Posted on 05/04/2020 6:10:44 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Professor Michael Levitt, who won the 2013 Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 2013, says the lockdowns ordered by state governors were a complete overreaction to COVID-19 and may actually backfire.
By now you’ve heard the term “herd immunity,” which means that many people are exposed to a virus, build antibodies, and then enjoy immunity. That’s how society continues to function, despite endless viruses popping up from time to time.
Levitt, who teaches structural biology at the Stanford School of Medicine, has been analyzing the COVID-19 outbreak from a statistical perspective ever since January, according to Unherd.com.
He says that despite all the predictions, the data show that the COVID-19 outbreak never actually grew exponentially, which means the draconian lockdown measures were most likely unnecessary.
According to UnHerd: _________________________________________
His observation is a simple one: that in outbreak after outbreak of this disease, a similar mathematical pattern is observable regardless of government interventions. After around a two week exponential growth of cases (and, subsequently, deaths) some kind of break kicks in, and growth starts slowing down. The curve quickly becomes “sub-exponential”.
This may seem like a technical distinction, but its implications are profound. The ‘unmitigated’ scenarios modelled by (among others) Imperial College, and which tilted governments across the world into drastic action, relied on a presumption of continued exponential growth — that with a consistent R number of significantly above 1 and a consistent death rate, very quickly the majority of the population would be infected and huge numbers of deaths would be recorded. But Professor Levitt’s point is that that hasn’t actually happened anywhere, even in countries that have been relatively lax in their responses.
___________________________________________
Like many others, Levitt told UnHerd that developing “herd immunity” would have been a far better strategy to fight COVID-19.
“I think the policy of herd immunity is the right policy. I think Britain was on exactly the right track before they were fed wrong numbers. And they made a huge mistake. I see the standout winners as Germany and Sweden. They didn’t practise too much lockdown and they got enough people sick to get some herd immunity,” Levitt said.
“I see the standout losers as countries like Austria, Australia and Israel that had very strict lockdown but didn’t have many cases,” he said. “They have damaged their economies, caused massive social damage, damaged the educational year of their children, but not obtained any herd immunity.
“There is no doubt in my mind, that when we come to look back on this, the damage done by lockdown will exceed any saving of lives by a huge factor,” Levitt concluded.
The guy who discovered Aids also won one of these awards. He studied the makeup of this virus. And he insists that this virus was man made. He believes that it was accidentally released from the level 4 lab in China. Of course he could never say if it wasn’t an accident.
Fact is, most places practiced social distancing regardless of lockdown orders.
His entire premise is flawed.
“won the 2013 Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 2013”
2013 was a good year to win a 2013 Nobel Prize.
Subject:: It was never about your health!
“When the State tells you it’s safe to go to Home Depot to buy a sponge but dangerous to go and
buy a flower, it’s not about your health.
When the State shuts down millions of private businesses but doesn’t lay off a single government employee, it’s not about your health.
When the State bans dentists because its unsafe, but deems an abortion visit is safe, it’s not about your health.
When the State prevents you from buying cucumber seeds because it’s dangerous, but allows personal lottery ticket sales, it’s not about your health.
When the State tells you it’s dangerous to go golf alone, fish alone or be in a motor boat alone, but the Governor can get his stage make-up done, and hair done for 5 TV appearances a week, it’s not about your health.
When the state puts you IN a jail cell for walking in a park with your child because it’s too dangerous but lets criminals OUT of jail cells for their health- It’s not about YOUR health!
When the state tells you it’s too dangerous to get treated by a doctor for chiropractic or physical therapy treatments yet deems a liquor store essential- It’s not about your health!
When the State lets you go to the grocery store or hardware store but is demanding mail-in voting, ITS NOT ABOUT YOUR HEALTH.
WAKE UP PEOPLE — If you think this is all about your health you’re mistaken!
Please open your eyes! Stop being lead like blind sheep.”
Some of my co-workers think the gov’t is right....
I said all you need is sunshine.
Maybe we have reached herd immunity to some degree. It would explain the exponential growth disapearing over time.
“There is no doubt in my mind, that when we come to look back on this, the damage done by lockdown will exceed any saving of lives by a huge factor,” Levitt concluded.
Totally
Effin
Right...
This is beyond stupid.
To inflict more pain on the American People is cruel.
Every day you continue to gin up this crisis is another two weeks away from recovery to growth.
I am not interested in being part of some zombie world we created.
The antidote is liberty and freedom to pursue whatever makes you happy.
End this now!
Bkmk herd
His analysis is based on places where the government mandated lockdown. Fact is, most places practiced social distancing regardless of lockdown orders. His entire premise is flawed.
His point wasn't that social distancing doesn't work.
His point was that strict government lockdowns aren't necessary.
His point was that strict government lockdowns aren't necessary.
No, read it again. He’s pushing herd immunity and minimal mitigation.
He’s using government decrees as a proxy for mitigation efforts which is stupid.
This version is a little choppy because of the usual Gateway Pundit “editing” but I’ve seen his piece elsewhere.
Nobel - Schnowel…Bambi got one for gosh sakes.
Having a PhD in Chemistry (I do) and even a Nobel do not qualify him to make science judgments about statistical epidemiology. His opinions are no better than any other layman.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.