This page is about facts and data, and I do my best to not interject my opinion, at least not when it's not completely backed by data. I am having a hard time not speaking out about the overall situation right now, so apologies if this post goes slightly beyond the mandate I have set for this page. That said, I do believe it is based on data, much of which I have already shared. Nonetheless, here we go:
See the linked article from the CBC today. In my opinion, here is the most concerning quote from our top Doctor, with regards to why she does not agree with considering the concept of herd immunity:
"Even a young person might get severely sick or get into the ICU, so it's not a concept that should be supported"
By this statement alone (forget about whether herd immunity itself is viable or not), the ONLY solution that is viable in Dr Tam's opinion, is one where there is ZERO chance of ANYONE getting ill. It's a virus, it has potential to kill people, just like the flu and 10000 other ailments. To not even consider options because a young person "might get sick" goes beyond all logic and reason.
For the population as a whole, it's looking more and more like the survival rate of this virus is in the range of 99.7-99.9%, and these numbers are being strengthened daily with each new antibody study that comes out (there are at least 6 different studies now, all reported on this page already). This also means that around 98% of people who become infected, won't ever know they had it due to being asymptomatic or having mild cold like symptoms. Now, if you adjust that for age and remove the people who are older than 65 or have co-morbidities, the survival rate is very close to 100%. In other words, nearly 100% of deaths are from people >65 and/or have serious underlying health conditions.
Let me be clear, I am by no means trying to state there is no danger at all, certainly the people in vulnerable groups should continue to take necessary precautions until even more is known, and we could allocate significant resources to doing just that, but based on what we DO know, the evidence for continuing as we are now simply doesn't exist. Our government should have one goal in mind, and that is to establish how to move forward, as quicky and as safely as possible, yet for the most part, especially federally, it does not appear as though they want to have those discussions.
Also worth noting, remember the important study that was done in the US a few days ago which I reported on. That study compared the 8 states that did not issue lock down orders (social distancing only) vs the rest of the states that did. The data was adjusted for population, density, age, income and ethnic diversity using statistical regression and the results were very clear. There was absolutely NO difference in disease prevalence or rate of death. Meaning, locking things down had absolutely no additional benefit over social distancing alone.
At this stage, our government (both federal and provincial in NS) has so far seemingly ignored every single useful piece of data that the world has learned and produced over the last 6+ weeks, and instead simply refrained from even engaging in meaningful discussion. The measures we have in place now were based on information (models that were absolutely incorrect to the highest degree) at the time that suggested millions would die worldwide. We now know that isn't even close to true, yet the measures haven't been adjusted in the slightest, this is unacceptable. Dr. Tam is literally a top Doctor with the WHO so it seems reasonable to assume she will never go against any official directives they have.
Consider this, in what other scenario would we destroy our economy, put millions out of work and shut nearly every business down, to stop something that MAY kill 0.3% of people who are impacted? 98% of people won't be impacted at all, 1.7-1.9% will be impacted with varying degrees of symptoms and 0.1-0.3% will die. Consider everything from the flu and other disease, to car accidents to smoking to everything else that we could easily do things to reduce death, yet we don't because we all understand as a society there is inherent risk to life, and we accept a certain amount of risk as part of that life, understanding to try and reduce risk to 0 in basically anything is simply unreasonable and the consequences would not be acceptable. I heard a great quote yesterday that really fits the bill, "You don't make rules based on exceptions" yet that is precisely what we have continued to allow to happen in Canada, whilst much of the rest of the world is implementing steps to get back to normal, yet in Canada it appears to be all about "The New Normal". I dislike that term very much.
Thanks for listening!