3 ms·

‘We want them infected’: Trump appointee demanded ‘herd immunity’ strategy

throwawaysea 6y ago
The title of this article has a sensationalist, clickbait quote at the beginning to make the strategy seem cold and malicious. But consider the logic: > "Infants, kids, teens, young people, young adults, middle aged with no conditions etc. have zero to little risk….so we use them to develop herd…we want them infected…" Alexander added. > "[I]t may be that it will be best if we open up and flood the zone and let the kids and young folk get infected" in order to get "natural immunity…natural exposure," Alexander wrote on July 24 to Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Stephen Hahn, Caputo and eight other senior officials. Caputo subsequently asked Alexander to research the idea, according to emails obtained by the House Oversight Committee's select subcommittee on coronavirus. This seems like a good idea to me and I am surprised countries have gone into lockdown mode instead. The risk of severe illness and fatality are almost nonexistent for the young. If they develop antibodies and stop becoming vectors for transmission/spreading, it has two benefits. The first is that those who are willing to take on that risk are allowed to go about their lives as usual. Businesses can stay open, people can meet with each other, go to restaurants, etc. The second benefit is that once those cohorts develop immunity, it allows OTHERS to re-enter society, because others around them are less likely to be sources of transmission. Personally I think retaining individual freedom is very important, and people should be able to assess for themselves what risks they are willing to take (what tradeoffs they are okay with). So I am for any strategy that means that those who are risk-averse just isolate themselves, while those who are OK with the risks can make their own choices freely.
- glial 6y ago
  Those “invincible” young people don’t live by themselves, you know.
  - allears 6y ago
    Also, since it's impossible to know in advance the exact course of COVID for each individual, this is like playing Russian Roulette. You may be fine, or you may not. Or you may die in misery.
    - throwawaysea 6y ago
      That's true of anything in life. We don't know if walking down the street is going to result in being struck by lightning. Your argument amounts to "anything with a nonzero risk is Russian Roulette". But life is about taking risks and accepting tradeoffs. We go about our life ignoring many risks that have rare incidence or severity. The same logic applies here.
- cjbenedikt 6y ago
  We all know that Sweden tried it...and failed.
  - Arnt 6y ago
    That's not what Sweden did. Lots of people say it on the net, but it's not. If you want it in one sentence: The Swedish policy was to do the things that seemed helpful and people would accept and be disciplined about in the long term. So no lockdown, for example, because Tegnell thought the Swedish wouldn't be disciplined for more than a few weeks. Feel free to criticise the Swedes, but please be accurate. Don't attribute to Tegnell what some people on the net wrote.
  - throwawaysea 6y ago
    Sweden was not going for maximal herd immunity - they still have had various restrictions, just to a lesser extent than other nations. Their strategy was more to focus on what seemed like it would be materially beneficial, rather than just marginally beneficial. Why do you think their strategy failed? I see this take all the time from those who are pro-lockdowns/mandates, and I also know that Sweden are themselves revisiting their restrictions and tuning them to be more strict. But ultimately an opinion about whether these policies are good or not is about one's personal values. This is more about what tradeoffs we are willing to make - which risks and outcomes are you going to accept in return for the benefits? For me, given the overall infection fatality rate is very low still (~0.68%), I am OK with those scared of the virus staying home and self-isolating as strictly as they want, while others go about their lives to whatever extent they choose. After all, life always contains risks. I also want to add that there's a lot Sweden got right (https://fee.org/articles/5-charts-that-show-sweden-s-strategy-worked-the-lockdowns-failed/ https://fee.org/articles/5-charts-that-show-sweden-s-strateg...). Sweden also had a big spike of fatalities early on from nursing homes, and as I recall nursing homes alone account for more than half of Sweden's deaths. Without that blunder, they would be looking much better in terms of COVID-caused deaths. But even those early incidents, have to be taken in terms of the number of quality life years lost rather than just the number of deaths. After all, a person dying of COVID in their 70s is not as tragic as someone young dying. This is the same consideration we take on in assessing medical interventions more generally, and it would be irrational not to consider that here.
- Arnt 6y ago
  The article says that covid caused about half as many young deaths as all other causes in total (search for the number 16,000 and 11,000). "Open up and flood" must be mean an increase if it ia change at all, ie. it would make the risk of covid roughly equal to the sum of all other risks. If that's almost nonexistent, as you write, then you imply that all other risks are almost nonexistent, too.
- weare138 6y ago
  But your theory assumes you build long term immunity to COVID after infection which turns out isn't the case. More people are getting COVID-19 twice, suggesting immunity wanes quickly in some https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/11/more-people-are-getting-covid-19-twice-suggesting-immunity-wanes-quickly-some https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/11/more-people-are-gett...
- cmurf 6y ago
  Few countries have done as poorly as the U.S. It has 4% of the world's population, and 19% of the world's COVID-19 deaths. Vietnam, a country far poorer than the U.S., with a population of 95 million, has seen 35 die from COVID-19. The U.S. has over 2000 healthcare workers who have died. As it turns out, it's not just a result of cultural and social incompetency, it's also malice to intentionally want people to get infected, establish a policy and talking points to encourage it, and denigrate your own public and private sector scientists who say you do not want to get infected. What about the freedom to go out in public without pants or underwear on? My exposed butthole doesn't in fact risk your life. Whereas my piehole might risk your life. But you're seriously going to take the position that pieholes shouldn't be covered if people don't want? And buttholes should be? Guess what? Both uncovered holes are uncivilized behavior! Suggesting it's a matter of personal choice or freedom to engage in behavior that can get people killed is proposing it's OK for people to engage in criminally negligent behavior. This society charges people with crimes who knowingly spread potentially deadly communicable disease.
rolph 6y ago
Age does seem to correlate to propensity toward runaway inflammation that is associated with covid morbidity and mortality, however it is not causation. young does not translate to safe from the virus.

