Our heartfelt thanks to The Other McCain for linking to our GoFundMe – and to all who have contributed! I can’t begin to tell you what it means to us.
Also, make sure to check out my latest over at Glibertarians – this week is the first in a new series, Why Can’t I Have One? This entry: The .25 rimfires.
Here’s another bit on the Kung Flu that I found interesting, from the Oklahoma State University Institute for the Study of Free Enterprise‘s Dr. Stephen Trost: A Risk-Management Approach to Defeating SARS-CoV2 and COVID-19. Excerpt:
- Applying social distancing guidelines uniformly across all risk categories will result in 10x more COVID-19 fatalities compared to a simple two-pronged approach, namely loosening the social distancing restrictions on those least likely to develop serious complications while tightening the guidelines for protecting those who are most vulnerable (coupled with providing robust community support to ease the burden of isolation).
- The path to population immunity should not proceed in such a way that would risk overwhelming local critical care resources. To that end, I still recommend a trigger-based approach for implementing appropriate changes in social distancing whenever usage of critical care resources exceeds predetermined thresholds.
Risk Management is something I dabble in myself, although there are particular experts in that field in my industry and I’m not particularly one of them. But Dr. Trost seems to lay out a pretty sound case here for a lockdown being precisely the wrong way to go about dealing with the Moo Goo Gai Panic. And his primary conclusion is typical expression of tentativity, as befitting how science is done:
Whereas the models I have presented herein are admittedly unsophisticated, I suggest that an extensive sensitivity analysis be performed using the Imperial College London original model (which is now publicly available on GitHub) or something similar, augmented to evaluate the targeted-exposure approach to population immunity (as presented herein), in tandem with a localized trigger-based approach to protecting local critical care resources (as presented conceptually in both the Imperial College and Harvard models and also detailed here).
And here’s the gist of it: We may have screwed up. Badly. Yesterday we saw the Swedish model, and how they had good results by protecting the most vulnerable – a small minority of the populace – and letting the virus run its course to develop herd immunity. Instead we have locked down our population at large and shut down the economy.
What a cluster-fuck.
I’d love to see a more comprehensive analysis done as Dr. Trost suggests, but I suspect that won’t happen; if it yields similar results to the preliminary work here, there would be a considerable backlash against the Top Men who put our country into stasis and reduced a roaring economy to a Great Depression-type shambles. And those Top Men aren’t anxious to have that happen.