COVID-19: Public Policy Uses the Infection Rate, but ignores the Key Metric — do Experts have Functioning Brains in Terms of Minimizing Damage?
With more testing and more people mingling and getting infected, the news media is all agog about the rising number of infections. Which is a highly misleading thing unless referenced against the testing rate—which uses unreliable tests and self-selection sampling. The data remains GIGO and does not pass muster as defensible science.
Still, it seems clear that there are a lot more infections. And that is a Good Thing: unless we want to drag out the misery for years and put high-risk people at continuous risk for a long time, the right thing to do is to infect as many low-risk people as fast as possible, while protecting high-risk people and ensuring that treatment capacity remains well within sustainable limits. Try finding that thought process in the mainstream news media or from any experts.
Given that COVID-19 is not going away and must run its course, the only metric that matters is whether medical facilities can handle the influx of those needing COVID-19 care. How many people are infected is a counterproductive proxy for the core issue of reaching herd immunity while minimizing damage.
It is unethical to in effect kill people by delay in medical treatment for numerous other medical reasons (cancer, heart disease, diabetes, deaths resulting from economic stress, etc) But that is exactly what public policy continues to do. The failure of our experts to take on the responsibility of fixing the broken narrative has several explanations, none of which should give anyone confidence in 'experts'.
In the end, deaths from COVID-19 might pale in comparison from needless deaths from other causes because no experts are calling for a proper risk management approach. And many of the CV19 deaths are in high-risk people with short expected lifespans who might have died within a few years in any case. I have two parents about 80 years old and I don’t want to lose them to COVID-19, but as public policy goes we should be talking about loss of lifespan of the population, not about absolute numbers of deaths.
Meanwhile, allopathic medical doctors fail to make any connection between baseline health and nutrition and nutrient deficiency, particularly Vitamin D, Vitamin C, magnesium. And thus those who should be preventing severe cases of COVID-19 sit around doing nothing to increase the baseline health of the population, let alone look into relatively cheap treatments like intravenous Vitamin C, proven to kill even nasty viruses like poliomyelitis.
Is it too cynical to suggest that attention to last-gasp $3000 drug treatments for severely-ill COVID-19 patients are displacing inexpensive nutritional support that could be applied to an entire population to save tens of thousands of lives, if not more? This is the same broken record of statins versus magnesium deficiency—the morally and financially corrupt medical establishment avoiding prevention like the plague in favor of dubious treatments for life-threatening conditions—see for example Subclinical magnesium deficiency: a principal driver of cardiovascular disease and a public health crisis. It’s not much different than buying a new car and never changing the oil, then continuously fixing all the broken parts.