The title of this article has a sensationalist, clickbait quote at the beginning to make the strategy seem cold and malicious. But consider the logic: > "Infants, kids, teens, young people, young adults, middle aged with no conditions etc. have zero to little risk….so we use them to develop herd…we want them infected…" Alexander added. > "[I]t may be that it will be best if we open up and flood the zone and let the kids and young folk get infected" in order to get "natural immunity…natural exposure," Alexander wrote on July 24 to Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Stephen Hahn, Caputo and eight other senior officials. Caputo subsequently asked Alexander to research the idea, according to emails obtained by the House Oversight Committee's select subcommittee on coronavirus. This seems like a good idea to me and I am surprised countries have gone into lockdown mode instead. The risk of severe illness and fatality are almost nonexistent for the young. If they develop antibodies and stop becoming vectors for transmission/spreading, it has two benefits. The first is that those who are willing to take on that risk are allowed to go about their lives as usual. Businesses can stay open, people can meet with each other, go to restaurants, etc. The second benefit is that once those cohorts develop immunity, it allows OTHERS to re-enter society, because others around them are less likely to be sources of transmission. Personally I think retaining individual freedom is very important, and people should be able to assess for themselves what risks they are willing to take (what tradeoffs they are okay with). So I am for any strategy that means that those who are risk-averse just isolate themselves, while those who are OK with the risks can make their own choices freely.

