Is there really a risk of reopening?

● 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”).

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>

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 >