Why the reopening has proven to be safe (and necessary)

The institutional data available since the beginning of the Society lockdown phase made it possible to understand how these measures were not necessary at all

● already on February 22nd (in Italy the closure of commercial activities begins on March 12th) the Director of the most important Italian Coronavirus Analysis Laboratory declares that based on the data in her possession Coronavirus is “"We swapped an infection just more serious than a flu for a lethal pandemic: it's not like that, look at the numbers" - <read Article>

● On February 25th, the Italian representative to the WHO announces that Coronavirus must be reduced: it is a normal influence «We also reduce this great alarm which is right not to be underestimated, but substantially out of 100 people 80 recover spontaneously, 15 have serious problems but that can be managed in hospital and only for 5% is lethal. Walter Ricciardi, an Italian member of the WHO Executive Committee, named councilor of the Ministry of Health ... recalled it. And it was about people [the dead] with health problems. example of normal flu. But normal flu does not kill directly, but causes decompensation in people who are already sick ".» <read Article>

● On March 17 we know that  «The one situation where an entire, closed population was tested was the Diamond Princess cruise ship and its quarantine passengers. The case fatality rate there was 1.0%, but this was a largely elderly population, in which the death rate from Covid-19 is much higher.  … Projecting the Diamond Princess mortality rate onto the age structure of the U.S. population, the death rate among people infected with Covid-19 woluld be 0.125%. But since this estimate is based on extremely thin data the real death rate could stretch from five times lower (0.025%) to five times higher (0.625%).»   <read Article>

● subsequently, on March 20, on New York times David L. Katz, the founding director of the Yale-Griffin Prevention Research Center: «The data from South Korea, where tracking the coronavirus has been by far the best to date, indicate that as much as 99 percent of active cases in the general population are "mild" and do not require specific medical treatment. " - <read Article>

● March 18, it was known that 99% of dead suffered from other diseases - Bloomberg - 99% of Those Who Died From Virus Had Other Illness (18-03-2020) - <read Article>

● Economist, April 11 2020 “If millions of people were infected weeks ago without dying, the virus must be less deadly than official data suggest,” the magazine determined, using graphs to suggest the faster the disease spreads and hits its peak, the fewer people will die. Silverman and Washburne found that the coronavirus mortality rate could be as low as 0.1 percent, “similar to that of flu”  <see Article - Study: Coronavirus Fatality Rate Lower than Expected, Close to Flu's 0.1%>

● February 22nd (in Italy the closure of commercial activities begins on March 12th) the Director of the most important Italian Coronavirus Analysis Laboratory declares that based on the data in her possession Coronavirus is “"We swapped an infection just more serious than a flu for a lethal pandemic: it's not like that, look at the numbers" - <read Article>

● On March 17  «The one situation where an entire, closed population was tested was the Diamond Princess cruise ship and its quarantine passengers. The case fatality rate there was 1.0%, but this was a largely elderly population, in which the death rate from Covid-19 is much higher.  … Projecting the Diamond Princess mortality rate onto the age structure of the U.S. population, the death rate among people infected with Covid-19 woluld be 0.125%. But since this estimate is based on extremely thin data the real death rate could stretch from five times lower (0.025%) to five times higher (0.625%).»   <read Article>

● March 20, on New York times David L. Katz, the founding director of the Yale-Griffin Prevention Research Center: «The data from South Korea, where tracking the coronavirus has been by far the best to date, indicate that as much as 99 percent of active cases in the general population are "mild" and do not require specific medical treatment. " - <read Article>

● March 18, it was known that 99% of dead suffered from other diseases - Bloomberg - 99% of Those Who Died From Virus Had Other Illness (18-03-2020) - <read Article>

● Apr 27, 2020 - Dr. Dan Erickson: expanding the number of the population on which he applied the test he found that the data provided by the institutions are incorrect. And the percentage of deaths from Cornonavirus is extremely lower – as an ordinary annual flu (the data have been compared with those of other important medical institutions that have confirmed the data). <read Articles: “Dr. Daniel Erickson says the lockdowns have a minimal impact on containing Coronavirus” - “Tucker (Fox News): Big Tech censors dissent over coronavirus lockdowns”).

In practically all countries, governmental institutions have imposed criteria for selecting the people who need to be treated (and therefore those who must be left to die)

We must note that care for older people was refused not only for Coronavirus, but was also refused, in general, for visits and surgery (which could have saved such people at the start).

As part of the Medicine claims, selecting patients to be treated is not only illegal (in fact doctors are asked not to disclose the thing), but it

it's not even a medically valid criterion,
since a 65-year-old person is not necessarily less likely to heal than a younger person.

One thing that is not said is that for a State to lose a young person means to lose an income (it pays contributions for retirement), while to lose an elderly person means less expense (retirement, and any medical treatment if chronically ill).

Note that according to these rules,

Doctors take on the power to "sentence people" to death

(but in order to practice their profession, doctors must submit to an oath, with which, among other things, they commit themselves to "pursuing the defense of life").

.

● The example from Italy: «with the exceptional situation presented by the coronavirus in Italy, special guidelines were developed for Italian health care professionals dealing with COVID-19. ... Italian doctors were being forced to choose which patients to treat – with the elderly getting a lower priority.

"Informed by the principle of maximizing benefits for the largest number," the guidelines suggest that "the allocation criteria need to guarantee that those patients with the highest chance of therapeutic success will retain access to intensive care. ... It may become necessary to establish an age limit for access to intensive care."

