The Science is Settled: It is Time to End the Lockdown

Seawriter
Seawriter
6415
 

The CDC announced new numbers on COVID mortality. For those interested, fatality rates (by age) are now reported as:

  • 0-49 years old: 0.05%
  • 50-64 years old: 0.2%
  • 65+ years old: 1.3%
  • Over all ages: 0.4%

Additionally, apparently 30% of the cases are asymptomatic – so mild you do not know you had it.

The people who said it was only slightly more serious than a bad influenza season turn out to be wrong. It turns out to be less serious. As for the doomsayers? This. I know next time could be worse. Maybe.

It is time to declare victory, end the lockdowns, mask-wearing, and social distancing. Hold a victory parade and let’s return to normal.

Published in Healthcare
Join Ricochet!
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 64 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
Join Ricochet
  1. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator
    10:33 AM EDT ⋅ May 30, 2020

    Darin Johnson (View Comment):

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    If it’s voluntary, it’s not a random sample. It might be representative enough to do good stats just the same, but it might not be. And then what?

    So your problem with serology tests is that you think people must be forced to submit to them or they are not useful? That doesn’t make my list of Things Worth Worrying About. I’ll take the information available from voluntary, and thus “non-random” tests, thank you very much.

    I don’t have a problem with serology tests. But you said the lack of them was criminal, which I don’t think is true under our legal system.  But getting adequate serology tests might raise legal problems.  Getting voluntary tests is worth a try, but there will be arguments over whether they are representative enough, no matter whether they are representative enough for you or me. 

    • #61
  2. Mark Camp Member
    Mark Camp
    @MarkCamp
    12:44 PM EDT ⋅ May 30, 2020

    Darin Johnson (View Comment):

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    If it’s voluntary, it’s not a random sample. It might be representative enough to do good stats just the same, but it might not be. And then what?

    So your problem with serology tests is that you think people must be forced to submit to them or they are not useful? That doesn’t make my list of Things Worth Worrying About. I’ll take the information available from voluntary, and thus “non-random” tests, thank you very much.

    Darin,

    I think Reticulator’s exactly right here.  Sampling and other biases are exactly what scientists have to “worry about”–I’m afraid your mockery is misplaced– if they are to get correct results from a study.

    • #62
  3. Darin Johnson Member
    Darin Johnson
    @user_648569
    7:20 AM EDT ⋅ May 31, 2020

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    I don’t have a problem with serology tests. But you said the lack of them was criminal, which I don’t think is true under our legal system.

    I was being rhetorical.   Criminal in the sense that our elected political leaders are imposing extreme costs on us without knowing the extent of the infection.

     

    • #63
  4. Darin Johnson Member
    Darin Johnson
    @user_648569
    7:23 AM EDT ⋅ May 31, 2020

    Mark Camp (View Comment):

    I think Reticulator’s exactly right here. Sampling and other biases are exactly what scientists have to “worry about”–I’m afraid your mockery is misplaced– if they are to get correct results from a study.

    I’m not saying they shouldn’t worry about bias.  I’m suggesting this bias is below the noise floor.  And that the information is extremely valuable.  Remember, serology tests have found infection rates more than an order of magnitude larger than their corresponding case rates.  Knowing whether 1% or 15% have been infected is important.  You can tolerate a wide confidence bound.

    • #64
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
Join Ricochet