Another Doctor Questions The Lockdowns

13

Dr. John am a cardiac electrophysiologist. EP’s specialize in heart rhythm disorders.

Can We Discuss Flatten-the-Curve in COVID19? My Eight Assertions

Story continues below advertisement

On Telehealth, an older couple asked me a tough question about COVID19. They asked whether this virus would either be gone or less dangerous in 6 months to a year.

It was a curious question. I replied, Why do you ask?

Doc, we have a big family with many children and grandchildren, most of whom live nearby. We miss them. We’ve been isolating, but it’s hard; we did it for 6 weeks. Doing it for a year or more would be miserable.

We saw on the news today that the battle with the virus would be long. A man called it a cruel new normal.

So doc, if you tell me the the virus will be gone in a year or it will be less dangerous to get infected later, then it makes sense for us to keep isolating. But if the situation will not be much different a year from now, we would just as soon see our family and take the risk. Of course, doc, we would still be sensible. We’d not visit if someone was sick; we would wash our hands and wear masks.

Indeed my patient was correct. Dr. Scott Gottlieb writing in the WSJ, did not mince words:

Hospitals and public-health systems will have to contend with persistent disease and death.

In essence, my couple asks whether flatten-the-curve policies save lives. Buried in that question are three other questions: namely, in one year, will the virus be 1) gone, or 2) less contagious, or 3) less deadly? If any of those three are true, then my couple could rationally decide to stay lonely for a year or more.

I study this new virus and this once-in-a-lifetime-situation every day.

I don’t think flatten-the-curve policies will change any of those issues. Let me explain my reasoning. I may be wrong; tell me if you disagree in the comments.

Flatten-the-Curve Purpose

You now know the famous curves–one with an early surge of disease, and the other flatter curve that spreads the infections over time. The y-axis is number of COVID19 cases.

In early March the COVID19 narratives were from Wuhan, Iran, Lombardy and Spain, places where surges overwhelmed hospitals. In the US, COVID cases spiked in NYC.

Early COVID19 surges were over-running some big-city hospitals. This was bad because it caused excess or preventable death–people who could have been saved were not saved because of shortages of ICU beds, dialysis equipment, staff and ventilators.

Social distancing policies and postponement of elective medical care were necessary to stop the excess deaths. These policies allowed time for hospitals to prepare for COVID19 cases and for doctors to learn how best to treat these patients. Exhibit A: not intubating patients early.

Social distancing worked. The number of cases slowed and the US got into the blue part of the curve. But now, months later, the narrative has changed.

Change in Flatten-the-Curve Narrative

What was once flatten the curve to prevent over-running hospitals has changed to flatten the curve to save lives. Some likened moderation of social distancing to human sacrifice.

That change in framing, I believe, is misleading. I will argue that the cumulative deaths from COVID19 will not be reduced significantly by flatten-the-curve policies. And that this virus will be as dangerous to vulnerable patients in 6 months to a year. We should be allowed to debate this.

My case has eight assertions.

First: the virus will not be contained. The chance for containment has long passed. The virus transmits before people know they have it and many patients never develop symptoms. It will be with us until an effective vaccine is both widely available and widely used. (See #6)

Second: Tests will under-perform. The high rate of asymptomatic disease, the low sensitivity of PCR tests (false negatives), imperfect specificity of antibody tests (false positives) and concerns over privacy mean that we should expect less from test and trace–even if proposed by a Nobel Laureate. Carl Bergstrom and others write persuasively on major barriers to contact tracing in the US.

Third: US hospitals are now prepared and in little danger of being over-whelmed. In fact, many hospitals are so dormant they are nearing financial ruin. Healthcare workers have been furloughed due to postponement of elective work. I’ve talked to numerous colleagues in the US and the message is clear: hospitals are under-capacity and prepared for a “persistent” number of COVID19 cases during the coming months/years. Hospitals now have COVID response teams.

Fourth: Americans are not stupid. Before governors enacted lockdowns, economic activity and travel slowed, the NBA, MBL, NHL stopped their seasons and medical meetings were cancelled. People socially distance not because police are bearing down on them, but because it makes sense. The pictures of spring-breakers in Florida and crazies-with-guns in state capitals bring clicks to news organizations but belie the majority of sensible people in this country.

Fifth: Public-health surveillance has improved. Tests may underperform but they will not be useless. Tests will help signal coming hot spots and that will allow communities to act locally. Other technologies may emerge that help prevent surges. One cool example is the use of resting heart rate apps that might signal health officials early on.

Sixth: (I need a few paragraphs): Social distancing will not lower the infection fatality rate or IFR. Remember the red and blue curves? The y-axis of that graph is number of infections. Due to the contagion of this virus, the area under these curves is likely to be the same at the end of two years. Ok, then, if the number of cases is similar at two years, then the number of people who cumulatively die will not likely change either.

