Let her rip, Part Deux

We hear more and more that epidemiologists and public health officials now predict at least 60 % of us will eventually be infected despite any regime of lockdown, testing, contact tracing, or other measures of prevention or delay.

From the outset there has been a “let her rip” current of opinion according to which the virus would eventually have its way with us, topping off with an infection rate at maybe 60 % to 90 % of the entire population.

That current of opinion is still out there and very influential, I think, on the thinking of Republicans and others skeptical of the prevailing lockdown strategy, first adopted in China and then in Europe at a time when it was feared the lethality of this bug could be a lot worse than is now believed, perhaps even as high as that of Ebola, a disease that killed horribly about half of those ever infected.

But we now know much that was not known then.

And our choice now is not whether to lock down but how quickly and how carefully to open up, again.

So let’s review the bidding.

First, we should recall that the overwhelming consensus of the medical and public health authorities favors lockdowns, social distancing, much more extensive testing, and so on.

Professional opinion, in short, though not without some exceptions, continues to favor massive interruption of the normal course of social and economic life.

But on the other side of the issue there are these things.

We were told by pretty much everybody at the start of this pandemic that the point of lockdown was not so much to limit the scope of the disease as to slow infections so the medical system would not be overwhelmed and we would have more time to develop antivirals and vaccines.

And the point of that was to perhaps diminish the total infected and more surely to diminish the total killed, both depending on whether and how badly the hospital system was overwhelmed and how soon effective antivirals and vaccines became available, and also to diminish and spread out the hit the economy would have to take from having lots of people out sick.

But, according to this current of opinion, the economic damage from lockdown has been and remains so bad that it exceeds the damage it prevents, damage done by the unimpeded, natural spread of the virus through a population with no antivirals, no vaccine, and no natural immunity.

It is a losing strategy at every moment it is practiced, on those terms.

But also the number killed from suicides, crimes of cabin fever, and other deadly consequences of lockdown nearly equals or even exceeds the number of those spared.

So the best course of action is to just let her rip, refuse or lift as soon as possible any lockdown and allow the virus to sweep thorough the population as quickly as possible in order to reach stability with general, natural population immunity sooner.

This argument has assumed all along both some degree of natural immunity among those who have recovered and a lethality less than that of the flu.

As to the first, though there has so far been no actual proof it remains the consensus view that people, once recovered, will not generally be vulnerable to another attack from the same virus in the same season.

And lately we have seen reports confirming that the bug is less deadly than flu, reports that the extent of infection in the general population is much higher than was believed and so that the lethality of the bug is much lower.

So the argument to rollback efforts to slow the progress of the disease becomes more persuasive as our experience and knowledge of the disease progress.

And it’s worth noting that the argument to let her rip is even stronger if in fact there will be no vaccines and no antivirals coming to the rescue, if there is nothing of that sort to wait for.

If that is true, the ultimate damage from the virus will be little different with or without delay caused by lockdown while the economic and health damage done by any lockdown will be uselessly and catastrophically added to no good purpose.

This, by the way, provides an explanation why supporters of quick rollback show so little interest in testing of any kind or in measuring so-called “spikes”.

And also why they are not fans of general use of masks, social distancing, or self-isolation, and why they urge re-opening schools and colleges and resuming even stadium sports with no particular concern for such prophylactic measures.

None of that matters, you see.

Lockdown or rollback, with or without masks, social distancing, or self-isolation, no matter what, we are headed toward an inevitable 60 % to 90 % rate of infection and there will also inevitably be many, many more deaths from the bug.

No ensuing test results and no spike, on this view, can show that starting rollback was a bad idea or too carelessly done, or that continuing rollback and returning to normal life as quickly as possible is not a good idea.

So, which is the better path ahead, overall?

A point to consider.

Right now all of this is a hot partisan issue, the Dems favoring lockdown, testing, and lots of interruption of normality and the GOP favoring rollback and restoration of normal life.

In 1916, 1940, and 1964, a Democrat ran for president promising he would absolutely not send Americans to war. But each one won the election and then sent Americans to war.

Democrats could abandon lockdown, too, after the election.

But probably while maintaining lingering concerns over not-too-disruptive stuff like masks, testing, and social distancing in order to keep up differentiation from the Republican brand.

They are already edging in that direction.

And another point.

Everybody agrees geezers and people with special vulnerability should continue self-isolation and physical distancing. I certainly will. And I may never dine out at a restaurant or go to a crowded theater, ever again.

I who say this always get the flu shot, and I will get a Covid-19 vaccine as soon as I can.