Two Lousy Solutions
 |
| Jack-Sternberg, MD |
The standard solution for the last five months that is not working to end this pandemic is what has been termed mitigation. This basically consists of wearing masks to protect others, social distancing, disallowing social events, sporting events, religious gatherings and the closing of businesses and essentially shutting down the economy. This has led to massive unemployment requiring the federal government to intervene by printing trillions of dollars so people won’t starve. This has caused a massive increase in the already huge federal deficit. People’s lives have been drastically altered; physically and emotionally. 150,000 plus people have already died in the United States. The new cases and deaths keep increasing despite this solution. The worst part is that the end of this pandemic, with mitigation only slowing down the progression, is nowhere in sight and may continue for months, even years and continues to drastically affect the economy. The only hope being an effective vaccine or therapy and that is still in the distant future.
There’s also another solution which is probably effective but to most; unacceptable. That is, stop all mitigation and let the virus run its natural course the way all previous viruses have been treated. Those viruses that have no therapy or vaccine. Yes, a huge number of people would get infected since this virus is so infectious. Some statistics say 99.8% of those infected will survive. Those at significant risk can continue to isolate to avoid exposure. With the majority of Americans having then been infected, herd immunity will occur and the pandemic would end relatively quickly. Unfortunately, with this approach, hundreds of thousands more might die. To those who don’t, American life and the economy will almost immediately return to near normal. But who is willing to openly advocate for such a solution? Anyone, especially a politician who advocates for this solution, will be vilified.
Country after country throughout the world has tried various solutions as proposed by their most brilliant scientists and doctors. The statistics available really don’t show that any approach has worked better with time to control the virus than any other solution. If that is so, then maybe it’s time to stop blaming anyone (except for maybe China) for not controlling this pandemic or doing enough. If anyone has a solution that is proven to work, please write me back. Until then, I remain as frustrated and pessimistic for a solution as all of you.
--------------------------
Jack Sternberg, MD, is a retired medical doctor and Chairman Emeritus, Garland County TEA Party Patriots in Arkansas, and a contributor to the ARRA News Service.
Tags: Jack Sternberg, MD, retired, Two Lousy Solutions To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
Posted by Bill Smith at 9:05 AM - Post Link
2 Comments:
Dr. Sternberg, did you take an oath when becoming a physician? Your published theory on letting herd immunity run its course -- that many, many more will die but normalcy and the economy will return more quickly -- is jaw-dropping! As the local Republican guru, I assume this reflects the views of many of your followers.
It would be so easy to list the temporary practices available to greatly slow this virus but the problem is not the practices but the stubborn, non-caring section of our country that does not believe and will not follow the practices. Your Republican president is greatly responsible because he cares much more about the economy and re-election than our citizens' lives; directly influencing those of you who blindly follow him.
P.S.: Many nations, taking and enforcing COVID prevention practices, have established very good track records to help contain the virus. Enforcing emergency, pandemic health rules is not a violation of anybody's civil rights; it is a right for all to have a safer nation until the medical solution is in place. We could do a lot better with national leadership!
Jim, I really enjoy a good debate concerning something I have said and also advocated. But I don’t enjoy when I am accused of saying something I didn’t which then leads to a personal attack.
You accuse me in your letter of advocating for a certain solution (stopping all mitigation except for those at risk) by stating: “Your published theory on letting herd immunity run its course -- that many, many more will die but normalcy and the economy will return more quickly -- is jaw-dropping!”
First, the title of my letter was “Two Lousy Solutions” implying I was not in favor of either and both had problems. I also stated that stopping all mitigation “is probably effective, but to most, unacceptable” since some would recommend this. I never wrote that this was what I advocated. What I did scientifically is state two actual theories on how to end this pandemic - that’s not me being evil, it’s me being intellectually honest.
You then impugn me as a physician for not following my oath. And then throw in that I’m a Republican and you attack President Trump despite my never bringing up either of those in my letter.
You then imply in your letter that some countries have done better than others by “taking and enforcing Covid prevention practices.”
Let me state again that statistically no country has really done that much better no matter what they do compared to the US which I assume you think has done poorly (a few seem better but their reporting systems are poor). Of all major countries, the US ranks 8th in numbers of deaths/million (and would be even better if you exclude New York City/State).
Let me also not forget to point out that the present mitigation solution is still leading to many more deaths per day/week/month as would solution two.
Finally, to be objective in pursuit of truth rather than emotion, Sweden from the beginning has used the second solution. Their deaths/million are 570; not much worse than the US at 499 and better than Spain (610), UK (686) and Italy (582). So, without me personally advocating for the second solution, shouldn’t our leaders, scientists and doctors consider it since it doesn’t objectively produce worse results but allows life to get back towards normal relatively quickly?
Post a Comment
<< Home