The only way fewer people die from COVID19 over time is if the IFR declines. Here is where American exceptionalism misleads people. Politicians have a strong bias to pump up optimism on any potential medical advance–no matter how dubious. (Exhibit B- hydroxychloroquine.)

That is not how Medicine works. History is replete with examples showing that drug development is super hard. But leaving aside the challenge of developing new drugs against a new virus, the basic math of COVID19 creates a huge barrier for success: already, more than 99% of people infected with this virus survive. A therapy that has a massive 50% reduction in death from a disease with 1% mortality (high estimate) delivers only a 0.5% absolute risk reduction.

What about Remdesivir? This antiviral may help a little. But even if you believe its ≈ 3% reduction of death was not due to chance (p = 0.06), the death rate in the remdesivir arm in that trial was 8%. Remdesivir is no game-changer.

COVID19 vaccine development is sobering. Most experts say a safe and effective vaccine is at least 18 months away. Again, the 99% survivability erects a huge safety barrier for vaccine makers. (I get that from Dr. Paul Offit.) Given society’s tension over vaccines, it would take only a tiny signal of harm to derail a coronavirus vaccine.

A slight hedge on the sixth assertion that IFR remains constant: some smart people say that getting the virus later may be better because doctors will be a little better at treating this disease. For instance, a year from now we may better understand how to use drugs that block clotting; we may have better vent protocols. These are big ifs. They may drive the IFR down a little but IFR is already low. Another benefit of infection in a year would be that most hospitals will likely allow family visitors.

Seventh: The more we test, the lower the IFR goes. Early estimates had it at 3%. Then it was revised downward to about 1%. Now most people put it at 0.1-0.5%. But that is still quite serious. You’ve probably read that 0.1% is similar to flu mortality. That is likely wrong. Dr. Jeremy Faust points out that flu mortality is grossly overestimated and is probably much lower than 0.1%.

Eighth: I wrote a piece on Medscape about the harms from COVID19 interventions. One of the points I made is that right now we count only deaths from COVID19. We stay riveted on day-to-day numbers. But the endpoint of this crisis is not next month but in 1-2 years. And when we get there, we have to count people who died from COVID19 and those who died from other causes.

This preprint from prominent researchers suggests a substantial proportion of excess deaths observed during the pandemic are not attributed to COVID19 and may represent an excess of deaths due to other causes.

In my column I cited an older study by Raj Chetty and co-workers that finds a strong association of lower income and lower survival. And that is the rub with COVID19 interventions: they make poor people even poorer. The rich just work from home. It is possible, therefore, that our social interventions will be especially hard on the disadvantaged.

I realize that no person overtly dismisses the harm from economic shutdowns. My friend Dr. Dan Morgan expresses my frustrations well in this thread. Why can one safely critique a drug for COVID19 but not massive public health interventions?

Conclusion:

I did not have a clear answer for my couple. But after thinking and writing about this question it seems that the most reasonable approach in this crisis is transparent information–no matter how stark. And, crucially, we must have space for public debate.

I hate this virus. I wish it never came. But we can make it worse by avoiding hard discussions on tradeoffs, the limits of modern medicine and risk.

The Truth Must be Told

Your contribution supports independent journalism

Please take a moment to consider this. Now, more than ever, people are reading Geller Report for news they won't get anywhere else. But advertising revenues have all but disappeared. Google Adsense is the online advertising monopoly and they have banned us. Social media giants like Facebook and Twitter have blocked and shadow-banned our accounts. But we won't put up a paywall. Because never has the free world needed independent journalism more.

Everyone who reads our reporting knows the Geller Report covers the news the media won't. We cannot do our ground-breaking report without your support. We must continue to report on the global jihad and the left's war on freedom. Our readers’ contributions make that possible.

Geller Report's independent, investigative journalism takes a lot of time, money and hard work to produce. But we do it because we believe our work is critical in the fight for freedom and because it is your fight, too.

Please contribute here.

or

Make a monthly commitment to support The Geller Report – choose the option that suits you best.

Quick note: We cannot do this without your support. Fact. Our work is made possible by you and only you. We receive no grants, government handouts, or major funding. Tech giants are shutting us down. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense, Pinterest permanently banned us. Facebook, Google search et al have shadow-banned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here.

Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here— it’s free and it’s essential NOW when informed decision making and opinion is essential to America's survival. Share our posts on your social channels and with your email contacts. Fight the great fight.

Follow Pamela Geller on Gettr. I am there. click here.

Follow Pamela Geller on
Trump's social media platform, Truth Social. It's open and free.

