Blog Archives

BUILD IMMUNITY AND LIMIT TRANSMISSION

People want to avoid risk of infection and they avoid crowds, cancel travel, distance socially and mask up on public transport. To be safer, they want others to do the same and expect governments to regulate it. 

Following this path, free living and going happily where you want disappear. Living is transformed to a shambling half-existence, withdrawn from nature and without clean air. Such risk aversion weakens a person’s immune system with stress, anger, anxiety, depression and learned helplessness. These de-activate the immune response.

The increased risk of infection offsets the risk reduction sought by limiting transmission. Conversely, although social pursuits can cause transmission, they boost morale and promote robust good health, by fending off infections.

Reduced transmission possibilities and strengthening of immune response can both be pursued independently, but can act opposed or together to maintain physical, mental and spiritual good health, as for example by going to work or playing team sport.

Health should not be sacrificed to limit disease transmission.

In summary, infection risk can be reduced by limiting transmission possibilities and by building up immune responses. Public restrictions may be significantly counter-productive and should be withdrawn at the earliest opportunity of good population immunity.

My other writing about Covid-19 is at: https://martinknox.com

COVID-19 AFFECTS AGES DIFFERENTLY

Normally, with say influenza, the public takes responsibility for vaccinations, seeking diagnosis, treatment, self-distancing and isolation. When there is a dangerous infectious disease like COVID-19, because the public is unable to recognise infected people and avoid dangerous contact, they expect to be protected, with infected people separated and treated. Voluntary control is displaced by public authority.

When a large part of the population is not very vulnerable, for example only 8% of worldwide COVID-19 deaths to March 30th were people aged under 60 years, the social and economic costs from restrictions to young people’s education and careers should be weighed against the small probability of significant health benefits when restrictions are being considered for renewal. If under 60s act as vectors in transmitting the disease to the vulnerable 92% of over 60s, the latter might not regard their own voluntary social distancing and self-isolation as sufficient to protect them. The calculation of what age groups to compulsorily restrict would require more transmission data than I have available. Authorities have usually imposed the same restrictions whatever are peoples’ ages.

http://www.martinknox.wordpress.com

 

 

<span>%d</span> bloggers like this: