Here's the comprehensive case for ending lockdown
WND Staff
Engineer refutes arguments for mass social isolation
April 30, 2020
(Pixabay)
As governors and other political leaders consider easing some of the unprecedented restrictions to mitigate the impact of the coronavirus pandemic, the differences over policy and the assumptions upon which they are based are as sharp as ever.
Experts with credentials such as immunologist, epidemiologist, microbiologist and social scientist have argued that the "cure" of total isolation is worse than the disease.
Software engineer may not seem like the most relevant credential when it comes to assessing the response to the pandemic. But Ryan Kemper contributes to the debate a well-organized case for ending the lockdown that addresses the most common concerns and objections with reason and the best available information.
And he's made his document open to comments and suggestions for additions or corrections.
TRENDING: Watch Biden lapse into utter nonsense when pressed on China and son Hunter
Kemper, a site reliability engineer for the software firm Invoca in Santa Barbara, California, contends his arguments are based on science. He challenges anyone who would say that calling for ending the lockdown is "against science" and motivated only by economic considerations.
Indeed, he points to evidence indicating many more people could die as a result of the economic devastation caused by the lockdowns.
Read Ryan Kemper's "The Case For Ending Lockdown"
He notes that the stated objective of the lockdowns was to "flatten the curve" to avoid overwhelming the health care system. Now that hospitals have had to lay off workers for lack of patients, it's time for the lockdowns to be lifted, Kemper argues.
Yet now political and health care leaders are insisting the lockdowns must continue, based on a new objective: containing the virus until a vaccine is found.
Not only is there reason to believe lockdowns don't ultimately contain the virus, it's undeniable the extreme measures result in deaths from many other consequent causes, he argues.
"To put it simply: we previously had one very serious problem: COVID-19. Now we’ve enacted policy that has led to two very serious problems: COVID-19 and an unprecedented economic destabilization. There is no scientific paper in existence that can predict the full ramifications of what we’ve done," he writes.
Kemper poses the question of how the United States and other nations around the globe got to the place where they have shut down their economies.
He suggests that the "incentive structure" of political leaders "is such that it is much worse to have done nothing and later find out that the virus was worse than we thought, than what actually happened, which is to have undertaken actions that were self-destructive and then discovered that the virus was way less deadly than we thought."
Kemper recommends:
-
Encourage at-risk groups to self quarantine, and utilize testing to protect them
- All elderly, especially nursing homes (all entrants to nursing homes need to take tests, wear face masks, wash hands, etc)
- Those with obesity and COPD
- All others are allowed to work and transact freely.
"People are already scared stiff of this thing, they will take effective safety measures if we teach them how. We don’t need to resort to compulsion," he contends.
Futher, by "having non-at-risk indviduals develop natural immunity, they are less likely to spread to at-risk individuals in the long run."
He concludes calling for contributions to his "living document."
"If you want to help flesh out the cited research, or feel that an argument is fallacious or could be improved," he writes, "you are encouraged to open up a pull request" at this link.