14 Months Later: A Pathway Forward

Source: American Institute for Economic Research.

The writers outline an approach to ending the Covid-19 pandemic. Elements of the plan may seem controversial to some.

For example, the writers would limit vaccinations to the elderly and to front-line medical workers. This, I assume, stems from their view that natural exposure immunity is superior to the immunity that the current vaccines confer. The writers have previously explained that our immune system normally targets multiple features of any pathogen it encounters, whereas the mRNA vaccines target only one feature. Thus, for persons not at high risk of death or hospitalization, natural exposure immunity is preferable as a means of ending the pandemic.

This line of reasoning may also account for their call to “Immediately end all societal lockdown, shelter-in-place, mask mandate, and school closure policies…”

19 thoughts on “14 Months Later: A Pathway Forward

  1. Good luck with that.

    The CDC Vaccine Advisory Committee and the Northam administration have dedicated themselves to delaying vaccination of elders as long as possible because white people are overrepresented and to delaying treatment until people are hospitalized.

    It is their obsession with controlling people rather than informing them that blocks a truly evidence based approach from even being tried.

    Virginia and Tidewater lag in vaccination

    Like

  2. “Elements of the plan may seem controversial to some.”

    Does “controversial” mean “insanely stupid?” Who knew?

    Still digging for reasons to defend a selfish decision to leave vaccinations to others?

    Liked by 1 person

    1. What is insanely stupid is to reject the whole plan because you disagree with some elements of it based on your assumption of someone else’s motives.

      Insanely stupid would also include intentionally delaying vaccinating those most likely to die in pursuit of raced based health care equity.

      Like

      1. Some of the elements? You mean the key element – substituting illness for vaccination? Yes, I find that key idea insanely stupid. Since we have the technology to control the pandemic without ruining the health of hundreds of thousands of people and putting countless others in the morgue. Eschewing that technology for half-assed reasons – such as those voiced by anti-vaxxers – is insanely stupid.

        Your racial griping about Northam’s roll out of vaccines is lamer every time you do it. Whatever of his policies you disagree with, the fact is that Virginia has done better than most other states in this process. You only demonstrate again how little actual evidence from the real world impinges on your pre-conceived feelings of racial persecution.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. I take it you didn’t read the link.

          It was specifically about Virginia lagging behind, and Tidewater in particular. And early on, in January and February, it was particularly so for Elders. And Northam’s vaccine Czar Avula explicitly stated the over 75 group was being pushed back because whites were overepresented.

          And the article has a good point that for those who are not at high risk of serious illness, natural immunity may well be broader and more long lasting that vaccine immunity. The reasons were clearly stated in the article, and I note you do not refute those reasons with any evidence or logic, only ad hominem association with anti-vaxxers.

          Like

        2. No, I did not read the link. Again. We have already been around and around on this subject and I have done my own research. The FACT is that Virginia’s overall response to the virus has been more successful than most other states. We are near the top by a number of measures. If your race-based complaints were accurate we would be near the bottom.

          And, yes, I am well aware that Avula mentioned the need for more equity and, given the overall result, he has been vindicated even if people like you obsess about a single tree and ignore the forest.

          I do not dispute that surviving the illness PROBABLY confers better protection than a vaccine. That does not make it a good idea to seek herd immunity by tens of millions of avoidable illnesses if the vaccine is good enough.

          Without wasting any more effort on this nonsense, I have accurately stated its central idea (achieve herd immunity by illness rather than vaccine) and the reasons why it is an absurdly bad idea (people are not sickened, harmed or killed by vaccination).

          Like

          1. RE: “I have accurately stated its central idea (achieve herd immunity by illness rather than vaccine)…”

            No, you haven’t. You (dishonestly?) conflate infection with illness. The vast majority of people who become infected with SARS-COV-2 do not become ill.

            Allowing natural immunity to spread in populations unlikely to be harmed by infection is a legitimate medical strategy.

            Like

          2. As usual you are making a distinction without a difference – infection versus illness. If you are infected with Covid-19 you are ILL. Even if the symptoms are mild you are ILL. And even if you are not aware of being ILL immediately your long-term health is in danger in ways that are not yet understood. I accurately stated the stupid central thesis of this stupid article. So take your accusation of dishonesty and do you know what with it.

            By the way, what is up with your refusal to get the vaccine and your refusal to explain why? Don’t care to share personal information? I will go first. I am vaccinated. My wife is vaccinated. All of my children are vaccinated. And, I still wear a mask wherever I go. I do it for the peace of mind of people around me. Your turn.

            Liked by 1 person

    1. Ron Johnson is proof that conservative leadership is packed with stone cold idiots and conspiracy nuts. We can throw in cowardly for good measure as they trip over themselves to kiss butt in Mar a Lago.

      First they bristle at the possibility that the ex-president might not get all the credit “due” for OWS bringing vaccines to market faster than in the past.

      So now we have it, and they “re-bristle” at the idea that the vaccines are effective if the majority of Americans get them before too much variant creation takes place.

      And some on the right are worried about Democrats and policies that have not even taken place, and probably won’t.

      Trump killed hundreds of thousands from his ignorance and the GOP right wing nuts want to boost that record.

      What’s next, a gang attack on the Capitol again.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. I’m more inclined to the view that Rolling Stone is “packed with stone cold idiots and conspiracy nuts.”

        I read the article, but saw nothing in Johnson’s comments that is out of line.

        Like

        1. Of course.

          “If you have a vaccine, quite honestly, what do you care if your neighbor has one or not?…”

          Because the neighbor can help create variants.

          But who give a poop about other citizens? Right wingers sure don’t care so long as pizza parlor basements are rife with conspiracies. Or Jewish space lasers are a fact. Or vaccines have chips implanted for Gates’ pleasure.

          Sorry, but Johnson is a world class jerk with no spine.

          I am afraid the GOP is melting just like the Wicked Witch.

          Liked by 2 people

          1. RE: “But who give a poop about other citizens?”

            You should study your own words. Does giving a poop about other citizens justify burning witches at the stake?

            Like

          2. He also equates removing a public official for supporting vigilante murders as a “lynching.” I wonder, are such nonsensical exaggerations a manifestion of the intellectual damge done by carefully curated sense of white male victimhood that drives modern “conservatism?”

            Liked by 2 people

  3. FYI:

    “ With about two-thirds of the country’s oldest residents fully vaccinated, younger adults, many of whom only recently became eligible for vaccines, now make up a higher share of total hospitalizations.”

    A combination of factors are bringing many more people under 60, on down to 30, even 20. B.1.1.7 is more transmissible and deadlier.

    So when the article states that low risk people don’t need vaccines, we need to define low risk today and not a year ago.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. RE: “A combination of factors are bringing many more people under 60, on down to 30, even 20.”

      A “higher share of total hospitalizations” doesn’t actually mean “many more people.” In fact, the NYT piece notes that total hospitalizations are lower today.

      We should be cautious about reading too much into the NYT story. Michigan, after all, was an outlier state with particularly aggressive lockdown and social-distancing policies. It will be some time before we can separate fact from fiction in the narrative NYT spins.

      Like

      1. Yes, hospitalizations are down. So they were in India a couple of months ago. In fact, India was a poster child for success. Until they weren’t.

        Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply to lenrothman Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s