\n \n \n “. concat(self. i18n. t(‘search. voice. recognition_retry’), “\n
Hospitals organize meetings on morbidity and mortality (M
As COVID-19 moves from a pandemic to an influenza-endemic stage, let’s take a look at our country’s responses to the outbreak, see what went right, what went wrong, and locate tactics to do better. Winter is coming, and as Dr. Anthony Fauci warns that “we will be surprised” if a new variant of COVID-19 emerges.
At the beginning of COVID-19, as a former member of the congressional committee overseeing the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, I emailed Fauci. I warned him that I was aware that a president will have many public policy ramifications related to the effects of politics on the economy, education, broad facets of suitability in other spaces and that this comes to cost-benefit estimates. In a past essay on the registry, I warned that mistakes would be made in controlling this new disease and that the public deserves to treat decision-makers with some grace, because mistakes would be made. People were looking to make them as productive as possible in a scary scenario. (I never got a reaction from Fauci, nor did I expect one. )
And mistakes made.
China’s lack of transparency is at the root of our failures. We have never been able to download verifiable knowledge of the source of this pandemic in terms of mortality threat and the ultimate effect of China’s excessive measures to engage the virus. China’s lack of transparency about this disease, its source and mode of action has slowed our understanding of the disease.
China has shut down entire cities and even held other people captive in their apartments, blocking their doors. The World Health Organization made a cursory comment, saying China had shut down and gotten rid of the disease. State of his fitness system, he almost experienced a fitness failure. Are we dealing with something resembling an Ebola aerosol?There were early estimates of mortality in diversity of 3% to 4%. Public fitness officials were frightened, even in panic.
No wonder that, as we learned more, we can see that the public fitness reaction in most countries of the world is flawed. First, the existing death rate is closer to 0. 1%, which is still higher than the flu but far from the first catastrophic predictions. We have learned that the main threat is age. According to the New York Times, the death threat for a 55-year-old vaccinated man is 0. 03%, but it is more than 10 times that of a 75-year-old man. man, while the threat to a 25-year-old man is close to 0. 00%. COVID-19 is five to ten times more deadly than the flu, but it is far from Ebola or smallpox.
The public fitness overreaction has caused national, state, and local governments to impose lockdowns and other restrictions, which has had massive effects on the economy and catastrophic effects on children’s education. The effects of the tests plummeted and isolation fueled intellectual illness. The restrictions led to serious delays in doctor and hospital visits and delayed diagnoses and remedies that may have prevented serious morbidity and mortality from other diseases. Perhaps this was justified at the beginning of the epidemic to “lower the curve” to avoid overwhelming the fitness system, but then the purpose changed in eliminating the disease.
Sweden’s system and the Great Barrington Declaration explored opportunities for “science” championed by government public health authorities. Thousands of doctors and scientists who believe we deserve to protect those in danger as much as possible but not block the rest of the economy have been demonized. They have been falsely accused of simply selling the spread of the virus. Instead, they proposed that those at maximum threat be protected until we have a vaccine and get herd immunity. Infectious Diseases and CDC have combined an organization of virologists. — virologists who rely on NIAID and CDC to invest their scholarships — to consider a condemnation of this method.
What is the end result of lockdowns? For those who can simply isolate themselves and work from home, their own illness is likely to be delayed. However, when comparing countries that have been severely blockaded with those that have not, it is difficult to find evidence that it has saved lives. Sweden has followed the directed technique in accordance with the Great Barrington Declaration. The Swedes have given resources to the elderly to protect themselves, given groceries to the elderly, have nursing homes and opposed mass gatherings. They made recommendations to the public instead of issuing downward blocks. The virus has run its course in the general population and immunity has evolved in other people who are less at risk.
The result? Sweden has noticed fewer excess deaths from the pandemic compared to many countries that have lockdowned more severely. It recorded fewer deaths than expected given the age and design of its population compared to 2015 to 2019. Sweden has not imposed mandatory closures and has kept its schools open. This is despite the fact that Sweden made mistakes early on by failing to protect nursing homes as rigorously as it did later.
Florida also closed some schools early in the pandemic, but more often than not followed more targeted protection, kept schools open, and shied away from some of the effects of stricter closures.
Compare that to Australia and New Zealand or New York, which locked down and then sent nursing home citizens with COVID-19 back to their nursing homes to infect other senior citizens. Australia and New Zealand literally locked themselves in for 2-and-a-part years. However, once those countries reopened, the number of instances skyrocketed. New Zealand now has more capita-consistent instances than the United States.
At the root of those blockages, the implicit promise that we can get rid of the disease. This is false; Fauci stated in early 2020 that “the cat came out of the bag” and that lockdowns would never eliminate the disease.
We have found that vaccines are effective in preventing other people from having poor health and dying. However, we now know that vaccines failed to prevent the spread of the disease and were oversold. Pfizer’s CEO noted that trials don’t show vaccines prevent transmission, but only reduce symptomatic disease.
In addition, we learned that the effectiveness of vaccines fades after a few months. That’s why seniors or others with underlying situations seriously deserve to receive reinforcements for this winter. However, children and young people will not get many advantages from recalls. Many countries have selected other policies.
John Tierney wrote in Healthcare, Politics and Law of October 2022 that “the European Union has not yet approved COVI vaccines for children under five. With the exception of Austria, European countries have not followed the United States in presenting a reinforcement. “For healthy children under 12 years of age, they do not recommend it for healthy adolescents at most. Some countries should avoid even providing vaccines or boosters to other young people outside high-risk groups.
We’ve learned that if you want genuine protection, you want to wear an N95 mask that fits well, like the ones hospital staff wear. surgical masks with holes, reused dirty masks or even N95 masks with holes will not be protected. For some reason, Fauci first said masks were not mandatory for the general population. I was right.
A dozen pre-COVID studies have shown that face masks do not oppose flu virus outbreaks in the general population. This doesn’t mean that N95 masks that wear well and fit so well that they don’t let air in at the edges aren’t effective. for fitness personnel trained in its use. This means that the general population will not tolerate these types of masks. They are warm and restrict airflow. In fact, wearing useless masks would possibly have given other people with threat points a false sense of security.
The biggest mistake made by our health government was to politicize “science. “This has undermined public health officials’ acceptance of the truth. Science works most productively when there is an open discussion of ideas. Our leaders have actively worked to suppress clinical dissent, silencing scientists who fear jeopardizing their careers. We had a public fitness bureaucracy that told social media what could and couldn’t be discussed. Public fitness officers have a limited diversity of experience, but they are not smart about social compensation.
Our political leaders are largely destined for what a policy will do, which is why I emailed Fauci. A little humility on the part of our public health officials would have helped. When public health officials were asked what they knew and what they didn’t. They actually have intelligent evidence, they deserve to have admitted that the knowledge wasn’t there.
The unforeseen costs of lockdown policies are only becoming more obvious. We will be informed about the wider damage they have caused to health, such as the United Nations estimate in March 2021 that only about 230,000 young Asians died of starvation as a result of economic disruption caused by lockdowns.
It’s time for an M convention
Dr. Greg Ganske is a retired surgeon and was a member of the Iowa Congress from 1995 to 2002.
This article was originally published in the Des Moines Register: Opinion: Holding a Morbidity and Mortality Conference on COVID Response