For example, when you hear about the “number of people infected,” by the Coronavirus, how many are actually requiring hospitalization?
That’s significant because most of what is driving the panic that justifies cancelling any institution or event that involves 10 people or more is the idea that the Coronavirus kills and, if doesn’t prove to be lethal, then it will necessitate some kind of acute care. And if we don’t have enough beds and we don’t have enough respirators and we don’t have enough masks…
But how many of those infected actually require hospitalization? And is every city in the US overwhelmed or is it just certain areas?
Some media outlets assume a 10% hospitalization rate.
But that’s not true. A 20 something has only a 1% chance of being hospitalized. That percentage increases as the age of the infected person increases, but to issue a statement that says “10% of all those infected will require a respirator” does not tell the whole story.
And as far as every city in America being overwhelmed, in Palm Beach, Florida there have been 514 cases. Of those, only 57 required hospitalization. Granted, the situation in New York City is much worse, but NYC is not representative of every urban scenario in the United States.
Thus far, the Coronavirus has claimed the lives of 22,000 people.
Some insist that we’re going to see things get “much worse,” hence the lockdowns and even the threats coming from civic leaders that we need to accept our layoffs, the stifling of our education and the gutting of our national economy as necessary sacrifices in order to stave off a disease that is…
…being described in a way that’s not entirely true. At least, not according to some:
A recent article from the Wall Street Journal quote two professors of medicine at Stanford University who both insist that the mortality rate of the Covid-19 is deeply flawed. They believe that the number of Coronavirus cases could’ve been as high as six million back in the early part of March. They go on by saying, “As of March 23, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there were 499 Covid-19 deaths in the U.S. If our surmise of six million cases is accurate, that’s a mortality rate of 0.01%, assuming a two-week lag between infection and death. This is one-tenth of the flu mortality rate of 0.1%. Such a low death rate would be cause for optimism … If we’re right about the limited scale of the epidemic, then … we should undertake immediate steps to evaluate the empirical basis of the current lock downs.”
“I repeat, ‘This is one-tenth of the flu mortality rate of 0.1%”.’”
We are living an unsustainable paradigm. Unless wisdom replaces mere reaction, not only is our nation at risk financially and our populace compromised significantly, we also begin to listen to some heinous ideas with more acceptance than we would otherwise.
For example, some are using this crisis to financially supplement organizations like Planned Parenthood and other subsidies not related to the virus. The Governor of Virginia issued a stay at home order that will stay in effect until Wednesday, June the 10th. Coincidentally, the Republican Primaries in that state were supposed to occur on the 9th. In addition, Barack Obama insists that the current pandemic is linked to Climate Change and Governor Cuomo has hinted that private healthcare needs to be replaced with a socialist healthcare system by saying that, “…sometimes you need an emergency to force change that would be very, very difficult otherwise.”
And then there’s Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib who recently proposed the “Automatic BOOST to Communities Act” which reads: “In response to the Coronavirus crisis, the Automatic BOOST to Communities Act would immediately provide a U.S. Debit Card pre-loaded with $2000 to every person in America. Each card would be recharged with $1,000 monthly until one year after the end of the Coronavirus crisis.” Majority Whip, James Clyburn revealing an otherwise hidden strategy by saying, “The COVID-19 bill is a tremendous opportunity to restructure things to fit our vision.”
Normally, most would immediately recognize either the political slight of hand that was being done or the giveaways that aren’t financially responsible. Instead, there’s a subtle acquiescence in that it sounds like it might be necessary.
But is it?
Not if you’re paying attention to those statistics and headlines that, for whatever reason don’t make it into the national consciousness.
And let’s not foget the individuals who are invoking shutdowns that come dangerously close to martial law.
Los Angeles Mayor, Eric Garcetti said, “If we see continued noncompliance [we] will step in and shut off their water and power. You know who you are, you need to stop it. This is your chance to step up and shut it down — because if you don’t, we will shut you down.” And then, once again, Virginia Governor knocks it out of the park by stating, “All public and private in-person gatherings of 10 or more individuals are prohibited … The authorized punishments for conviction are … confinement in jail for not more than twelve months and a fine of not more than $2,500, either or both.”
‘m not suggesting that the Coronavirus is not something to be taken seriously. Rather, I’m pointing out that there are very relevant perspective out there that are not being acknowledged as well as sinister characters that are using the crisis to assert toxic elements into our culture and our society under the guise of assistance and compassion.
There are other ways to address this without sticking a knife into our national well-being.
My sister is a surgical nurse in Nevada. She was recently laid off because her job focuses on elective surgeries. As I was talking to her I asked what she thought about Nancy Pelosi’s recent statement about Trump being, “…willing to trade elderly for economy.” I mentioned how I thought it was a truly vile thing to say, but, then again, how do you articulate the need to pay one’s bills without sounding like you’re indifferent to those who are truly struggling?
Her response was brilliant.
She said, “You quarantine those who are at risk. You give them the opportunity to avoid the marketplace so they can avoid contamination while you allow everyone else to go back to work.”
That certainly sounds a lot better than hoarding toilet paper.
Here’s the thing:
If we extend the current line of reasoning to its inevitable conclusion, we land in a position that is not responsible. And if any of the aforementioned numbers are correct, not only is it not responsible, it’s not even moral.
Yes, there are people who are sick. But you don’t solve the problem by destroying the very infrastructure that provides them the means to get well simply because some others might get sick – the vast majority of whom will not require hospitalization and be just fine.
It’s not just what’s being said, it’s what’s not being communicated that needs to be heard. And it’s that insight that needs to help shape our response to the Coronavirus. Otherwise, we’ll find ourselves in a situation that won’t be remedied by working from home let alone a vaccine.