Epidemiologist: Social Distancing and Lockdown Are Absolutely Worst Way To Deal With an Airborne Respiratory Virus

43

A veteran scholar of epidemiology has warned that the ongoing lockdowns throughout the United States and the rest of the world are almost certainly just prolonging the coronavirus outbreak rather than doing anything to truly mitigate it.

Knut Wittkowski, previously the longtime head of the Department of Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Research Design at the Rockefeller University in New York City, said in an interview with the Press and the Public Project that the coronavirus could be “exterminated” if we permitted most people to lead normal lives and sheltered the most vulnerable parts of society until the danger had passed.

“[W]hat people are trying to do is flatten the curve. I don’t really know why. But, what happens is if you flatten the curve, you also prolong, to widen it, and it takes more time. And I don’t see a good reason for a respiratory disease to stay in the population longer than necessary,” he said.

“With all respiratory diseases, the only thing that stops the disease is herd immunity. About 80% of the people need to have had contact with the virus, and the majority of them won’t even have recognized that they were infected, or they had very, very mild symptoms, especially if they are children. So, it’s very important to keep the schools open and kids mingling to spread the virus to get herd immunity as fast as possible, and then the elderly people, who should be separated, and the nursing homes should be closed during that time, can come back and meet their children and grandchildren after about 4 weeks when the virus has been exterminated,” he added.


Read more at The College Fix.

{Matzav.com}

43 COMMENTS

  1. Moron. The lockdown is not indefinite… It’s buying time while medical resources are mobilized to be able to handle the influx of patients that will be generated during a controlled herd immunity attempt. We are also buying time while a large number of trials are underway for effective treatment plans. Being as 10% of the patients need hospitalization, and most patients under the age of 60 THAT RECEIVE ADEQUATE CARE survive, a mal equipped medical infrastructure will lead to a mortality rate 10x-30x what it would be otherwise. This guy lost the forest in the trees. The real timeline on this is likely 6-8 weeks until there is adequate medical infrastructure and testing capabilities and more data on current experimental treatment plans and more reliable info on immunity and increased capacity of serological testing to start reopening economy in a controlled mannerism.

  2. You cant have half society on lockdown & other half not. How can i work if my boss is over 70? How can my children go to school if they have teachers & students in school who are receiving cancer treatment or immune-compromised? Its either everyone go about life or total lockdown (which btw has been showing great results). And besides there are so many people that were young & in perfect health that had been a victim to .

  3. Another thing to note, the flattening the curve was meant to allow hospitals to function, as opposed to the healthcare system to completely fall apart.

  4. well either we are all idiots (not out of the question) or this guy is a moron.
    So, the basic idea is that this virus spreads asymptomatically and very quickly, so how exactly are we going to keep elderly (think all 60+ yr olds, and many 50s) away from general society, not to mention other imunocompromised individuals. Is that feasible? could be, any ideas?
    Or we could try flattening the curve, and making it take longer to reach herd immunity, and result in a quarter of the deaths. I’m going with ‘this guy is a moron’ for now.

    • How exactly are we keeping the vulnerable away from general society now? Locking EVERYONE down. What exactly are you missing? Take a look at Sweden and rewrite your comment.

      • I dont know what happened in sweden, can you inform me, or where to look?
        Also, From the tone of your comment it seems that you are against what i said, but then you write, in what seems a positive tone, that sweden locked everyone down. so can you please explain your comment?

  5. Quarantining only the vulnerable won’t have good results.

    Younger healthy people got sick and died from Corona too, that was WITH the current quarantine and a moderate overload of the hospital system. Imagine how bad things ch’v could have been without quarantine measures in place.

    Anyway unless you make special housing for vulnerable people how could you quarantine only the vulnerable? Say Schmerel is in his late 50s and a vulnerable person. He still has single children living at home gong about and becoming (hopefully) asymptomatic carriers of corona virus , where is Schmerel supposed to go? Under the current system his children aren’t running around getting infected and infecting him.

      • Even Sweden has closed high-schools and universities (but not most businesses). And still their death rate is nearly twice that of Denmark that went all out The question is how the epidemic behaves once the restrictions are lifted.