Remember, YOU make the work possible. If you can, please contribute to Geller Report.

Join The Conversation. Leave a Comment.

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spammy or unhelpful, click the - symbol under the comment to let us know. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.

If you would like to join the conversation, but don't have an account, you can sign up for one right here.

If you are having problems leaving a comment, it's likely because you are using an ad blocker, something that break ads, of course, but also breaks the comments section of our site. If you are using an ad blocker, and would like to share your thoughts, please disable your ad blocker. We look forward to seeing your comments below.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
13 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
spfoam1
spfoam1
3 years ago

The picture of the red and blue curves is not what I recall seeing when this started. The red curve rose up steeply as this one does, but the backside of it tapered off in a long slope. This chart shows a rapid increase and decrease (red), so where does this come from?

felix1999
felix1999
3 years ago
Reply to  spfoam1

You’re not supposed to be paying attention. You’re supposed to just accept what the government tells you to do without questioning it.

spfoam1
spfoam1
3 years ago
Reply to  felix1999

We’re not supposed to question any of the “experts”, whether they are sitting in government or in academia or behind a bench or standing behind a pulpit…

We’re supposed to accept credentials and titles as proof of honesty and good intent.

jd
jd
3 years ago

Americans obviously have two rights that were never enumerated because they are so obvious given the structure of the Constitution. One of this rights is the right to be a jerk. You cannot stick somebody in jail simply for being a jerk. He must injure somebody first. The second right is the right to be as stupid as I want. While it is the government’s job to prevent and deal with somebody injuring me, [iIt is not the government’s job to prevent me from being stupid or injuring myself. It is the government’s job to protect my inalienable rights. That lays a requirement on the government to be squeaky clean honest and recommend intelligent behavior. Then if citizens wish to be jerks or willfully stupid, that is their right. The rest of us can do what seems to be required to protect ourselves.

Let Suzy open her manicure shop. Let Betsy, Sally, Nancy, and even George get their nails done. I shall refrain. (I gave up on vanity some years ago and find the added time in my life to do what I want was worth it.)
{^_^}

felix1999
felix1999
3 years ago
Reply to  jd

Too many want to believe GOVERNMENT knows best and like being treating like children.

jd
jd
3 years ago
Reply to  felix1999

Conversely too many want to believe that the government is dead wrong all the time. Doncha think the truth may lie somewhere between the idiot extremes?
{^_^}

Drew the Infidel
Drew the Infidel
3 years ago

President Trump was correct in casting himself as a “wartime President when you look at two similarities:
1. Every war plan or strategy on paper is only valid until the first encounter with the enemy, and
2. You have to fight the battle the enemy presents to you and not the one you wish for.

As for our reaction to it, better safe than sorry. Look at NYC or Italy, the two prime examples of what NOT to do.

DVader
DVader
3 years ago

A wartime president? Trump tried hard for a couple of months to pretend it wasn’t the virus a major threat or that it was under control, and now that it is at most only partially under control (in some areas) he’s trying to declare victory long before the war is over.
FDR wouldn’t have let him sweep the floors in the White House…

Drew the Infidel
Drew the Infidel
3 years ago
Reply to  DVader

You and I must be talking about two different people.

Of what relevance is FDR today, except to marvel at how emotionally carried away liberals get at the mere mention of his name, crocodile tears and the whole act.

John Acord
John Acord
3 years ago

I find the docs analysis to be deficient in two areas. The first is the failure to recognize the CCP Virus is deliberately created and released WMD. That is, we are dealing with an Act of War and not a natural occurrence, and in war, one must expect there will be casualties. The second is the failure to recognize that once the CCP made a decision to attack us with a bioweapon we can expect further attacks to be launched, especially if their victims do not militarily resist and persist on believing this is a natural occurrence or an accident. The absurdity of our present reaction to the CCPattack is beyond belief. It’s on the level of the Japanese convincing FDR that Yamamoto’s attack on Peral Harbor was only an accident. That is, the CCP has achieved its own Pearl Harbor x1000 without causing the victims to launch a counter-attack or even to cripple their ability to launch new attackeseven more crippling than the first.

WadeBaker
WadeBaker
3 years ago

Crazies with guns? That’s where I stopped reading.

DVader
DVader
3 years ago

Probably wrong about the potential of hospitals to be overwhelmed with COVID-19 patients. Now that the virus is increasingly breaking out into small towns/rural areas with fewer/smaller hospitals, it will take a lot less to overwhelm them.

Don Vito
Don Vito
3 years ago

Flatten the curve is the only reason to temporarily postpone needed medical procedures. Since that is achieved, normal hospital operation should resume. As well as normal economic activity should resume.

Sponsored
Geller Report
Thanks for sharing!