There is a debate if you can actually call it such, floating around social media about what we should have done, or what we did too late, or what we need to do next about protecting both the population at large and the economic engine that has made America what it is today. It is that economic engine that has given us a standard of living that is the envy of much of the world and has, since the Second World War, made us one of the most powerful nations on the earth.
On one side, we have the position we need to “flatten the curve.” The idea here was/is if we don’t slow down the rate people were becoming infected we would overwhelm the medical systems' ability to treat the disease and handle the lethality of the virus.
One the other side are those who believe the best way to deal with the virus is to let all the young and healthy people be exposed. The logic being once they are exposed they would be strong enough to fight the virus and develop an immunity. The advocates for this approach recognize the old and “at-risk” people would have to be separated from the herd to keep them safe, but the majority of the nation could carry on with business as usual with people coming down with COVID-19, a percentage coming down with the disease and needing treatment, but with a few exceptions, it wouldn’t be fatal. What the advocates for this don’t explain is how would the elderly and “at-risk” be reintroduced into the herd without suffering the fatal consequences of the virus?
Let’s talk about herd immunity for a moment. Isn’t herd immunity a normal function of evolution and environment? As the disease is introduced into the heard the weakest of the herd are the most likely to fall prey to its effects. The herd will survive but the weakest won’t. If the strong can survive the disease they will hopefully develop immunity and be able to pass it on to the subsequent generations. It is precisely like the herd’s relationship with predators. The sick, the old, and the weakest young are the ones the predators will cull from the herd. They are gone but the herd survives.
So, the question for intelligent humans is can you combine the two strategies? Are we willing the allow the weak and at risk to suffer the consequences of COVID-19 while the healthy supposedly develop their immunities? How many old and “at-risk” would die in this approach? No one seems to say. But thanks to the media and politicians, this has become a US versus THEM argument just as everything seems to be. And like all those arguments one side will argue for the importance of protecting the old and weak while insisting abortion is life sustaining[1]. The other side will argue for the importance of allowing the majority to develop natural immunity, sacrificing those most vulnerable while demanding an end to abortion.
No comments:
Post a Comment