  6. He doesn’t know why were flattening the curve?! From one dr to another we both see what’s happening in the er’s! Way too many patients not nearly enough drs or equipment! So now by slowing this virus down we will have less patients over many more days as ex: 100 patients for 200 days and that we have the manpower to deal with. As oppose to having 5000 Patients over 50 days and having to decide which one we could take care of and which one we have to decide that will die! If you could please further explain your theory so maybe some of us could understand a little bit of your wisdom

  7. He doesn’t know why were flattening the curve?! From one dr to another we both see what’s happening in the er’s! Way too many patients not nearly enough drs or equipment! So now by slowing this virus down we will have less patients over many more days as ex: 100 patients for 200 days and that we have the manpower to deal with. As oppose to having 5000 Patients over 50 days and having to decide which one we could take care of and which one we have to decide that will die! If you could please further explain your theory so maybe some of us could understand a little bit of your wisdom

  8. Everything this guy says is true, but the only problem is hospitals can’t manage the influx of patients that would pile up if we don’t distance.

  9. Well he doesn’t care about killing 1% of adults who look healthy but even if this kills 1 extra person its a crazy move.
    Why not lock everything completely for 2-3 weeks and then you’ll be able to see who has it, seperate them, disinfect everything and you are done.

  10. Its really health distancing. Social distancing is the hug you do not have for your friend in California for a long duration of time because you do not want to talk.

    The media is funny because its Hashem’s non-jewish world. A real life would never say health distancing enough. The world might realize we are healthy humane minds.

  11. There you have it! This world crash was caused by the internet for the internet! He says from 25:18-26:32!
    Let Hashem and nature do its own!

  12. He doesn’t understand why you flatten the curve?
    You flatten the curve so doctors and hospital staff aren’t forced, like their colleagues in Italy, to decide which patient gets the respirator … and which patient dies.
    This sickness spreads fast and attacks the lungs. We’re just not equipped to deal with the amount of very sick patients it can produce in a short while.
    Boris Johnson was early on a big fan of the herd immunity idea. Then he got sick. Isn’t he lucky he had room at the hospital.
    The other flaw in his theory is wanting to isolate the at risk population. That was a nice idea as long as we thought this virus is a threat in the elderly and those with compromised immune systems. Sadly we’ve now seen deaths in younger healthy people and don’t know how or why that happened.

  13. This is a very irresponsible article to publish. There are no other people with any medical knowledge that agree with this approach. Actually, this was originally tried on the UK and backfired terribly. This can be very dangerous if people feel that they can now ease up social distancing because they read an article on Matzav.

  14. What about the many people rachmana litzlan that were YOUNG with no prior issues and still were nifter and/or very sick????
    His idea will only cause many people to die

  15. Every expert has an equal and opposite counter-expert. Exactly how can elderly people not in nursing homes be isolated from other people, such as relatives and other caregivers, who are busy developing herd immunity? The theoretician here is assuming a method that doesn’t exist.

  16. This is stupid

    “almost certainly just prolonging the coronavirus outbreak rather than doing anything to truly mitigate it.”

    Yes obviously! that is precisely the point. The Key IS to prolong it s o that hospitals arent overrun and can help those who can be helped. That is EXACTLY the point

  17. Here’s the bottom line. We are in the middle of an experiment. No one knows if shutting down is factually effective. It’s a huge gamble that is hopefully the right decision, but the truth is we just don’t know. Sweden, for example, has not shut down and their infection rate remains relatively low. The virus has most likely been circulating throughout the US since October. What we’re seeing now could be the 2nd wave. Hindsight should eventually tell us if destroying the economy to save some lives was worth it. I lean towards, NO, not worth it, but I could be wrong. The issue I see being highlighted by this pandemic is how terrible human beings are at dealing with death. We treat our pets better at the end of their lives than our relatives. Let’s be honest. 99%+ of the people dying from this disease would be dead within the next 6-24 months regardless. Is it worth destroying the economy, which directly effects billions of people, to keep those people alive for a few more months? That is the Billion dollar question. I can’t answer it, but I certainly think we need to take a very long look at the our current behavior of keeping every single human being alive for as long as possible no matter what.

    • Is your post sarcastic? I give Dr Kevorkian credit for addressing himself to those who requested his “assistance” and only to them. You appear to be willing to dispose of anyone who, according to your medical insight, has less than 6-24 months left.

    • and what about children with immune conditions? people in their 20s with preexisting conditions? a person in their 30s overweight? you would condemn them to death so you can make an extra buck on the stock market?

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here