Interestingly, the spike has occurred mainly in young people of high school and college age. So far of the 2111 cases reported in town, 446 have been between the age of 10 and 19, and 553 between the age of 20 and 29. That is almost half of the town’s total. Fairfield has a population of about 60000 but it does have two large universities.
Significantly, none of these young people have died. In fact, Fairfield University reports that of its 599 cases, 589 have recovered so far. In fact, no one under the age of 40 has died in Fairfield, and only three have died under the age of 60. On the other hand, while there have been only 262 cases reported over the age of 80, 114 of those have resulted in death. Of those seniors who have died, over 90 percent were already in nursing homes or elder care facilities.
I think these figures are representative of what is going on all over the country. I also believe that they lend credence to the Great Barrington Declaration, a proposal put forward in October by three of the world’s leading epidemiologists, Dr. Martin Kuhldorff of Harvard, Dr. Sunetra Gupta of Oxford, and Dr. Jay Bhattacharya of Stanford. They argued for a focused approach to dealing with the disease instead of a one size fits all approach. Here is an excerpt from the declaration.
Obscured by the heated national election, the Great Barrington Declaration was also derided or ignored by the media, who while claiming always to follow science, can really turn on scientists who disagree with the mainstream narrative. Typically, instead of examining the scientific evidence, the media claimed that the authors of the Declaration had a right-wing political agenda.
Fortunately, our understanding of the virus is growing. We know that vulnerability to death from COVID-19 is more than a thousand-fold higher in the old and infirm than the young. Indeed, for children, COVID-19 is less dangerous than many other harms, including influenza.
As immunity builds in the population, the risk of infection to all – including the vulnerable – falls. We know that all populations will eventually reach herd immunity – i.e. the point at which the rate of new infections is stable – and that this can be assisted by (but is not dependent upon) a vaccine. Our goal should therefore be to minimize mortality and social harm until we reach herd immunity.
The most compassionate approach that balances the risks and benefits of reaching herd immunity, is to allow those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection, while better protecting those who are at highest risk. We call this Focused Protection.
Adopting measures to protect the vulnerable should be the central aim of public health responses to COVID-19. By way of example, nursing homes should use staff with acquired immunity and perform frequent PCR testing of other staff and all visitors. Staff rotation should be minimized. Retired people living at home should have groceries and other essentials delivered to their home. When possible, they should meet family members outside rather than inside. A comprehensive and detailed list of measures, including approaches to multi-generational households, can be implemented, and is well within the scope and capability of public health professionals.
Those who are not vulnerable should immediately be allowed to resume life as normal. Simple hygiene measures, such as hand washing and staying home when sick should be practiced by everyone to reduce the herd immunity threshold. Schools and universities should be open for in-person teaching. Extracurricular activities, such as sports, should be resumed. Young low-risk adults should work normally, rather than from home. Restaurants and other businesses should open. Arts, music, sport and other cultural activities should resume. People who are more at risk may participate if they wish, while society as a whole enjoys the protection conferred upon the vulnerable by those who have built up herd immunity.
The recent upsurge in cases is a sign another approach is needed. In a September 1 op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, Donald Luskin discussed the statistical research that his firm, TrendMacro, has been doing on the coronavirus since its inception. He argued that the findings, although counter-intuitive, indicate that lockdowns have had little effect one way or another.
Experts stress the need for masks but only if used properly. How often do you see people touching their masks or wearing them only on their chin? My own observations indicate that 95% of people do not use or handle their masks properly. Most mask tests have been done in hospital settings where the masks are effective when used by trained medical personnel. Just the other day on a visit to my doctor, I asked his assistant how often she changed the mask that she had to wear all day. She said, “every three or four days.”
It could be that the students at Fairfield and other universities are doing all of us a big favor. They contact the virus and recover. They get symptoms that in 99.9% of the cases range from cold to flu, but then develop an immunity that, according to the authors of the Great Barrington Declaration, will protect us all.
###
No comments:
Post a Comment