Become a part of one of the fastest growing adult communities online. We have something for you, whether you’re a male member seeking out new friends or a new lady on the scene looking to take advantage of our many opportunities to network, make new friends, or connect with people. Join today & take part in lively discussions, take advantage of all the great features that attract hundreds of new daily members!
Nobel Prize-winning scientist shares COVID-19 data showing strict lockdowns were an overreaction
'...the damage done by lockdown will exceed any saving of lives by a huge factor'
Professor Michael Levitt, who teaches structural biology at the Stanford School of Medicine, won the 2013 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for "the development of multiscale models for complex chemical systems."
And according to Levitt, coronavirus data show that sweeping lockdown measures were an overreaction that may actually backfire.
Levitt has been analyzing the COVID-19 outbreak from a statistical perspective since January and has been remarkably accurate in his predications. The data show that the outbreak never actually grew exponentially, suggesting harsh lockdown measures, which have drastically impacted the world economy, were probably unnecessary.
His observation is a simple one: that in outbreak after outbreak of this disease, a similar mathematical pattern is observable regardless of government interventions. After around a two week exponential growth of cases (and, subsequently, deaths) some kind of break kicks in, and growth starts slowing down. The curve quickly becomes "sub-exponential".
This may seem like a technical distinction, but its implications are profound. The 'unmitigated' scenarios modelled by (among others) Imperial College, and which tilted governments across the world into drastic action, relied on a presumption of continued exponential growth — that with a consistent R number of significantly above 1 and a consistent death rate, very quickly the majority of the population would be infected and huge numbers of deaths would be recorded. But Professor Levitt's point is that that hasn't actually happened anywhere, even in countries that have been relatively lax in their responses.
Instead of strict lockdown orders, Levitt told UnHerd that developing "herd immunity" is a better strategy to fighting a virus like COVID-19.
"I think the policy of herd immunity is the right policy. I think Britain was on exactly the right track before they were fed wrong numbers. And they made a huge mistake. I see the standout winners as Germany and Sweden. They didn't practise too much lockdown and they got enough people sick to get some herd immunity," Levitt explained.
"I see the standout losers as countries like Austria, Australia and Israel that had very strict lockdown but didn't have many cases," he said. "They have damaged their economies, caused massive social damage, damaged the educational year of their children, but not obtained any herd immunity.
"There is no doubt in my mind, that when we come to look back on this, the damage done by lockdown will exceed any saving of lives by a huge factor," Levitt predicted.
Exactly right. The big thing is people will naturally react in their best interest, and naturally social distance as they active cases emerge in the local area they travel in.
New York City did not shut down the subway at all for several weeks which was basically funneling everyone to the infection and spreading it faster not slowing it down
Let's say the death rate of cv19 is 2%. So to get Herd Immunity in the USA with a population of 329 million people, that would mean over 6 million deaths. No thanks. You can't put a price tag on life. With social distancing we have had 70,000 deaths, and that's too many. The vaccine will be here in a year. The sacrifice is too great to achieve Herd Immunity.
Let's say the death rate of cv19 is 2%. So to get Herd Immunity in the USA with a population of 329 million people, that would mean over 6 million deaths. No thanks. You can't put a price tag on life. With social distancing we have had 70,000 deaths, and that's too many. The vaccine will be here in a year. The sacrifice is too great to achieve Herd Immunity.
Let's say the death rate is actually 0.1%
Then you get 300,000 deaths, unless the virus mutates to a milder form, like all the past viruses have done, then you have fewer deaths.
Let's say the death rate of cv19 is 2%. So to get Herd Immunity in the USA with a population of 329 million people, that would mean over 6 million deaths. No thanks. You can't put a price tag on life. With social distancing we have had 70,000 deaths, and that's too many. The vaccine will be here in a year. The sacrifice is too great to achieve Herd Immunity.
Little a - the Wuhan virus case mortality rate is not 2% - likely not even 0,2%
Just a liberal fantasy to hope more fatalities and economic ruin to help the Fascist DPST party in Nov 2020.
the DPST party and its' death mongering is despicable!
Little a - the Wuhan virus case mortality rate is not 2% - likely not even 0,2%
Just a liberal fantasy to hope more fatalities and economic ruin to help the Fascist DPST party in Nov 2020.
the DPST party and its' death mongering is despicable!
Amen - it only appears high because they haven't tested everyone (ten times as many asymptomatic cases? 50 times?) and are also inflating the death toll by blaming everything on COVID-19 to get paid and get immunity from any mistakes.
Let's say the death rate of cv19 is 2%. So to get Herd Immunity in the USA with a population of 329 million people, that would mean over 6 million deaths. No thanks. You can't put a price tag on life. With social distancing we have had 70,000 deaths, and that's too many. The vaccine will be here in a year. The sacrifice is too great to achieve Herd Immunity.
Whelp... the death rate is looking more like 0.1%-0.2%. Which places the survival rate in the 99.8%-99.9% range. Even at that, it's fudged, as it appears the actual causes of death are more from the comorbidity, aka imuno-compromised causes. Plus we already know the greatest percentage of those affected are >60 years old, with underlying conditions. Which, back to math again, means those under 60 yr old, the survival rate is closer to about 99.99%.
Maybe more importantly, it's killing specific groups - older people and people with co-morbidities.
Those people can be specifically identified and protected. There's no reason for everyone to wear a mask ALL THE TIME in public. Summer is approaching here in Houston. Nobody's wearing a mask when its 95 degrees outside.
Panicked Democratics are putting up false narratives that the Angel of Death is "COVID" and is going kill 2% of the populace unless we leave our blood marked front door with a mask. Don't believe me?
Whelp... the death rate is looking more like 0.1%-0.2%. Which places the survival rate in the 99.8%-99.9% range. Even at that, it's fudged, as it appears the actual causes of death are more from the comorbidity, aka imuno-compromised causes. Plus we already know the greatest percentage of those affected are >60 years old, with underlying conditions. Which, back to math again, means those under 60 yr old, the survival rate is closer to about 99.99%.
Nobel Prize-winning scientist shares COVID-19 data showing strict lockdowns were an overreaction
