What is wrong with allowing COVID-19 to propagate throughout the non-vulnerable population? Part 2

This article is a continuation of the preceding (similarly titled) article. It responds to the remaining significant points made in an NPR article by Geoff Brumfiel and Tamara Keith. The NPR article is essentially a propaganda piece by the Left, which politicizes and weaponizes COVID-19, to scare the public into accepting the crashing of our economy, and the taking away of our rights.

Patmore Douglas 9/20/2020 9:40:00 PM

In a previous post, I asked the question, “What is wrong with allowing COVID-19 to propagate throughout the non-vulnerable population?” Much of the article was in response to an NPR article, that made spurious arguments against employing such a tactic. I am going to respond to the remainder of the points made by my first article. The following is from the NPR article.

‘Murray's group estimates that if the virus were allowed to spread easily, deaths could exceed 360,000 by December. Even if the roughly 50% of the population the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention considers vulnerable to complications from COVID-19 were somehow protected, potentially thousands of young and healthy Americans would die.’

As I indicated in my previous post, the vulnerable can be protected from the widespread propagation of the common cold (COVID-19) via quarantine protocols for the most vulnerable, as well as masks, gloves, and other protective measures, for those who are less vulnerable. Regarding the estimate of 50% of the population being vulnerable to COVID-19: the CDC article referenced by the NPR article, actually estimated that 50% of the adult population (vs. the entire population) was vulnerable to COVID-19. This estimate appeared to have been based on a simple addition of the percentages of the adult groups suffering from various underlying conditions, without any consideration for any overlapping of these conditions (multiple comorbidities) which CDC numbers show make up the vast majority of people who died from the coronavirus. This article puts the estimate of the vulnerable adult population at about 38%. This means that about 62% of the adult population, suffered very little risk from COVID-19, and CDC numbers showed that only about 10,000 people who were not vulnerable to the disease, died from it.

The above (along with statistics found in the article you are taken to in the immediately above link) means basically if you are an American adult with no underlying health conditions, you are twice as likely to die in a motor vehicle accident, than you are to die from COVID-19. The risk posed by COVID-19 to kids, is even significantly smaller.

The following is another excerpt from the article.

‘“COVID is dramatically more risky for everybody than the flu," he says. "There's just no comparison. It's at least an order of magnitude worse — tenfold or more."’

The above is an unmitigated lie, and is fear mongering. This is the medical bureaucracy conflating the effects COVID-19 has on the vulnerable population, with the effects it has on the rest of the population. This is what happens when you politicize and corrupt science.

The following is another quote from the NPR article.

‘Moreover, people face a range of experiences with COVID-19. It's not a dichotomy of death or recovery. There is increasing evidence that some people who beat COVID-19 have lingering side effects. CDC data indicates that roughly a third of COVID survivors ages 18-34 suffer health effects like fatigue and cough for weeks after they're no longer infectious. There's also reports of strokes and more serious complications, though the data isn't quite clear on how common that is.’

Most of the people who suffer lingering conditions from a COVID-19 infection, are from the vulnerable population. If a small fraction of adults with no underlying health conditions take a little longer than typical to recover, what does it matter? In fact, isn’t it always the case that you have a set of people who recover in a shorter period, as well as a set of people who recover in a longer period, from a health matter?

It is the modus operandi of the Left, to convince people to take a direction that seems good in the short term, but which turns out to be highly detrimental to them in the long term. They do it with big government programs that bring short term relief, but which threaten the solvency of our nation’s finances in the future. The Left push lifestyles and government programs that undercut the adoption of traditional families, leading to near term pleasure, but a slew of long term pathologies. The Left’s response to COVID-19 is no different. They would have us shut down our economy, livelihoods, and lives, with no thought for the long term implications (devastation) it will have on our existence.

Stated another way, the Left know full well what they are doing: they are psychologically pressuring us to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic, not in ways that balance short term and long term considerations, but in ways where we unreasonable panic in the short term, and take actions that are devastating to ourselves in the long term.