Protecting the vulnerable |

Protecting the vulnerable

We know from several scientific studies (most recently Stanford University) that the incidence of COVID-19 infection is 50% to 80% greater than reported cases. On our Navy’s Theodore Roosevelt they tested the 4,800-member crew and found 600, or 12.5%, tested positive, 60% never showed any symptoms, and one fatality.

The U.S. CDC Website (Table 2) shows 24 deaths age group 24 and younger, consisting of a population segment of 99.6 million, or a death rate of .00002%. For our working population, aged 25 to 64, the deaths are 4,226 out of 170 million, or a rate of .003%. This rate is barely more than a bad flu year. The reality is 78% of the deaths are from those older than 64 or a rate of .054% and, for them, more dangerous than the flu.

We want to test everyone for what purpose? We now know the virus was prevalent and deaths in the U.S. began as early as January. The virus has spread to the four corners of the earth. We can spend millions testing and quarantine to no avail. Someone could test negative one day and then be positive the next — a waste of resources.

Then why are we testing to quarantine kids and the working population, when they are not vulnerable? Would we do this for the flu? The only testing needed is for those around the aged, and only for antibodies to determine if one has had the virus, so the aged can have a zone of safety, until our population has developed a “herd immunity.” For some reason we want to postpone this eventuality and destroy our schools and put our working population out of work, when it is not them that are vulnerable.

David Fields