glial 6y ago
Those “invincible” young people don’t live by themselves, you know.
- allears 6y ago
  Also, since it's impossible to know in advance the exact course of COVID for each individual, this is like playing Russian Roulette. You may be fine, or you may not. Or you may die in misery.
  - throwawaysea 6y ago
    That's true of anything in life. We don't know if walking down the street is going to result in being struck by lightning. Your argument amounts to "anything with a nonzero risk is Russian Roulette". But life is about taking risks and accepting tradeoffs. We go about our life ignoring many risks that have rare incidence or severity. The same logic applies here.
cjbenedikt 6y ago
We all know that Sweden tried it...and failed.
- Arnt 6y ago
  That's not what Sweden did. Lots of people say it on the net, but it's not. If you want it in one sentence: The Swedish policy was to do the things that seemed helpful and people would accept and be disciplined about in the long term. So no lockdown, for example, because Tegnell thought the Swedish wouldn't be disciplined for more than a few weeks. Feel free to criticise the Swedes, but please be accurate. Don't attribute to Tegnell what some people on the net wrote.
- throwawaysea 6y ago
  Sweden was not going for maximal herd immunity - they still have had various restrictions, just to a lesser extent than other nations. Their strategy was more to focus on what seemed like it would be materially beneficial, rather than just marginally beneficial. Why do you think their strategy failed? I see this take all the time from those who are pro-lockdowns/mandates, and I also know that Sweden are themselves revisiting their restrictions and tuning them to be more strict. But ultimately an opinion about whether these policies are good or not is about one's personal values. This is more about what tradeoffs we are willing to make - which risks and outcomes are you going to accept in return for the benefits? For me, given the overall infection fatality rate is very low still (~0.68%), I am OK with those scared of the virus staying home and self-isolating as strictly as they want, while others go about their lives to whatever extent they choose. After all, life always contains risks. I also want to add that there's a lot Sweden got right (https://fee.org/articles/5-charts-that-show-sweden-s-strategy-worked-the-lockdowns-failed/ https://fee.org/articles/5-charts-that-show-sweden-s-strateg...). Sweden also had a big spike of fatalities early on from nursing homes, and as I recall nursing homes alone account for more than half of Sweden's deaths. Without that blunder, they would be looking much better in terms of COVID-caused deaths. But even those early incidents, have to be taken in terms of the number of quality life years lost rather than just the number of deaths. After all, a person dying of COVID in their 70s is not as tragic as someone young dying. This is the same consideration we take on in assessing medical interventions more generally, and it would be irrational not to consider that here.
Arnt 6y ago
The article says that covid caused about half as many young deaths as all other causes in total (search for the number 16,000 and 11,000). "Open up and flood" must be mean an increase if it ia change at all, ie. it would make the risk of covid roughly equal to the sum of all other risks. If that's almost nonexistent, as you write, then you imply that all other risks are almost nonexistent, too.
weare138 6y ago
But your theory assumes you build long term immunity to COVID after infection which turns out isn't the case. More people are getting COVID-19 twice, suggesting immunity wanes quickly in some https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/11/more-people-are-getting-covid-19-twice-suggesting-immunity-wanes-quickly-some https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/11/more-people-are-gett...
cmurf 6y ago
Few countries have done as poorly as the U.S. It has 4% of the world's population, and 19% of the world's COVID-19 deaths. Vietnam, a country far poorer than the U.S., with a population of 95 million, has seen 35 die from COVID-19. The U.S. has over 2000 healthcare workers who have died. As it turns out, it's not just a result of cultural and social incompetency, it's also malice to intentionally want people to get infected, establish a policy and talking points to encourage it, and denigrate your own public and private sector scientists who say you do not want to get infected. What about the freedom to go out in public without pants or underwear on? My exposed butthole doesn't in fact risk your life. Whereas my piehole might risk your life. But you're seriously going to take the position that pieholes shouldn't be covered if people don't want? And buttholes should be? Guess what? Both uncovered holes are uncivilized behavior! Suggesting it's a matter of personal choice or freedom to engage in behavior that can get people killed is proposing it's OK for people to engage in criminally negligent behavior. This society charges people with crimes who knowingly spread potentially deadly communicable disease.

rolph 6y ago

Age does seem to correlate to propensity toward runaway inflammation that is associated with covid morbidity and mortality, however it is not causation. young does not translate to safe from the virus.