health experts.[13][14] Anthony Fauci, the White House's top infectious disease expert, called the declaration "total nonsense" and unscientific.... AIER paid for ads on Facebook promoting its articles against government social distancing measures and mask mandates.... In 2018 it reportedly received US$68,100 from the Charles Koch Foundation"
Hysteria:
"a country at the breaking point."
"American life has been cancelled"
"desperation and distress are in response to the government’s unprecedented mandates and lockdowns. "
There's the possibility that COVID-19 directly causes mental illness, maybe even in people who are otherwise not symptomatic. I saw a thread about that recently, that I didn't want to read, but the possibility was already on my mind. Obviously you have to evaluate the number of coincidences you would expect by chance, though.
> American people are crying out for help and dying − not from a virus with an “infection fatality rate” of 0.15-0.2% across all age groups, and 0.03 to 0.04% in those under 70 years old. (This means, 99.96% of nearly everyone who gets the virus lives.) No, the desperation and distress are in response to the government’s unprecedented mandates and lockdowns.
Yup, as common sense dictates and as highlighted in the Great Barrington Declaration ;
Readit News
I actually think the lockdowns should have been handled in a way that was more careful to preserve education and the economy.
I wish there were balanced discussions of this topic online, but I haven’t seen any.
I remember when the US had an independent press, and congress had an apolitical research wing. Either of those would have saved 100,000’s this year.
Americans are suffering from the costs of a deadly pandemic.
Countries that have managed the pandemic have avoided a lockdown. Countries that haven't, have been forced into it either through government mandate or otherwise, because people who can afford to, will not expose themselves to risks if it means getting a disease and then dying because your hospitals are full since you've done nothing to manage the pandemic.
“If leaders really cared about people, the clearly rational and ethical thing to do would be to fully end the unsupportable government mandates. Continuing pandemic mandates is not just destroying people’s lives and livelihoods. It is killing people.”
But...what shall we do about the deadly, novel airborne pathogen?
Because the epidemic spreads by infecting everyone, and the more widespread it becomes the more saturated health services will be and the more likely is that the more vulnerable elements of society will be affected.
And the odds that you are infected drop radically from almost certain to highly unlikely if everyone around you just acts responsibly and just follows basic precautions such as wearing a mask, washing their hands, practice social distancing, and whenever possible practice social isolation.
Think about it for a second. What do you think is the attack vector of, say, nursing homes? Do you believe it's the senior citizens who are already confind there, or everyone else who they are in contact with?
> not from a virus with an “infection fatality rate” of 0.15-0.2% across all age groups, and 0.03 to 0.04% in those under 70 years old. (This means, 99.96% of nearly everyone who gets the virus lives.)
Not if the statistics in this article are to be believed.
If you don’t believe the statistics, argue about that. Otherwise your argument is baseless.
As for "99.96% of nearly everyone who gets the virus lives" this is weaseling even given their low IFR estimates. It deliberately excludes those most likely to die! This doesn't look like good faith. An article about the harms of isolation doesn't have to, and shouldn't, minimize the facts in this way.
Wikipedia: "AIER issued a statement in October 2020 called the "Great Barrington Declaration" that argued for a herd immunity strategy to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic.[13] It was roundly condemned by public health experts.[13][14] Anthony Fauci, the White House's top infectious disease expert, called the declaration "total nonsense" and unscientific.... AIER paid for ads on Facebook promoting its articles against government social distancing measures and mask mandates.... In 2018 it reportedly received US$68,100 from the Charles Koch Foundation"
Hysteria:
"a country at the breaking point."
"American life has been cancelled"
"desperation and distress are in response to the government’s unprecedented mandates and lockdowns. "
"Growing numbers have lost the ability to cope. "
This is such poor writing it makes me stop and disregard the rest.
Yup, as common sense dictates and as highlighted in the Great Barrington Declaration ;
https://gbdeclaration.org/