As I believe most of you are aware, this page is based on facts and data. At times I may interject my opinion to some degree, but even then it's heavily based on the facts I've established through thorough research. I'd like to say it's well informed, though I don't claim to know it all by any means. With that said, I don't believe we should re-open our society because I don't care about the elderly or I only care about the economy. If there was solid science and data to back up a tough lock down, I would stand by that stance 100%. Everything I have posted and commented on I have done so with a mountain of data in my mind to back up my point of view.

Here is my issue, referring to this article which will only make sense if you actually read it. The basis of my concern is 4 fold:

  1. The "experts" are saying, in short, it's too dangerous to reopen, but have not backed up that statement with any data whatsoever, it's just warnings and conjecture.

  2. The last line in the article is highly concerning, as this is a significant move of the goal posts. We have all been told for weeks and weeks that we have to flatten the curve, but now that we have accomplished this, the new expectation being set is: "It’s not just enough to flatten (the curve). We’ve got to get down to the other side of the curve before we open it and that could be weeks away.” Once we get to the other side of the curve, what will it be then? Again, no actual data is discussed.

  3. They have indicated that having antibodies isn't enough to determine that you can safely re-enter society, yet this is exactly how a vaccine works. So by those standards, we are currently racing to manufacture a vaccine, so we can all safely produce antibodies, but that won't determine if we can re-enter society safely (apparently), so why do we keep hearing about how important it is to get a vaccine? Building antibodies is literally the only defense humans have against viruses, aside from social distancing for the rest of our lives.

  4. "Dr. Tam also said that allowing people to become infected in order to achieve herd immunity is far too risky, as it’s not yet understood who will develop a severe illness as a result of the virus" - This statement is categorically false, as we have mounds of data to suggest precisely who is more susceptible to both getting, and succumbing to this virus. I will discuss a few key measures we know, below.

We always hear about following the science, yet when there is clear data, it is seemingly ignored and no counter data is provided, we are just told it's dangerous and issued stern warnings that are baseless (on the premise there is never data to back it up).

Here are some basic FACTS as provided by Worldometer based on the mountain of data available from NYC:
For now, we'll forget the fact that there have been a number of studies that all conclude, based on the likely prevalence of the virus, that the overall death rate is between 0.1-0.3%. The below data is based ONLY on deaths vs known cases (tested positive).

0-9 years old: death rate is essentially 0
10-39 years old: 0.2%
40-49: 0.4%
50-59: 1.3%
60-69: 3.6%
70-79: 8%
80+: 14.8%

So if you are under 60 years old and test positive, your chances of survival are 98.7% to 99.9999% (depending on your age). If you are over 80 and test positive, you still have an 85.2% chance of survival. Remember, these numbers are only this low because it's not accounting for any people who have the virus but have not been tested.

Now let's discuss those people who have some of the more common underlying conditions that are significant in relation to COVID-19. Below you'll find a list of conditions, and the rate of survival if you have that condition and also are tested positive for COVID-19:

Cardiovascular Disease: 89.5%
Diabetes: 92.7%
Chronic Respiratory Disease: 93.7%
Hypertension: 94%
Cancer: 94.4%
No pre-existing conditions: 99.1%
Again, note this is only measuring survival vs tested cases, not accounting for all the cases that inevitably exist but have not been diagnosed

When you account for the significant number of cases that clearly exist but have not been tested, here are some basic conclusions you can draw:

  • If you contract COVID-19, regardless of age, and have no underlying medical conditions, your chances of survival are well over 99%
  • If you contract COVID-19, regardless of whether you have an underlying condition or not, and are under 60 years old, your chances of survival are well over 99%
  • The vulnerable group are therefore those aged 60+ with underlying conditions, and the degree of vulnerability is directly correlated with age

The data is available for all to see. It can't be disputed, it's the absolute FACTS, so why is it not being used in any way to form policy? If, with a very basic level of data analysis, we have just concluded that if you have no underlying medical conditions and/or are under 60 then you are at almost no risk from this virus. We have pinpointed the exact group of people that are at a higher degree of vulnerability so resources and polices could be directed squarely on them to keep them safe. Even the places that have begun the discussion around easing restrictions don't appear to be using this data to formulate these policies.

At risk of droning on, I'll end this here, but I hope this information adds to your knowledge base. At minimum we should all be demanding that the policies we have in place and will be implemented and changed as time goes on is based on the data. Our experts are the ones running our country, and the decisions they make need to be supported by science/data, as the repercussions can't be under stated. I'm not saying we should open everything tomorrow, but if they are telling us how dangerous it is, then they need to have the data to back that up. If there is data out there that counters or outweighs what ai have stated above, then I would absolutely love to see it, genuinely, but I haven't found it yet. We need open, honest and factual discussion about this. Not more conjecture and empty talk about flattening the curve that has no substance behind it.

Globe and Mail Article

Did you find this article useful? Why not share it with others!