Giorgo Gori, mayor of Bergamo, in Lombardy, Italy’s worst affected region, said that, ... "forced the doctors to decide not to intubate some very old patients," essentially leaving them to die. »  <read Article>

● «Camosy mentioned the fact that Spanish hospitals, for example, have refused to treat people over 65 years of age and fears that “sheer utilitarianism, a prevailing concept in Western medicine and ethics, may become a code of conduct in blatant violation of civil rights, notably those of the elderly.”

… The New England Journal of Medicine stated that this form of health rationing “is often better tolerated if done in silence.” This is also one of the reasons why doctors and nurses have been cautioned against granting interviews, on penalty of dismissal.»  <read Article>

● «Older people should be denied treatment for the coronavirus if a younger, healthy person needs help, according to Prof Arthur Caplan, a prominent US medical ethicist.

Under the Equality Act, it is illegal to deny an older person access to healthcare on the basis of their age.

Dave Archard, emeritus professor at Queen’s University, Belfast, said an overburdened service is no excuse for discrimination that would result in a “cull” of older people.

Using age as an indicator of clinical frailty and the likelihood of survival is, he said, crude and unreliable.  … “It becomes exposed as wrongly discriminatory because it licences differential treatment based on ‘unwarranted animus or prejudice’ against old people.”

Catherine Foot, director of evidence at the Centre for Ageing Better agreed. “Chronological age must never be the principle factor that determines a person’s right to care. Medically speaking, it is a poor proxy for a person’s capacity to respond well to intensive care and to recover.  » <read Article>

In the case of the Coranavirus epidemic, extremely strong measures were taken without having a clear idea if they would work. Did they work?

The results of the States that have implemented the lockdown, compared with those of the states that have not adopted these restriction measures are the "living demonstration" of how the lockdown has not served to reduce the number of deaths (in addition to creating catastrophic consequences ).

In fact, Sweden and the States of the United States that have not implemented the lockdown provide a better picture than the other countries that have adopted it, such as Italy, England, California and others.

● ... we find no evidence of any discontinuity in the growth rate, doubling time, and reproduction number trends.

We also show that neighboring countries applying less restrictive social distancing measures (as opposed to police-enforced home containment) experience a very similar time evolution of the epidemic. <read Article>

● Fox News Tucker: Are coronavirus lockdowns working? The eight U.S. states that have still not issued statewide shelter-in-place ordinances are below the national average in coronavirus cases and deaths, per capita. <see Video>

● Why Sweden rejected a coronavirus lockdown - BBC Newsnight <see Video>

● Dr. Daniel Erickson says the lockdowns have a minimal impact on containing Coronavirus <see Video>

● Apr 27, 2020 - the video of Dr. Dan Erickson, with which he confirms - with population tests - the data provided by other important medical institutions that show that Coronavirus is a normal annual flu, has been removed from YouTube because it contradicts what was said by W.H.O. (which, for its part. continues to provide incorrect information since the beginning of the epidemic). <read Article: - “Tucker (Fox News): Big Tech censors dissent over coronavirus lockdowns”>

<See links to external Articles>

As early as March 17th on the New York Times «The irony of successful social distancing is that fewer will develop immunity. That means that social distancing 2.0, 3.0 and, who knows, maybe even 4.0 will very likely have to occur.

The next round of social distancing will be activated more rapidly, because officials — and the public — will be more prepared. It should also be shorter, because we can assume that most of the people who were initially infected are likely to be immune next time around. But it will still disrupt people’s lives and the economy. We will still have canceled conferences and sporting events. People will not frequent restaurants and will not travel. The service industry will be severely curtailed. And it’s going to happen again and again.»  < see Article >

The problem of the long duration of the Coronavirus 2020 epidemic is, paradoxically, due to the fact that the lockdown has taken place.

In fact, in influenza epidemics from 80 to 95 percent of the population must be immune to the disease to stop its spread. To visualize this, picture someone without immunity as a red dot surrounded by yellow immune dots. If the red dot can't connect to any other red dots, there is herd immunity. Which means that until a certain percentage of infected people is reached, the epidemic continues to expand (keep in mind that we are talking about COVID-19, an ordinary annual flu, and not a high rate disease of mortality).

The fact is,

with the social lockdown, paradoxically,
the older population was condemned to die.

That is,

with a herd immunity strategy
aimed at protecting the most vulnerable individuals,
there would have been fewer deaths than with the lockdown.

Furthermore, the possibility of resuming the epidemic at the reopening of the company, or at the arrival of the new cold season (in which flu epidemics develop) would have been eliminated.

.

● By David L. Katz - president of True Health Initiative and the founding director of the Yale-Griffin Prevention Research Center.  He said a long period of shutdown only prolongs the time until the virus spreads.

The United States’ short-term effort to minimize the damage from the coronavirus is not going to win the long-term war against the disease, according to one expert.

Dr. Katz noted that stopping the spread of the virus through social distancing may reduce its impact now, but it cannot be the ultimate answer because unless current restrictions remain in place forever — an economically, socially and politically untenable proposition — the virus will spread sooner or later. <read Article>

● «Herd immunity, which allows a majority of the population to gain resistance to the virus by becoming infected and then recovering, could result in less economic devastation and human suffering than restrictive lockdowns designed to stop its spread, according to a growing group of experts.

“You may be able to reach a point of herd immunity without infection really catching up with the elderly. And when the herd immunity reaches a sufficient number the outbreak will stop, and the elderly are also safe.”

... the Princeton and CDDEP team recommends lifting India’s strict lockdown -- which has been extended to May 3 -- and letting most of the population younger than 60 return to normal life,»  <read Article>