Yesterday, I posted on this declaration from a 30,000 foot point of view. Today, I want to talk about the science behind it. In quick FB links or memes, these discussions become pendulum swings in both directions.

Be𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐰𝐞 𝐠𝐞𝐭 𝐠𝐨𝐢𝐧𝐠: This is not a discussion about full throttle openings versus complete lockdowns (these are the pendulum swings). There is a middle ground – that sadly is not really being discussed right now by many. No one is advocating for another lockdown – we can get through this pandemic without one that protects the most vulnerable and our businesses (I’ve already written on this – go to the Table of Contents for those posts – look in the Economy section).

One side of the pendulum – We can all agree that lockdowns are not the answer and have significant ramifications on people, children, businesses, etc.

The other side of the pendulum – 𝐁𝐮𝐭, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐰𝐞𝐫 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐰𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐆𝐁 𝐃𝐞𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐞𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 – 𝐢𝐧 𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐬, 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐢𝐝𝐝𝐥𝐞 𝐛𝐮𝐭 𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐮𝐥𝐮𝐦 𝐬𝐰𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞. I know that it can sound like it is middle-ground.

But, it’s not. Let me show you from the data.

I’m going to link to another group (Dear Pandemic) that did an excellent post on this already. BTW, are you all following them? If not, you should. They are a great group of scientists (#allfemalescientists) and have a fancy website with a search tool if you have specific questions. Dear FB, I need one of those! =)

𝐎𝐤, 𝐛𝐚𝐜𝐤 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐞𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡𝐭𝐬:

1. The declaration essentially advocates to try get to herd immunity without precautions – except for protecting the elderly. But this would increase isolation for this group. And, also does not take into account the OTHER at-risk groups in the community for deaths and hospitalizations.

2. The declaration does not account for staggering amounts of hospitalizations, long COVID-19 haulers, and deaths in those under 65. The.numbers.are.staggering – if we choose this method. Especially since MANY under the age of 65 live with conditions that place them at-risk of COVID-19 complications (overweight, obesity, hypertension, asthma, etc). ****It’s not just the elderly that are at-risk.****

3. What about waning immunity? We know that immunity likely wanes after weeks/months – so, it’s risky to let this virus run through populations that could be re-infected again – and is the second infection more severe? Some evidence suggests that.

4. “False dichotomy between lockdown and “back to normal”” – From Dear Pandemic. Herd immunity is a myth. Especially with COVID-19. The goal is not zero infections – but, it is not herd immunity through the declaration’s approach either.

𝐒𝐮𝐦𝐦𝐚𝐫𝐲: Attempting herd immunity through natural infections leads to significant deaths/hospitalizations/long-haulers AND economic destruction. The middle ground of proper precautions protects both (again, see the Table of Contents on FB for that).

“𝐀𝐥𝐥 𝐭𝐨𝐥𝐝, 𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐦𝐩𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐨 𝐞𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐎𝐕𝐈𝐃-𝟏𝟗 𝐩𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐢𝐜 𝐪𝐮𝐢𝐜𝐤𝐥𝐲 𝐯𝐢𝐚 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐁𝐄𝐒𝐓 𝐂𝐀𝐒𝐄 𝐬𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐨 𝐨𝐟 𝟖𝟎% 𝐢𝐧𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐬𝐞 𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝟔𝟓 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝟏𝟎% 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐬𝐞 𝟔𝟓 & 𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝟕𝟓𝟑,𝟎𝟎𝟎 𝐞𝐱𝐩𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐝𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐡𝐬, 𝐚𝐥𝐦𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐢𝐯𝐚𝐥𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝟐 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐖𝐨𝐫𝐥𝐝 𝐖𝐚𝐫 𝐈𝐈𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐚𝐥𝐦𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐡𝐚𝐥𝐟 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐬𝐞 𝐝𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐡𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐬𝐞 𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐚𝐠𝐞 𝟔𝟓. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐧𝐮𝐦𝐛𝐞𝐫 𝐨𝐟 𝐡𝐨𝐬𝐩𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐳𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 & 𝐈𝐂𝐔 𝐚𝐝𝐦𝐢𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐰𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐛𝐞 𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐲 𝐦𝐮𝐥𝐭𝐢𝐩𝐥𝐞𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐬𝐞 𝐝𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐡 𝐧𝐮𝐦𝐛𝐞𝐫𝐬.” Now, here’s the link to the fantastic lengthy explanation from Dear Pandemic. I would encourage you to go read through all of it. – https://tinyurl.com/y58qmwud

-Friendly neighbor epidemiologist